Talk:Felicity Huffman

Criminal charges and Criminal status in info box

Don't be biting my head off for this ~ what she pled to was a felony ~ but I am wondering, why only do a few of Hollywood's actors/actress' ~ football players, record producers... on wiki have this in their info box when for example Chris Brown got 5 years (Probation) for ~ felony assault and criminal threat~ and Suge Knight ~ a convicted murderer (28 years in prison ) ~ not even a note on their info ~ is it because she is an easy target ~ or do you just edit current events without giving the same attention to murderers and assault cases ~ I admit Felicity is a felon ~ but compared to the others I just mentioned ~ seems one sided and probable does not work with WP:BLP's. Like I said don't bite my head off for this ~ but if you are going to edit on a BLP's criminal record don't be lazy, give a little effort and edit all criminals the same way ~~ quit just editing only on current events ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have to second Mitch's opinion. Andrea Parton (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

~mitch~: don't be lazy, give a little effort and edit all criminals the same way

Same to you: Be bold, it's a community effort. Put your energy into improving articles on WP rather than into complaining. 2.247.242.148 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

All Wikipedia entries should be evaluated independently, not swayed by current events or other articles. Her legal status as a convicted felon should remain in the intro, as it should in all bio articles, whether they be Chris Brown, George Floyd, or Martha Stewart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyJ (talk • contribs)

@JoeyJ: ~ Felicity Huffman is notably known as an actress not a felon, that's why it is not mentioned in the lead. It is well discussed further down the article. ~mitch~ (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: ~ That is no longer true. Her name on national news for several months greatly exceeds her reputation as a B-level actor, as it does for OJ Simpson. Needs to be put back in. Joey.J (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree ~mitch~ (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: Category:American criminals and its subcats is for people convicted of noteworthy felonies. I think in this case Huffman qualifies, as the crime was notable on its own. Does that mean we call her a criminal in her infobox? It's worth discussing. There are any number of celebrities, like Martha Stewart, whose crimes were only noteworthy because they were committed by a famous person; we don't categorize those people as criminals, just as 'people convicted of X'. This one is slightly different, because the crime itself was major news...there are a number of people who committed that same crime, but because they were only rich, not already famous, that crime didn't raise them into notability. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It was here at one time, I don't know why it was removed. I agree with you Valereee, since she is in this Category it should be in her info box ~ but since it is in the third paragraph of the lead, I don't feel it is worth mentioning in the first sentence describing notability as she is notable because of her acting career, not because of her actions concerning her daughter. Nice to see you again! ~mitch~ (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Mitchellhobbs, I would tend to agree that putting it in the first sentence is undue. She's not primarily noted for being a criminal. Having it mentioned in the lead is enough, IMO. The infobox...I'm not sure. The infobox should reflect what she's primarily notable for, IMO. I'm not sure the conviction qualifies, but I'm open to argument. —valereee (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Then maybe we should leave it out. ~mitch~ (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This all seems like an attempt to save face, consciously or not, from my perspective. There’s no disputing that she is not a felon, and as such it should be clearly stated at least within the infobox. Stating that “she is notable for her acting career” and as such does not deserve to have it be noted that she is a felon is ridiculous, especially since that is a very subjective view instead of an objective one. Maybe for some of you she is known for her acting, but for others such as myself and many of the people that I know we only heard of her because she was indicted and convicted and is a convicted felon. I do not see her as anything else, nor do many others. Both the facts that she is a convicted felon and an actress are both objective facts and should have equal bearing, not the arbitrary and subjective opinions of a few editors. The OJ argument is completely valid and bears the same weight here. I only see OJ as an individual acquitted for homicide and only see Huffman as a felon, along with many others who share such a view. The notability argument is bullshit as I can construe the subjective loophole within that term to favor my view while others can use the same to save face for her. This should be based on objectivity, not subjectivity, and as long as subjectivity is used, there will be no neutrality. This is not a flat earth section on the Earth page, this is about facts that are indisputable and define who she is for many people. Maybe some of you have seen her works as an actress, while others certainly have seen her work as a felon and only that work. If anything, she is more notable as a felon than as a actress. Fluffy89502 (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I call bullshit on this. She was in a leading TV show for 12 years. Just because you have your head in the sand and don't know this has no bearing on what she is known for. 2601:47:4780:E080:A5AD:5505:2F3B:5D54 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is, why is there so much redundant detail about this in the lede, and about the shows she's done? The lede isn't supposed to be a scaled-down version of the entire article. There's also way too much detail in the Career section—long plot and character descriptions, overlong passages from reviews. An encyclopedia isn't a fan magazine. I haven't presumed to make these substantial cuts myself, but they'd certainly be warranted IMHO. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Just my two cents, since I just reverted another anon POV-pushing "convict" into the lede: Huffman is not notable as a criminal, she's notable as an actor. Listing "convict" or including an infobox criminal is out of line for an individual who is known and well-known as an actor. The Varsity Blues proceedings should certainly be covered in the article; and they are. The trial and plea can be mentioned in the lede; and they are. But she had not achieved notability for being convicted; and that should not be listed as her identification. TJRC (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Felicity Huffman in Oscar de la Renta.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Felicity Huffman Catholic

Can someone add that Felicity Huffman was raised Catholic?2600:1700:5B60:DF0:CD61:B816:51A7:3241 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We'd need a source discussing that. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo

The photo should indicate William H. Macy was cropped out of the original. You can see a photo of both of the on his page Rossidor (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)