Talk:Philip Seymour Hoffman

message: TThe source is misquoted.Xx234 (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  was born 

message: ;Comments, as requested, from Tim riley
*Length
**Loeba particularly asked for comment on whether the article is too long and needs trimming. It doesn't seem in the least too long to me. I have only now looked at the revision history page, and am very surprised to find the article runs to 94,535 bytes. It certainly didn't seem like it when I was reading it; at no point did I think 'Do get on with it'.
***That's good! --Loeba (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes big thanks, especially for doing it so promptly. All very helpful. --Loeba (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Off here now, and will look in again at the above tomorrow or on Boxing Day, full of seasonal benevolence. Greetings to you both. Tim riley talk  22:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Responses now added. Tim riley talk  10:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose review 

message: Two different versions of the lead have been put here recently, and it would be good to have opinions on which is better.
*Version 1: Gives descriptions of some of his roles.
*Version 2: Cuts the descriptions, but mentions at the start that he was best known for playing weirdos and mentions at the end that he made these complex and sympathetic. There are other differences (mentions that he was best known for independent films but was also in blockbusters, removes the play titles (mostly for space)).
Pinging everyone who was involved at the FAC: , , , , , , . And anyone watching this talk page, please share your opinion if you have one. Thanks! --Loeba (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree it can look a bit listy, which is why I suggested cutting back on a few of the roles mentioned (like Almost Famous etc)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we could easily cut back on the films mentioned in #2 to make it less listy. It was just tempting to mention all of them because he actually appeared in quite a few acclaimed films. --Loeba (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind. I just gave your version a close read and it does read a lot better, I like the structuring you did with the blockbusters especially. I restored it but just mentioned the three plays. My initial feeling though was that mentioning some of his actual characters might help inform the reader. Perhaps just mention the character descriptions for the Oscar nominations in Charlie Wilson's War (2007), Doubt (2008), and The Master (2012)? That wouldn't read as too listy or be redundant and a nice overall compromise identifying his most important critical roles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, okay cool. I've cut back on the titles mentioned so that it's less listy. A huge lead is one of my pet-hates on wikipedia, which is why I'm wary of adding character descriptions for the Oscar roles, but you're right that it would be a compromise... --Loeba (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the trim on those, although the one in Lebowski I believe he said is what he is most recognized for so might be mentioned, although it wasn't a big role. I support the current Version 3!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, this has actually worked out very well. You're right that the descriptions of his Oscar roles add some colour, they're worth having. Version 3 is the winner! --Loeba (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indopug? OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Well done guys. One last thing, can we incorporate his appearance ("with a pudgy build and lacking matinée idol") somewhere?—indopug (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Is it actually true that he adopted the name "Seymour" for his grandfather or is it that was already his given middle name and he was given it because of his grandfather? I've read interviews where it's discussed and it's quite ambiguous. He was already credited as Philip S. Hoffman once. Is there any clarification on an actual middle name? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is a bit ambiguous, especially since none of his obituaries mentioned Seymour being a stage name. Unfortunately I no longer have access to Highbeam Research, but I remember that the source I used to write about him adding the name (which was admittedly almost a year ago now) implied that it was only a stage name. In which role do you think he was first credited as Philip S. Hoffman? According to imdb, his first two screen roles (Law and Order and Triple Bogie) were "Philip Hoffman" and "Phil Hoffman". --Loeba (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That article says, "Indeed, Hoffman is the kind of actor who invites curiosity. Even the name is not his own: he added Seymour, his grandfather's name, because US Equity had another Philip Hoffman on their books." (BTW, it's easy to get or renew access to Highbeam via the WP Library.) Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So... should it read "Philip Seymour Hoffman (born Philip Hoffman)"? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: Could all the watchers of this article put Philip Seymour Hoffman on stage and screen on their Watch lists also? Especially if this article is going to be the Today's Featured Article on February 2, 2015 and the subsidiary articles will all be heavily viewed as well (and that includes List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I've just removed some drive-by tags from the top of the article. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philip Seymour Hoffman on stage and screen]] 

message: "Hoffman had German, English, Irish, and Dutch ancestry." What proof do we have of this? It is cited to an undated glorified-blog entry which lists no author. No specifics are given for this claim in the blog -- such as how distant each of these supposed "ancestries" are. I suggest we remove this claim, as its sourcing is not adequate for a FA (or indeed any wiki article), and we have no data on the claim. Especially since people are now adding categories based on this questionable claim. After all, we are all supposedly of African descent, if the DNA experts are to be believed. Do we put that in every biography article? No. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I removed this tidbit before the FAC nomination, but it was recently added back. None of the obituaries mentioned his heritage so it obviously wasn't an important part of his identity. It's just a vague hodgepodge of heritages, such as many Americans have, and not worth mentioning. --Loeba (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed too, given that it is the usual hodgepodge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hoffman had German, English, Irish, and Dutch ancestry" 

message: "Remembered for his fearlessness in playing reprehensible characters, and for bringing depth and humanity to such roles ...." This blanket unsourced unilateral statement appears in the lede. I find it quite jarring, since none of the roles I associate Hoffman with were reprehensible characters, and many of the most memorable were quite loveable characters. I associate him mainly with "loser" or "eccentric" or sometimes "unappealing" characters, but (barring one or two roles) not reprehensible ones. Even the NYT obit used as a ref for the quote at the very end of the sentence does not back up the statement. Could we please remove this blanket statement from the lede? Or modify it and back it up with actual citations that clearly substantiate? Remembered by whom? According to whom? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is a summary of all the ideas in the main body. So, the claims made have been substantiated with various sources throughout the article. So, he is remembered by "most critics". And the claim is according to "most critics". Hope that helps. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the body text and it does not substantiate that statement. It does however substnantiate what I said above: Hoffman is remembered for often playing losers, misfits, eccentrics, loners, addicts, unappealing characters, flawed characters, pathetic characters, lonely characters, twisted characters, and so on. Only three of the dozens of roles roles mentioned are reprehensible characters that I see, and nowhere in the body text is the word "reprehensible" used. In the end he is most remembered for his versatility, and for his ability to make small parts memorable. I think the sentence needs to be either re-worked to reflect reality, or deleted. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "losers, misfits, eccentrics, addicts, unappealing characters, flawed characters, pathetic characters,twisted characters" are generally called reprehensible characters. The exact word need not be used; if it was it would have been in quotation marks. Also, critics have praised him for his fearlessness in playing those characters. Of course one actor will not play only such characters, and Hoffman has played other roles as well, and there is an adequate mention of that in the lead. But in general, those are the roles critics remember him the most for. So, I don't see what the problem is. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: "unappealing" is perhaps better, I'll change it to that. --Loeba (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't agree , unappealing to whom? Certainly not me. "Deplorable" I'd would write it as personally, and we have the sources to back that up, particularly the almost exclusively by snivelling wretches, insufferable prigs, braggarts and outright bullies" . "Unlikeable" might also fit but I prefer reprehensible or deplorable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Deplorable would be too strong IMO (defined as "deserving strong condemnation; completely unacceptable", compared to reprehensible's "deserving censure or condemnation"). But sure change it back to reprehensible, fine by me. --Loeba (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reprehensible is better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Remembered for his fearlessness in playing reprehensible characters" 

message: It is hard to improve on this wonderfully written article.  I would only suggest adding one word to summarize what was said so many times in the article:  that Hoffman was a very versatile character actor capable of taking on almost any role imaginable with uncanny ease. 
In the following passage I suggest adding the word "MULTIFACETED":
Warmly received by critics, the film grew into a cult classic[10][27] and it has been cited as the role in which Hoffman first showed his full multifaceted ability.
I would like to add this single word to the article.  I won't make the edit until at least two or three other editors agree with my suggestion.  And the author's approval would be nice to have as well.
Many sides, many faces, many characters:  that is the definition of multifaceted.  That is Hoffman to a "T".  And he was a real gem, too.
 
--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say that we couldn't add it to that sentence as it wouldn't be backed by the source, but actually it is! The source says: "It was as full a range of human emotion that you can find in a single scene, a portrait of the variety of humanity." So as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and add it. Glad you are impressed  by the article! --Loeba (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD JUST ONE WORD:  MULTIFACETED  

message: The phase "by the Screen Actors Guild" that is flushed left looks so odd sitting there by itself.  I have played with this for awhile and haven't found an easy way to push that phase over to the right with the rest of the paragraph to which it belongs.  It isn't a big issue or problem but from a visual standpoint it might need some attention.  It is likely an easy fix for someone more experienced than me.  Maybe it's just my browser that shows it off to the left?--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your browser, yes, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It completely depends on the size of the screen being used, the size of the font, etc. For me "also nominated by the Screen Actors Guild." is on its own line, which shows that we get different things. Thus there's just no point worrying about it :) Cheers --Loeba (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Issue 

message: List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman just got turned into a redirect, without discussion, so there is currently no record on Wikipedia of the complete or precise awards and nominations received by Hoffman. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nearly completely unsourced. WP:BLP still applies to Hoffman for another year or so, and an article that makes hundreds of unsourced statements about it falls under it. Feel free to verify the information that was there and restore it, with citations, per WP:BURDEN.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As always, you're full of bullshit . It simply needs sourcing, in fact I think it would be worth getting to FL status. To delete the whole thing and redirect just illustrates that an editor of your ilk has no place editing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For an actor as acclaimed as P.S. Hoffman it's vital to have a comprehensive list of awards and nominations, and it's what readers will be looking for. It does need sourcing improvement, but to delete the whole thing and redirect just looks like you're looking for trouble Kww. Why don't you stick to running hotels in Bonaire instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of awards and nominations received by Philip Seymour Hoffman]] 

message: I don't know how to resolve this. With a Featured Article I'm unlikely to be able to change much of anything. But the movie's article has only positive reviews. I was all set to make changes here and there were specific "mediocre" reviews. It seems to me the praise for the movie mentioned in its own article should at least be mentioned here, and the criticism from here should be there. I have really slow Internet and can't really spend the time accessing all the sources from home, but then I can't make the decision about what to change myself.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  20:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jack Goes Boating (film)]] 

message: He appears in the final Hunger Game films a few years after his death. He may  have other posthumous appearances. I heard one report that he has appeared posthumously via digital reconstruction based on 3d images of him. What is the real story about his Posthumous Appearances? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous Appearances 

message: I stick to the facts and if you were paying attention you wouldn't be asking for a citation to a quote from a live show. Stop undoing accurate edits. You are out of line.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.90.198 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: IP editor, it is you who are way out of line. Wikipedia is not a breaking news site, and all content which is challenged MUST be supported by a reference to a reliable source. This is mandatory and not negotiable. So back off and comply with policy, or you will be blocked from editing. Your belligerence is also unacceptable. Now, I will look at your edit history. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the IP user's subsequent reply from here and blocked them for civility violations. That response was uncivil and that's not gonna fly here... so, they're done from talking here until their block expires. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)  19:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doniago I'm calling you out 

message: I’ve recently removed the word “anal” from the paragraph describing PSH’s role in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. I see another user tried to remove it last month but it was added back again. There really is no indication in the film that this is anal sex. It seems very strange to me that this detail is being added by the editors of this page: the characters make zero reference to it being anal sex, and there is no way of knowing just from their body positions alone (this isn’t hardcore pornography). Perhaps the cited source in that paragraph asserts that it is indeed anal sex - I don’t have access to that source - but I would be quick to argue that that author was jumping to a totally unnecessary, and ultimately pointless conclusion, and it should be ignored for this article.  Proghurt (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone is convinced the opening scene in Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead depicts anal sex 

message: The template documentation provides guidance for when this parameter should be used: when it is significant to the subject's notability. There is clear indication that is the case here: his death was out of the blue and was received and notated on how many stories were posted about it and what happened after as well. The bar for inclusion was meet a long time ago and even discussed a bit here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_Seymour_Hoffman/GA1. There is no consensus for removal of this I see at all and has been in the lead and info box for some time. ContentEditman (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither being "out of the blue" nor being sourced is indication that it has any significance for the subject's notability, which was well established prior to his death for entirely unrelated reasons. Additionally as per WP:BURDENWP:ONUS consensus is required for inclusion rather than exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As said this was already discussed and was added a long time ago. Consensus has already been meet. You're removal is of your own with no discussion that happened before. So the burden is on you now. ContentEditman (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect - the discussion you reference was regarding the lead section. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was discussing the subject's cause of death notability. Myself and several other editors all agree his death is notable and that is why its in the lead and info box. You're removal has no support or consensus. Do not remove unless you gain such. ContentEditman (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment related to whether it would be "interesting" to include in the lead, which has nothing to do with its notability or its suitability for inclusion in the infobox. There has not been any prior discussion establishing consensus that it is significant to his notability, nor has there been any evidence of that presented here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you're the only one arguing his death is not notable. You're welcome to start a RFC or some other area to bring others in. But at this time there is consensus his death is notable. Do not remove without gaining new consensus. ContentEditman (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the only one arguing that it should be included, which means we default to exclusion per WP:ONUS. You've also brought forward no evidence to support that the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability, one of the criteria set in the template documentation. The subject is notable as an actor and for his acting accolades, not for his drug use. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, as I linked to myself and several other editors have all said his death is notable and should be included. You're the only one trying to remove it. There is consensus on his deaths notability. Again you're welcome to start a RFC or go to other areas to get others involved. Unless there is a RFC, or others chime in, I am done responding to your circular beliefs you're right and myself and the other editors agreeing on his deaths notability are wrong. But if you remove it again it will be a clear showing you're doing so in bad faith and actively edit warring. ContentEditman (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like an argument in good faith to claim that 'other editors' feel a certain way when those editors aren't weighing in here. You're certainly welcome to ping them. DonIago (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death in Lead and Info Box 

message: How is it decided when to add a filmography section to an article of an actor and when not? 2A00:1E:DF83:2301:683D:7257:B3C:8F62 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand the question. Any actor who's been in multiple films should likely have such a section. In this particular case, there's an entirely separate article for Hoffman's filmography, discussed within the article. DonIago (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography