Talk:Philip Seymour Hoffman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Date of death

In point of fact, no reputable outlet is saying absolutely that he died on Sunday, Feb. 2, because there's no way yet to know that. He was found on that day, but he may very have died on Saturday, Feb. 1, before midnight. (He was seen alive around 7 p.m. that evening, so he didn't die before then.) We can only truthfully say "Feb. 2014" or "Feb. 1 or 2, 2014."

Before any edit-wars start, is there any definitive, concrete evidence that he definitely, absolutely died on Sunday and not late Saturday night? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes - The New York Times reported it here - "....died on Sunday at an apartment in Greenwich Village he was renting as an office" Gloss • talk 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I did just now see this, and was posting here when we were editing at the same time. I guess that maybe is all the evidence we need (though everyone else is just saying "found dead Sunday"), and I won't contest a change back to Feb. 2. However, I should say that with an encyclopedia, I'm uncomfortable without some examiner saying, " dead four hours" or "dead 12 hours" — since without that, I don't see how the Times or anyone else can definitively say Sunday. What does everyone else thing? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think your wait for the official examiner report is well justified. These editors are turning Wikipedia in to a breaking-news tabloid, posting crap that doesn't belong here yet. There are well documented cases of all news agencies getting facts wrong in breaking-news stories, PARTICULARLY the New York Times, so everyone just needs to chill the fuck out and WAIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 February 2014

"Tabloid". "Crap". I think YOU need to "chill the fuck out" and let information be presented in these articles. The fact that news agencies VERY OCCASIONALLY get something wrong is no reason to not update articles in a timely fashion. Please move along.99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm wondering if the introduction of the article should include a paragraph before NYT's obituary stating he died, similar to the one in the "Death" section. I'm not there. Message me! 21:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not too sure if a whole paragraph is needed, but a line or two about his death before the obituary would be beneficial. Otherwise, the way it is now, it jumps from award nominations in one sentence to an obituary in the next. Gloss • talk 22:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Negative. Check out the same discussion several sections up. It's just not done and shouldn't be. The reasons why given by Cullen gave make sense. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, what about Michael Jackson? Gloss • talk 03:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse Gloss • talk 04:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd like to see a couple of sentences in the intro about his death - I'm thinking about it - but I have to disagree with Cullen's argument and Winkelvi's concurrence above. First, it's just not true that "it's just not done", and even if it were true that would be a weak argument since clearly it's not against policy. But in fact it is done all over the encyclopedia, particularly when the death itself is notable due to its cause, or prematurity, or some such reason. And this is the case sometimes five years later, contra Cullen's point, and sometimes a lot more than five years. See Heath Ledger, and James Dean, for that matter. We can't know how PSH's death will be viewed in five or fifty years, but it is not reasonable to say that we know the circumstances will not be notable down the road. We just don't know, and so we have to go with our instincts now, judging the significance of the nature and untimeliness of his death. If it becomes less important over time, future editors can always change what we do. As I said, I'm really not sure if I would like to see it in the lead at this time, but don't nix it for specious reasons. Tvoz/talk 04:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what I get for taking someone's word on something just because they seem to know what they're talking about. Last time I'll make that mistake. Thanks for the clarification, Tvoz. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

After taking a look at a lot of biographies, it seems that the usual pattern is that death details are usually not mentioned in the lead when the person died of natural causes in old age. On the other hand, biographies of those who died at a younger age due to accidents or substance abuse often include mention in the lead. So, I think mention of the circumstances of his death in this case may be appropriate, and I apologize for my initial reaction against it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it can be done in an encyclopedic manner, a sentence or two in the lead regarding his death would, in my view, be a good thing. But at the same time, the NYT obituary statement stands as a remarkable tribute, and I think the lead ending with it as it now is sums up the man, and his career. Jusdafax 07:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

←The mention of the obituary seemed to come out of nowhere, so I added a phrase to that NYT quote sentence, which gives context to the obit. Right now I don't think we need to elaborate on the cause of death in the intro. But I do think the obit quote is too good to leave off of the intro. Tvoz/talk 03:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New York Post

A particularly vile article about Hoffman was just written in the NYP. I won't bother linking too it, but should anyone add anything to this article from that source, please double and triple check the edit. Then delete the edit and find a better source. Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know what article you are talking about? In the past 24 hours, NYP has released over 10 unique articles about PSH, and none of them stood out to me as "vile". Also, what is your justification for that opinion? And what gives you the right to say this source is not worthy of Wikipedia? A "mainstream newspaper" is defined by WP as a reliable source. NYPost is mainstream. So again, what makes this special, other than it sounds like it offended you? 75.183.103.161 (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This one calls him a "tragic actor", possibly attempting to erase his comedic work, thereby making him appear "troubled". This one more explicitly implies he made a deal with the devil (or at least was substantially powered by the "darkness"). The sidebar also implies he was "lost to drug demons". That's verging on defamatory (if untrue). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a running theme of despair triumphing over amusement going on here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Haunting". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Why so much obsessive/macabre editing on Phillip Seymour Hoffman's page?

Why is there such an obsession with people to add details to this poor man's page? It seems like people are so quick to argue over the details of his death and even life and it borders on macabre. Forgive me, as I know this is more of a personal opinion on the matter, but this is the type of overwrought activity that soils Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingslove2013 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Meh, only for about a week. Happens with all high-celebrity deaths, and soils the news far worse. People see it in the front page spot, and rush here to feel like they're part of the media or mourners. Probably serves some cathartic purpose. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That may be true for some people who come here to edit, but it's not the whole story. The way I look at it is that I know there will be heavy reading traffic when there is a death, and I want our article about whoever it is to be as professional and respectable as possible to accomplish in a short time. Case in point: this article had about 80,000 views for the whole month of January, and over 4 million - 4 million - in the last few days; Pete Seeger racked up over 500,000 on the days following his death, but 37,500 for the entire month of December; and so on. Frequently these articles have been neglected, especially when the subject is not someone in the news or presently active in his or her career, and I think it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have a substandard piece out there. So yes, I often "rush" over here and see what I can do to rapidly get the article into better shape. This may have nothing to do with how the death itself is referenced - it's more about the total article and its associated articles. Tvoz/talk 09:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tvoz makes some very good points. The traffic numbers show the need to get these high profile articles into better shape as soon as possible after a death. For most of us, it is not about a morbid fascination with death, but rather a concern about our readers having to endure sub-standard prose and inadequate coverage of someone's life. Edwardx (talk)

09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I appreciate your reponses. I agree with your reasons for editing and think it's good. My gripe was with the novice wikipedians who rush out in a frezny to augment pages to serve no purpose other then to get here first. I think we can all agree that those sort of edits lead to alot of confusion and poorly sourced/edited pages. Anyway, thanks for the reply guys.-Kingslove2013

Errors in death section

I noticed the year after february 5 is 2013, and there is at least one spelling eror. Oh and what's up wither the australian dollars?67.177.59.159 (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)meh

I've corrected the date. I've also corrected one spelign error, and removed the Aust dollars, which don't seem relevant here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, as I was using an Australian media source. Thanks for the correction.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The description of buprenorphine as a 'part-agonist/part-antagonist' is misleading . Though there are preperations of buprenorphine that also combine the active antagonist 'naloxone' , buprenorphine itself is a opioid agonist and , although it can have a blocking effect on other opioids , it's not an antagonist itself . Suboxone is a part-agonist/part-antagonist , but describing suboxone as buprenorphine is misleading . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.143.178 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, as I incorrectly presumed that Subutex was the drug brand that was found. Thank you for the clarification.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Re this edit. I don't think we need regular updates that the coroner hasn't yet determined the cause of death. Also, once narcotics and prescription meds are mentioned, I see little need to mention " including buprenorphine". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"to date"

It says PSH has appeared in five of PT Anderson's six films "to date." Now that he has passed, that should read "appeared in five of Paul Thomas Anderson's first six films." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.41.254 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Spikymoss (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mimi O'Donnell's year of birth

Mimi was not born in 1999. She is not fifteen years old.

24.251.187.84 (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC) rb

1999 is the year O'Donnell and Hoffman's marriage began. Gloss • talk 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoffman never married. It's the year they began cohabiting. Jim Michael (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Breaking news

The flurry of edits to change "three" to "four" [suspects] and back again is rather "newsy" and disruptive. As I was challenged over the rationale for removing the names of the individuals arrested in connection with the drugs. I'd also like to repeat that this race to scoop does not fit in our encyclopaedic mission. Furthermore, these individuals are not notable, and are innocent until proven guilty, so we should at least have some respect for their rights. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the part per WP:NOTNEWS. On another note, I don't see how the mention of syringes (in his arm or otherwise) is too tabloid in nature. But if previous consensus has been made on that matter, I'm OK with excluding it. --Artoasis (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Syringes are too tabloid! Call it NEEDLE!! Thamvandu2 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Is a Tributes section appropriate?

I am new to this aspect of copyediting, and I have just come across a tribute by Miles Davis's family, and I am wondering if such a section is appropriate?--Soulparadox (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a memorial. Specific tributes should not be included in biographies. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I read this too late, but will delete the content now. regards, --Soulparadox (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A tribute section is inappropriate of course. Let's see what happens at the Oscars. I don't see anything wrong with one sentence in the death section mentioning that Oscar/BAFTA winner xxx dedicated their award to him in respect. But a full section quoting what was said is definitely inappropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I wouldn't mention Cate Blanchett's dedication, but that's just me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to have something about the reaction to Hoffman's death (i.e. that it was very unexpected and was widely reported as such, and perhaps that it provoked a flurry of articles about addiction in general), as well to mention the most important tributes, such as that Broadway dimmed its lights for two minutes (that's not an honour every actor who dies gets), and perhaps also Blanchett's dedication (given that BAFTAs are such important awards). I do agree that a specific tributes section would be too much, and that we have to be very selective about what we add to the article, but it does seem to be quite general practice to mention something about the reactions to an actor's death. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I removed the content on the two people Hoffman was said to be close friends with, including the Blanchett dedication. Reason being, it just didn't read as encyclopedic, more like an afterthought or something out of People Magazine. If something is put in after the Oscars (where they will surely do some kind of tribute to Hoffman) that compiles these things in a small sub-section, that would probably be appropriate. And more on reactions to his death, as well. If it's written in an encylopedic manner, of course. At that time, it would make sense to have a section on his death again, as well. I'm not crazy about death and personal life bunched together as it is currently. But that's me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I dislike Death sections except in cases where a person has a very unusual death, because these sections tend to be magnets for cruft, eulogies and the like. By equal measure, I detest Reactions sections to deaths (or current affairs), as these always end up as repositories of quotes, either sweet nothings, or strong rhetoric. This is where I see many drive-by editors place news they have read, or quotefarms, which I prune aggressively. If they see no such section, but notice a brief mention of the death, they tend not to put down more cruft. But this is an aggressively managed article, so the risk is low. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I do think a Death section is appropriate given that many people will be looking for that specific information, but I don't see the need to create a whole subsection within that section for tributes (as what Ohconfucius describes is very true, it would mean people would be adding rubbish). I doubt the reaction/tributes will amount to more than a couple of sentences in any case, as I think it is really important to be very selective with what we include.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• Good points. I was actually just trying to be cooperative and compromising. I'm not crazy about adding a bunch of tributes, either, and also think it will lead to cruft-adding. Glad we've cleared that up! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point about mentioning friends, he clearly had many friends although I believe Thereoux was his closest to a best friend. Let's wait until the Oscars on the tributes thing, I suspect others will do the same thing. Then we can briefly mention the BAFTA and Oscar dedication, it's fine if it's done briefly. A sub section would be too much I think. When the coroner's report comes in we should go into a bit more detail about the circumstances of his death too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi likes this. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

It says the cause of death is unconfirmed, but after doing some research, I found some sources that it was an apparent drug overdose. I went to the view history and it says that someone reverted the edit that said that the cause of death was heroin. Can someone confirm this? I want to put a cause of death, but don't want to start conflicting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.gov (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Coroner has not confirmed the cause of death yet. Checkingfax (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is that we are waiting for the coroner's report before putting a cause of death in. Thanks for using caution and asking before adding content that could be challenged. Appreciate it, Sam. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Who's "We"?

From Blofeld's 2nd revert edit summary: "We agreed that to name people (and not name others) would single people out. Mention his past co-stars just goes to show what he was like as a person that they attended while busy." (link to diff here: [1]) Who's "We"? and where did this agreement take place? On the article talk page? Am I missing it? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask Loeba, Susie and anyone else on the talk page. When I mentioned Blanchett and Thereoux we agreed it was best to not single anybody out. There's nothing wrong with stating that his funeral was attended by many of his past co-stars. We can't just name a few and not mention others. There's already very little detail about his funeral and death as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I initially considered naming some of the individuals, but I couldn't really see much point in it...I don't feel strongly either way, but I do think it's worth indicating that he was greatly admired and missed by his co-stars - as shown by their attendance at his funeral. --Loeba (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was my point that it shows that so many of his co stars attended and took the time out of their busy schedules to fly to NYC. It says much about how fond people grew of him in shooting with him, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying this.I spotted a co star or two from half of his movies at the funeral.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mayhaps you can point out on the talk page or provide a diff for this agreement? Still not seeing it (maybe I need new glasses?). And, I do have to say, you personally spotting celebrities sounds like original research and not much of a reason to include something in any article. I note the celebrity spotting content has references, which is a good thing. I just don't agree it's encyclopedic. Especially as it's written at the moment. I'm not trying to argue or start any drama here, honest. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's what your posts are amounting to I'm afraid. The source states his co-stars were in attendance. That's not original research now is it. That I personally spotted even more than mentioned in the source has no relevance to the actual article so that's a rather peculiar statement. I'd rather not dispute such a minor thing any further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it wasn't directly related to the funeral, but whether or not to name people who have given tributes. I think that's what Doc is getting at, since it a amounts to the same thing. If you definitely think it's better to name some people who went to the funeral then go ahead, but how do we chose who to name and who not to name? --Loeba (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

i have no objections to naming a few of those who attended, but as was argued in mentioning the best friend thing, we'll undoubtedly leave a lot of people out including people who might have been closer to him but are not famous.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, I gather from what Loeba has just said, it wasn't really discussed specifically on the article talk page. To look at this and what Blofeld just wrote, it seems that not only was this NOT agreed on in the form of consensus, and it really does need some names to make it encyclopedic rather than general and weaselly vague. Then, when you start listing names, who DO you leave out and put in? And doesn't that kind of thing then invite others putting in more and more names to the point of where the content becomes even more gossip-rag like and a type of list-making no-no? The whole thing paints a problematic picture to me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see the "vagueness" as a problem - what's wrong with a blanket statement that informs readers that his funeral was widely attended by the film industry? I really think it's useful for us to tell readers that. --Loeba (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Vagueness is a problem because this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to give facts. Without facts and names and statistics you have something vague and not encyclopedic. Hello? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That "Hello?" was a bit rude and unnecessary. I just think getting into specifics about who attended has potential to be problematic, but the simple fact that many co-stars attended (because it is still a fact, even without specifics) is worthy of inclusion...I'm just trying to add more information to the death section because it was very brief...I'm not going to carry on fighting the point, if you really feel strongly then just remove it, but my basic position is "better to give the one blanket statement than not give it at all". --Loeba (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess it seemed to me that with all the articles you have extensively edited, the "Hello?" was appropriate in addressing what appeared to be obtuseness on your part. I do feel strongly about it not being there, but since I've reverted twice, I'm not going to take the chance of having Dr. Blofeld slapping a 3RR notice on my talk page and having a report filed. I may be newer than you are and have considerably fewer article edits to my credit, but I'm not stupid. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually really not that prolific here, but more to the point I don't always agree with what WP says we should do and am not constantly concerned with "being encyclopedic" and whatnot. More important than that is to give readers information that they'll find useful, and common sense often overrides the wikirules in my opinion. I'm amazed you feel this strongly about mentioning it; I hope you'll look at it tomorrow and see that a summary statement like that can still convey information and be useful. --Loeba (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I understand your concern about keeping up the standards of WP, but I think in some cases 'blanket statements' are appropriate, even in an encyclopedia article. For example, when we write about Hoffman's films, we write things like "the film received positive reviews", because if we actually listed every single newspaper/magazine which gave a favourable review, we would be making the article very difficult to follow. If the reader wants to know more about the specific reviews s/he can look at the source we've used. I feel like here it's pretty much the same case here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I appreciate your calm and rational approach here, THS3. I'm still bothered that Blofeld told a tale rather than be honest. At least that's what it seems happened. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure he wasn't intentionally lying - he just assumed that the discussion above translated to whether or not to name people at the funeral. I think that's completely fair - they're very similar issues. --Loeba (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi I suggest you go out for some fresh air. This has become unnecessarily heated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, keep your personal suggestions to yourself, please. Has nothing to do with the article. It didn't become heated, really. But I was put off by Loeba's seeming obtuse remarks. Regardless, I still don't see where this kind of thing was discussed specifically as you said it was. So, what am I to believe from you here on out? I'm hoping this can be remedied, but if you're going to say "We decided" when there was no article talk page discussion where those interested in the article actually came to consensus, I'm going to start thinking things like ownership and canvassing. Like I said earlier, not trying to start a fight or unnecessary drama, but...it looks like you lied to me and I have to wonder why. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So Loeba's "obtuse" and I'm a liar purely because your suggestion contradicts what you were concerned about the other day with singling out people and people simply happen to disagree with your perception that it's unencyclopedic to mention that his co-stars attended his funeral without mentioning names. Mmm. If I'm honest I had thought the same thing from a very early stage on here that you seemed to be operating as an acting guardian of the article. you keep stating here that you're not here to cause a fuss or unnecessary drama, but calling me a liar and speaking to Loeba with condescending phrases like "Hello?" causes just the opposite and tells us a lot about the way you deal with people who disagree with you on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm upset because you lied and Loeba backed that lie up. That sums up why I'm upset. I don't care that someone disagreed with me, regardless of how you are now trying to spin it all. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, for what it's worth, yes, Dr Blofeld was perhaps unclear but he certainly did not lie. Like him and Loeba, I was also under the impression that what was decided on in the discussion some days earlier (above) would also apply to this. If you did not see it that way does not mean that you're being fed lies. Now let's all calm down and focus on more productive things. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'm calm. I have no problem focusing on more productive things. But I don't buy he didn't try to misrepresent intentionally and that Loeba wasn't assisting in that effort. I've seen the same kind of thing before between editors who come in like a storm taking over an article, looking for another GA or FA notch in their belt. It truly ruins the enjoyment in editing for fun and relaxation. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I wasn't going to comment anymore here but that's one of the most amazingly cynical comments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. We've been putting in a huge amount of work on this article – voluntarily giving a lot of our time – because we loved Hoffman and want him to have the sort of article that he deserves. To see it received so bitterly, rather than with gratitude, is really disappointing and makes me wonder why I even bother. --Loeba (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And let me just add that it's ridiculous the way you're acting like there's some sort of conspiracy going on here to have things our way. I said I wouldn't fight for that statement's inclusion and that you could remove it if you wanted, didn't I? I haven't been at all hostile or demanding here and the way you're talking about me is completely unfair. --Loeba (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Winke, we've put a lot of work into this because we loved Hoffman and for such an exceptional actor it was severely lacking. He thoroughly deserves to be brought up to FA status but if you think we're doing this purely for another "notch" you really know little about actors or cinema. You didn't bother to expand the article to this extent, we did. You've taken the fact that I reverted you over something very minor to the extreme and have now begun to insult and even question our whole purpose on wikipedia which comes across as incredibly childish and unreasonable. Clearly you have severe ownership issues and are offended that your "authority" in deciding what is enyclopedic here has been challenged. If you don't want to cause any more drama quietly let this rest and move on to something else. Do you think this sort of hostility doesn't also take the fun out of wikipedia for us too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How you can take what I said and turn it into me having ownership issues and feeling I have authority here is simply laughable. The only one making this completely over the top dramatic is you with your lectures and multiple manufactured accusations and spin. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and what you've said here. I simply reverted you as I disagreed with your perception that it was unencyclopedic. Since you've called me a liar, called Loeba obtruse and spoken patronisingly to her, implied that there was a conspiracy and canvassing involved, and then capped it all off by effectively saying that we couldn't care less about the article, only getting a "notch" and that we take the fun out of wikipedia with our ownership. That seems rather extreme for what was a tiny disagreement don't you think? Enough's enough, none of us have to continue with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So let it go, then. You aren't the kind of guy who has to have the last word, are you? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning funeral attendees and tributes

Am I mistaken in thinking that there is consensus here to not mention who attended his funeral, to not mention who his close friends were, and to not mention who left tributes towards him or quote any one person? I thought it was very clear from our conversation the other day that we were all in agreement that we shouldn't mention only a couple of names in fear of leaving people out who are equally deserving of a mention. I presumed that this also applied to mentioning names of those who attended his funeral. The Reuters source mentions a few, but a lot like Ethan Hawke and Paul Thomas Anderson etc are missing. I think we should probably avoid mentioning names for that reason, but I think it's fine to say that many of his co-stars were in attendance as it does show how much his past work colleagues loved him. That's why I disputed the removal of it when usually I'd not object. I've accepted virtually all of the removals to date including from yourself Winke haven't I?♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I maintain that mentioning anything about the friends showing up without mentioning who the friends were is adding something trivial and vague and un-encyclopedic. On the other side of the coin, I think mentioning friends' names is inviting list-making. My feeling is that because it's a two-edged sword, the content (mentioning friends who came without mentioning names of those friends) should be removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you Winkelvil. What's unencyclopedic about briefly mentioning his past co-stars attended his funeral? I've seen it in GAs, FAs and many others. - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I actually have no problems of it a bit vague. Hoffman had many friends, and all are shocked by his death. If we name names, we start getting into the territory, as Winkelvi says, of a slippery slope of getting really subjective and perhaps arbitrary where we draw the line of who to include. I can just foresee that mentioning isn't going to be brief. Just because this is accepted in other articles, it isn't necessarily the way to go with this one. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My original complaint was the way it was written, and that is still my biggest complaint. It is vague and could include names. But listing names is problematic and invites more problematic listing. Perhaps it could be rewritten to not be vague while still not becoming an invite to list a bunch of names (perhaps to say something along the lines of "...his co-stars from <this movie>, <another movie>, and <that movie>...")? I'm fine with not being right about this, but as it is, I think it's just poorly written and not encyclopedic in style. What we write for content is, after all, supposed to have purpose and meaning, not just fill space. Vagueness, in my opinion, is just filling space. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's great to see an article that's so firmly on the straight and narrow. Oh if it was like this for other biographies of the powerful... Originally I thought that for example Cate Blanchett dedicating her award to him was acceptable, but now the absence doesn't shock. It's only a tribute and WP is not a memorial.

  This is indeed the moment to complete the article as certain things are locked forever by death; commentary is plentiful. Yet emotions are strong and memories are fresh with his departure. Now journalists dig out their note books and fall over each other trying out-do each other in obits they write, telling the world how great the man was. They bring out every little detail that was regarded as trivial in life but somehow made poignant and relevant by his death, how wonderful were his portrayals of the low-life were and what Hoffman said to them when they interviewed him and in the process grabbing a piece of film history for themselves. So what I'm saying is – and I'm not saying he wasn't a wonderful actor – that, although we don't mention in the article many names of celebs paying tribute, there is no probably shortage of memorialising in the article, and it exists at a more subconscious level. But I'm fine with that, as it's part of the life cycle of an article. Blofeld is doing good work on the article that I can overlook his many attempts to kill Bond. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also in favour of not naming names of those who paid tribute. He had quite a few friends, and played in a lot of film and theatre pieces, and I don't see how we will be able to arbitrate who we would include in such a roll call without somebody else adding Actor X who played with him on Film Y. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philip Seymour Hoffman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 10:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this in the next couple of days. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 10:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thankyou!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Krimuk. If you could leave the last section of "career" until maybe thursday that would be great, I still want to do some stuff on it (hoping to do so tomorrow evening). Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll start the review when you are done, Loeba. Take your time, no worries. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 09:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ready when you are Krimuk :) --Loeba (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is excellent, and at the outset I must acknowledge both Blofeld and Loeba for doing such a great job. This is very much GA-material but I will list a few things that could be tweaked.

Lead

• Won't it be interesting to mention his struggle with drugs and the cause of his death in the lead, now that the autopsy result is out?
  • Done - I agree that it's worth mentioning, but I think there were some people on the talk page who didn't want it in the lead to it may be contentious. --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Storm-chaser, boom operator and hospice nurse should be wikilinked for readers not familiar with these terms.
  • Only I'm worried this will create a "sea of blue", as they say... --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• Is there more information available on his neck injury? Would be interesting to expand on that.
  • I haven't found any info about how it came about, no. --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Career

• In the early career, it should be mentioned that Leap of Faith starred Steve Martin in order to avoid confusion.
  • Done --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Why is his character in Boogie Nights described as "pathetic"? A little expansion on his character could be interesting.

You've seen the film haven't you? Because he's a loser basically, and the way he tries to hit on Mark Wahlberg by the car and his response was highly pathetic. It wasn't really a major role so I'm not sure it's worth the detail. I did actually have a quote originally which I rather liked but I think Loeba did the right thing moving it to the article, but it was only a minor role really.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The quote was "His character, Scotty, is a production assistant on a 1970s porn shoot, a lumpy mouthbreather always lurking on the periphery. The most distinguishing thing about him is that he seems incapable of finding a T-shirt that actually fits his doughy torso." On second thoughts it doesn't have any real encyclopedic value and enough relevance to even by in the film article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting so I've put it in a footnote. --Loeba (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, I have seen the film. I know why he is called "pathetic", but for a lesser-informed reader it would be interesting to know why. But yeah, it's fine now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Very interesting description on Happiness. Great job guys!
• For Magnolia, "..as a nurse who cares for Jason Robards". You mean the character that Robards portrays?
  • Done --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• His role in the 1999 play The Author's Voice is mentioned under the 2000—04 subsection. Any reason why?
  • It used to be down as a 2000 play, but then I found a source that said it was 1999! I figured it was still okay because the whole paragraph is about his rise in theatre and isn't all chronological. Does it look silly though? --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• No in-line citation for the nominations he received for Almost Famous.

Can't find a reliable source to support them, maybe not worth mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I feel that there are too many quotes from Pomerance. Is there another review for his performance in Synecdoche, New York? If so, I would replace that. But no big deal.

Perhaps, but it is the best quality source we have and he's a leading scholar so I'd say his comments and analysis are superior to most newspaper critic comments. I might replace one. I've removed the Pomerance quote in Almost Famous and the unsourced Chicago and London, Loeba appears to have replaced Pomerance at Synedoche.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed some of the Pomerance commentary on Synecdoche, but there's still a quote from him in there. I think it's a good one, and since you've removed his thoughts on Almost Famous I think this one can stay? --Loeba (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reception and roles

• Brilliant! Don't have any comments here. I have to say that reading this makes me greatly miss the man!

Personal life

• Any information available on why he separated from his wife?
  • There was some speculation that he fell for another woman, but I get the impression this was after the separation anyway...I don't think there's any concrete information (from good sources) that we can add at this point. --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Is there reason to have a separate "death" section? It can well be merged with personal life.
  • Blo experimented with this, but it was reverted. I don't really feel strongly either way. I did play around with having a subsection in there for "Addiction problems and death", but I could imagine someone coming along and saying it was undue weight...What do you guys think of that idea? --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I support a sub section under that title.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Now done. Let's see if it lasts! --Loeba (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Filmography, awards and nominations

• Some references for the awards would be good here.
  • Done --Loeba (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

• A bit odd to have a picture of De Niro here. I would have added that if there was a picture of them together. This doesn't affect the review, of course.
• It's difficult to spot Hoffman in the image of him filming for The Boat That Rocked. Please point him out in the caption.
  • Done --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

General comment

• Please remove the duplicate wikilinks, there are a few.
  • How can one access that tool to identify these? --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a tool in the left hand side of the page, under the "tools" section called "highlight duplicate links". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the article is brilliant. With a few tweaks here and there, this should find its way to the FAC. Good luck guys! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reading through and for being so positive about the article! It's been really good to work on it actually. There are a couple that I wasn't sure about so I've left them for Blo to comment on. --Loeba (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Krimuk and Loeba. I think all points have been addressed now, although if you spot any outstanding overlinks can you remove them Krimuk?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the only outstanding comment is the one about the De Niro image. I don't really mind if it stays or goes. --Loeba (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded a new image of him in character, claiming fair use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice! I improved the rationale a bit to stop pissy people from removing it ;) --Loeba (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for being so prompt. I have no further issues. Happy to pass this.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Krimuk!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Labyrinth Theater Company

I'm getting confused about when Hoffman joined Labyrinth. We have a source in the article that says it was 1995, but this source he says he co-founded it. I've also seen another source (can't remember which now, I've read so many in the last week) that said he was already there in 1992...Can anyone shed any light/confirm? Unfortunately their own website doesn't give much information about its beginnings... --Loeba (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Most sources I've seen say 1995 and vaguely recall seeing 1995 on the Labyrinth website. Doesn't the Pomerance source also say 1995. I'd go with him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A ha - [2] That clears things up then! Not sure how I missed it before. The assertion that Hoffman co-founded the company seems false otherwise surely they would mention it, and this source confirms that it started in 1992. --Loeba (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hoffman theater prize

I'm a bit unsure about where to add this, so thought to ask from other editors active in editing this article first. Apparently David Bar Katz has set up an annual theater prize in Hoffman's name using the compensation money from The National Enquirer. I think this should be included in the article, but should I add it to the 'Death' section, or is there going to be a separate section about his legacy? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'd place it at the end of Reception and roles just before work ethic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think it would fit best in the death section. Maybe one day we'll be able to have a separate legacy section, but there's not enough material to create one now (or soon). --Loeba (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

When there is enough for a legacy section then it would be OK. I suppose you could briefly rename it Death and aftermath and fit it in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There's also this campaign ([3]) to raise money for Labyrinth in PSH's memory, not sure if it's worthy of a mention or not... --Loeba (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay I've added an "Aftermath" section and added the prize, this seemed like the easiest way of doing it. If Blanchett dedicates her Oscar win to PSH tomorrow (we all know she's gonna win it) then I think that would also be worth mentioning. --Loeba (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Loeba! I also added a line about the candlelight vigil that LAByrinth had as well as Broadway dimming its lights.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Good stuff, thanks. --Loeba (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Rolling Stone dispute

Is this worth mentioning or too trivial? I don't think such a lowly tit is really worthy of mentioning in the article. What a douchebag!! What a rag the Daily Mail is!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Too trivial, I feel. Doesn't deserve precious space. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it wasn't a serious suggestion, more an expression of outrage that this talentless douchebag thinks that he's more important than Hoffman!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nom

Hi, congratulations to all on the recent GA. I have nominated this for Did you know here, which will hopefully result in a main page appearance. Sorry if I missed anyone out of the credits, please notify me and I will add you. Thanks, Matty.007 19:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Matty. Sorry, I wasn't moaning at you about Enid Blyton, I figured that images must have been the reason!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

I cleaned up a harv error in the article. One thing I noted was that the bibliography had three sources(Lambert Maier and Punzi) which are not used in the article. Is there a reason or should these harv errors be removed? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was condensed that's why. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Quote boxes - colour?

This isn't a major issue at all, but I thought I may as well bring it to the talk page to get wider opinion. I added a light blue colour to the quote boxes as I think colour makes an article look more welcoming and reader-friendly. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs) reverted this with the explanation "quotes already have enough attention brought to them by putting them in a large offset box, color only makes it more distracting". In my experience, quote boxes more often have colour than not, and I for one definitely prefer it this way. What about everyone else - should the quote boxes be grey or blue (or some other colour)? Please share if you have a preference! --Loeba (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to reinforce my point: I feel like the article is pretty colorful and inviting already, with 11 images scattered throughout. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I found all of the quote boxes (and them being colored) distracting. It's like this article has become some candle-shrine to Hoffman instead of an encylopedic entry about him. Looking at the thousands of edits made to this article since his death (compared to the relatively slow pace of edits prior), it's been a mixed bag. Good on the balance, but it still has a troubling "memorial" tone to it. (Disclaimer: I've always thought he was a fantastic actor, but am also a purist about keeping Wikipedia neutral). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Add to that SIX sizeable quotes that spurred my adding a quotefarm tag. All that's missing are the flowers. You flooded the articles without apparently asking advice and now you seek opinions about something so trivial as the colour, it has to be a joke. But since you're asking: No, definitely no colourful insets required. Losing a quote or two would enhance the article. Less is more. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why the hostile tone? I only added two of the quote boxes, and admitted that the colour thing was a minor issue. No opinion was sought about including the boxes but I think editors normally just add things to an article that they believe will be useful and only come to the talk page if a disagreement arises. It was someone else who removed your quote farm tag, and then you didn't bring the issue to the talk page, so the quotes have stayed there...But if there's major dislike then okay, let's remove some. I'm surprised you think they make the page feel like a memorial - it wouldn't have crossed my mind that they give that impression - but I can agree that it wouldn't hurt to lose some. If you two think other parts of the page are also too "merorial-esque", then I think I'd disagree...The comments about his high reputation in the industry are exactly the sort of thing we would have had in the article even if he was still alive (if it had been fully-developed, that is). We're just reporting the facts, and it is a fact that he was very highly regarded, and it is a fact that people were extremely saddened when he died. Madonna is still alive, but that article doesn't hold back on communicating how important and respected she is. There's way too much "peacock paranoia" on WP - there shouldn't be anything wrong with us accurately communicating someone's success and acclaim. The Encylopedia Britannica has no problem doing this, why should we? As for Hoffman's death section, it's actually pretty brief. Compare, for instance, with Heath Ledger, which is 50% about the fact that he died... --Loeba (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I should apologise for being hostile to you personally. It was unwarranted. I think the real blame belongs with the person who removed the tag without dealing with the underlying issue. It's not an issue that needs much decoding, IMHO. Here on Wikipedia, all sorts of other crap exists, but lets concern ourselves with the article at hand. I tagged the article, and its irrelevant that you removed it. It's only relevant that it's gone and yet the complaint remained unaddressed, like I'm nuts or the only one who thinks there's a problem. The purpose of tags is to signal the perception of a problem. I was hoping or expecting that peeps would take a step back and not make a Ledger II. Thanks for your understanding. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that it might have a few too many quotes, but I find Jamie's comment here to be rather insulting and as if Loeba and I haven't bothered reading the article to ensure it's encyclopedic and satisfactory. To put that amount of work into it and have somebody turn up who frankly has done bugger all towards it moaning is one of the things I find most irritating about wikipedia. You can suggest ways to improve it without trash talking the entire thing. I'd also have to agree with Loeba that none of the quotes are memorial-like in tone, quite insightful actually into his career and we'd have put them there if he was deceased or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We can all agree that prior to his death, PSH was a well-regarded and award winning actor. Do a diff between the state of the article before his death and after. Anyone can see that thsi article in some ways has turned into a candle-lit shrine. Sure, his death resulted in a lot of fresh conventient sources, but his success as an actor isn't new. Also compare this article with articles of living award-winning actors, and you won't find all of the Buzz-feedy quotes littered all over the place. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, your comment above makes me mad. It makes me wish that maybe one of your plans to kill Bond had backfired and got yourself killed instead. Humpff!! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jamie about the shrine-esque quality the article has acquired in the last couple of weeks. A while back, I made a comment here on the talk page that there was such a push to make this a GA that the integrity and encyclopedic tone of the article was being lost. And it seems I was right (even though I was chastised by Loeba and Dr. B for saying so). You're not nuts OhC and your assessment is correct. If the issue wasn't resolved then the tag should be replaced. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to get involved in this, but what I wonder is – if you all find that the article is not up to standard, why not improve it yourself? Isn't that the point of WP that everyone can make changes and that articles are the result of collaborative effort? So rather than complaining about the article on this talk page, why don't you make the edits to it which you find necessary? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yes, that's the point of Wikipedia, but it rarely happens that way. Especially when someone has their sights set on GA status for an article. What I've seen and run into in the past is a feeling of ownership while on the path to GA. When someone not considered part of the GA crew tries to change things it turns into an argument and/or edit war. What should be collaborative editing becomes a pain in the ass for the outsiders. And, certainly, that's not the point of WP. I've done a few things here and there in this article but have made sure to tread very lightly since I was chastised by Dr. B. My feeling was "What's the point?" -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, and this is not just to you but also to the commenters above who find the article to be a quotefarm/shrine – actions speak louder than words. I'm sure that if you argue your point without any snark, there won't be any 'ownership issues'. Blofeld and Loeba are respected editors who have quite a bit of experience on improving articles, and I don't think either of them is opposed to constructive criticism if it is done with the acknowledgement of the hours that they have spent improving this article and hence with respect and not with snark. Imagine how you would feel if you had spent loads of your free time (and possibly your money in getting hold of the necessary source material) trying to genuinely improve an article, and then someone who hasn't ever attempted to improve the article in a significant way comes and gives criticism which could have been constructive, but which is instead laced with snark and arrogance? Yes, that is going to provoke a negative reaction which can seem like proclaiming ownership. I want to believe that none of us is on this talk page out of wanting to create drama but that we are all interested in improving this article – so let's work together and respect each other and assume good will rather than argue. I'm personally not opposing having less quotes or making major changes to the article – but what I have very little patience for is when editors point out issues vaguely without any propositions of how, in practice, the article could be improved. Now, any concrete ideas on that?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think a good start would be pruning two of the quotes. The theater one feels kind of superfluous, and the work ethic one could just as easily be summarized by a sentence of prose linking to the source of the quote. The David Fear quote, while long, seems appropriate to me as it sums up his career pretty well. As I said in an earlier comment, on the whole the article has had a lot of strong improvements since his death; I just think the amount of quote boxes is distracting and may be largely what's giving it a "memorial" feel IMO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Thank you for apologising. I think maybe your "tagging" was ineffective because a lot of people are irritated by tagging, which leaves an ugly big complaining box right at the top of a page. Always better to bring your issues to the talk page (and then you can be far more specific with what you disapprove of - tagging rarely makes this clear). @Winkelvi: Show me a diff from when I "chastised" you, please. Seriously, I'd really like to see when I was so awful to you. @TrueHeartSusie3: You've hit the nail on the head perfectly. I didn't edit this article looking for praise and appreciation, it was because I genuinely wanted to work on it, but it does bother me when people start making comments with only negative things to say. OhC, Wikelvi and @Ohnoitsjamie: presumably you all appreciate Hoffman and have an interest in the article, so would it hurt to show some appreciation for our expansion? Even if you think there are problems with it, would you rather the page went back to this? Which version do you think is a better resource? So it would just be nice if you could manage "Thanks for all the work you've put into the article, but..." Now going back to the point under discussion: I disagree that it's like a shrine, for the reasons outlined above - I genuinely wouldn't have the article any different if he was still alive - and sometimes I wonder if people go the other way and become extra-sensitive to anything that could be construed as special attention because he died. "We must show that his death makes no difference to us! Wikipedia has no emotion! People will respect us if we show restraint!" But I just can't see that this is useful to readers. I personally think we should make clear what his position was in the film industry, and we should give some indication of the reaction to his death. Just as we report on his childhood and the roles he played throughout his career, these are important elements of his story that [I think] belong in his article. However, if there's really several of you who still think it's problematic (in light of my comments - obviously I'm going to attempt to sway you towards my opinion, that's not "ownership" it's just how debating works) then something should change. I already removed a couple of the quote boxes after this discussion, so I'm not sure why a certain user is acting like I'm so unbendable, but I can't read your minds so yes - if you're still unhappy, it would be best if you just made some changes yourself or at least made specific suggestions... [Which Jamie has now done since my edit conflict, thank you. In response, I like the theatre one because this element of PSH's career is arguably under-covered, and it communicates how passionate he was about it (which many people don't know) but remove it if you disagree] --Loeba (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How about making the theater quote inline? It's short enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how others feel, but I think I'd rather it was removed than integrated. I'm not sure we could make it flow very well in the text, and there's already a lengthy quote from Hoffman there. --Loeba (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that some of the quote boxes have been pruned (and I just removed one photo; the shot of "The Boat That Rocked" being filmed in which you can barely make out Hoffman). As it stands, I have zero objections. Kudos to the editors who worked hard to fill in content. The organization is also top-notch. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

...and I was reverted by Dr. Blofeld. What is the argument for inclusion of that photo? The resolution is so low that you can barely tell it's Hoffman in the pic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Jamie, it is a very bad photograph. Unfortunately there aren't many good photos of PSH, but I do wonder whether the close up of him at the 2008 Oscars could replace that photo? It's currently in the filmography/awards section, where it doesn't really fit as it is such a short section and merely includes the links to the other sites. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

It's the worst quality photo on the page, yes, but I thought there was something valuable about having a photograph of him at work on set of a film, that was why I reverted. It's not that bad. If we definitely had to lose a photo that would be the one I'd choose though, do we definitely really need to remove it? In fairness Jamie you've responded better now than certain others here..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about including a photo of him at work, but it's a shame that's the best we have. The article is pretty solid in it's current state, so I'm not worried about whether one photo is included or not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to replace it with a quality fair use shot of him as the priest or something but it might bring out the copyright armageddon brigade :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

TrueHeart's response is precisely what I am talking about: passive aggressive bullshit that I'd rather avoid. Look, you asked me a question, I answered it so get the eff off my back. Coming at me with both barrels and accusing me of using snark (which I didn't use) along with the aggressive tone is uncalled for. What I have little patience for is editors who use talk pages for trolling and then go in for the kill when someone like me is stupid enough to think answering honestly is the right thing to do. Gawd. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, surely you're not actually this sensitive? Everyone else here is trying to work together now - we've all made concessions in some way (Confucius admitted that his hostility was unwarranted, Jamie has stated his appreciation for the article and making specific suggestions, me Dr Blofeld and Susie have all said we're not opposed to changes) - and yet all you can contribute is "poor me, I'm such a victim". No, you must just be trolling. I can't believe anyone could genuinely be that sensitive and stubborn over so little... --Loeba (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Loeba, my first reaction to your unnecessary continuation of pile on was "Fuck off". After rethinking my first reaction I've decided to just keep editing the article and stop using the article talk page. It's proven to be a waste of time to try and take part. Comments were asked for and not accepted at face value. Oh, well. Same Wikipedia as always, just the names are different. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been commenting here for a while about potential 'memorial' feel and quotefarms, and I also do seem to have complimented the improvements too. see #Mentioning funeral attendees and tributes section above. As to talk pages, their actual usefulness is very much determined by the personalities of the editors there. But it's also true there's no substitute to just getting stuck in. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:Well I recommend that next time you do participate in a talk page discussion, you step back, stop taking everything as a personal attack, stop formulating in your mind some belligerent group of users ganging up on you that doesn't exist, and just continue stating your views without getting distressed about it and assuming no-one is willing to work with you. You'll find it considerably easier. I really don't like getting into arguments like this and I'm sure you don't either, so please take that to heart. This was completely avoidable. --Loeba (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Did I ask for your recommendations or advice, Loeba? I did not. Please keep your self-righteous sermonizing to yourself. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

'Final Projects'

Regarding edits to the heading given to projects Philip was engaged in in the 4 years leading up to his demise; would like to explain the reasoning there. I notice that an editor has created 5-year divisions that apparently correspond nicely with periods in Philip's life and career. To sum up the first five years of his acting life as 'Early career' is entirely appropriate, as is the heading 'a rising actor'. These describe the natural progress of his career. This was a career that continued to progress up until the moment it was cut short by death. So, using the term 'final' to encapsulate a 4-year chunk of Philip's life seems to suggest a conclusion on the way to being reached. This is a value judgement we are imposing in retrospect.

To talk about the word 'final': firstly, it can only describe one thing; in Philip's case, only one of his projects was the final one, if the term is used as neutrally as possible. His final project was the one most recently commenced and still in progress on the day of his death. The one before that was the penultimate project. The one before that couldn't therefore be termed 'final'. We can ask ourselves whether Philip would have wanted his work as far back as 2010 referred to as 'final'. I have my doubts, but that's (also) subjective. Secondly, when we use the term 'final' it's often to express conclusion, e.g. 'These will be my final words on the subject' or 'my decision is final' or 'the Final Solution'. It carries a meaning of completion, of all loose ends having been tied up, also uncertainty removed, further action being irrelevant. This is why to use the term to head up a 4-year section of Philip's professional life is dicey. That a career passes through a trajectory with a beginning and further stages of development is obvious, but the last 4 years of Philip's career were not in a 'final' stage of development. In fact, also within the body of this segment there have been several gratuitous instances of the word 'final'. This speaks of our need for closure, rather than describing a career in progress.

It would be more appropriate and probably more interesting to identify some pattern to Philip's career that, like the other headings, reflects/describes the stage of development he was undergoing in his career at the time. Was he 'consolidating' previous advances? Was he coming into a period of a string of appearances in huge budget films? Was he heading in the direction of directing? All of high-grossing films, Philip's introduction to a new generation of film-goers and his first directorial works have been mentioned. So if some term encapsulating this phase of his career needs to be chosen to head up this section, then maybe one of those themes would be better used. 'Encompassing fame 2010-2014', or 'Universal acclaim', or 'Acting and directing 2010-2014'. The headings are not in fact very neutral, though this is understandable. It is always the way when history is being written. People's value judgements are the filter through which future readers see an entity. To my mind it would be preferable not to use any term to describe the last 4 years, if a 4-year block it must be- but certainly not to call that entire slab of a living, growing, progressing career of several ongoing projects, only one of which was final, 'final'. FleetingJoy (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, I was the one to add 'Final projects' and thought it a bit problematic myself. I'm just not very into non-descriptive titles, as they make the article harder to navigate and 'take in' – at the same time I acknowledge the problems (i.e. bias) that a more descriptive title might bring... Does anyone have any other ideas on how we could go about having a descriptive but non-biased title? I also don't think that the section needs to cover the last four years of his career, but merging it/bits of it with the previous section might make that one too long... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Personally I think "Final projects" is fine - it's used fairly often on WP (or "Final years")...it doesn't tell you much, true, but I think it's better than nothing and I can't think of an alternative. Anyway I won't change it back again, however I have re-added the comment about Death of a Salesman being his final stage role. Like I said in the edit summary, that's a useful thing to tell readers (and there's no question about it really being final in this instance). --Loeba (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts about lede

Regarding the following phrase currently in the lede: ...minor but seminal roles in which he typically played losers or degenerates... While I agree that this applies to some of his roles, I'm not sure how accurate "typically" is. I think it's worth mentioning that a fair share of his roles could be characterized in that general vein, would it not be more accurate to describe the bulk of his roles a "character acting" roles? To wit: [4], [5], [6]. "Charactor actor" is mentioned twice, later in the article, but does anyone else think it belongs in the lede? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen 35 of his films I think and I'd say it's an accurate description especially pre 2005, obviously there are a few exceptions to the rule though. And a lot of reliable sources talk about some of his earlier minor but powerful roles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

True, few of his roles have been starring, but wouldn't you say the "power" from most of his roles came from his ability to convincingly portray an eccentric or unusual character without seeming cliched? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think seminal or memorable best describes those roles. What I meant by powerful is they leave a powerful impression on the viewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Character actor" and "character roles" have always felt to me like tersm that people use in different ways, with different meanings. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for us to rely on it to describe Hoffman's speciality. Admittedly lots of sources do this, but IMO we're better off with the current description "losers and degenerates" which is covered by commentary in the "Reception" section. --Loeba (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Other than his role as "Dusty" in Twister, I wouldn't call any of his minor roles character in type. Even when he was supposed to be a character actor he wasn't. Scotty J in Boogie Nights was seminal and not a character portrayal. Same with Freddie Lounds in Red Dragon and Freddy Miles in Talented Mr. Ripley. I can think of others, but you get the gist. I agree with Blofeld, "seminal roles in which he typically played losers or degenerates" is a perfect description of his minor, non-lead roles. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As Loeba mentioned, "character actor" means different things to different people; I think you're taking it as a trivializing or diminishing term towards an actor, whereas I see it more as an actor who can bring a lot of depth to an eccentric/sinister/depraved/colorful/etc role (as do the sources I mentioned in my first comment). I'm not about to fight about it; I personally just thought it belonged in the lede and wondered if anyone else shared that view. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in fighting about it, either. But I do think "character actor" as a descriptor for Hoffman is beneath his talent. Especially with his Oscar-win in a lead actor role. Aside from that, he never really was just a character actor (that's just my personal opinion and no, I can't back it up with references! - that was meant to be humor in case it wasn't clear). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you an example of why I don't think "character actor" has to be a marginalizing term. Take Robert DeNiro. He's a great actor, but he almost always plays a tough guy or edgy character (same thing with Nicholson, Costner, etc). Hoffman, on the other hand: think about his turn in "Capote" versus "Charlie Wilson's War." Both very colorful characters, but hardly anything in common. I do understand that not everyone perceives a character actor as such; any other character actors I can think of (first one that popped into my head: Vincent Schiavelli) aren't in the same league as Hoffman. I guess I see Hoffman as a kind of rare "uber-character actor." I don't want to turn this into a forum, so I'll leave it at that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, to have seen his Lear...207.237.89.3 (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Allen Roth