Jump to content

Talk:Jon Hamm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJon Hamm has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed


Untitled

[edit]

James Bond??? maybe Jon Hamm could act as the new 007, cause Daniel Craig said that he wont play the 007-role for a long time, imho Jon Hamm could give a good James Bond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.255.22.83 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Little POV, mebbe? Even with the quote marks.

Cranston Lamont (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I reverted ThinkBlue's revert of my edits and wish to explain why.

  • "Jon" is well known to be short for "Jonathan" and does not have to be explicitly stated in the first sentence. Were he now known as "David Hamm", or used a less-familiar nickname like "Trey", that'd be different.
  • Phraseology like "confessed", "admitted", and "revealed" as used in the earlier edit violate WP:PEACOCK. (Who is Hamm confessing to, and what, exactly, is he admitting?)
  • Speaking of which, there is no reason to quote Hamm twice on the quality of his first Mad Men script. The current text makes clear that he thought it was fantastic and really wanted to do it.
  • Sentences should not start with "But".
  • Don Draper as it stands deals wholly with the fictional character, and Mad Men deals with broader, non actor-specific issues. Given that this article already discusses Hamm's reaction to the script, Weiner's reaction to Hamm seems appropriate here as well. This could change depending on how those articles progress.
  • We don't want to go into too much detail on non-Mad Men roles as none of them has been nearly as important as Don Draper; thus, I removed things like the mention of the difficulty with technical jargon in The Day the Earth Stood Still.
    • First of all, that bit that Matthew Wiener didn't want to cast him because he was "too handsome" is completely unnecessary to this article, it may fit better at the Mad Men page than here. If another better reason is given that Weiner decided to give Hamm the part then it's fine, but the handsome bit is useless. Besides, there was nothing wrong with the addition that he believed if he got the role as Don Draper it would be good for his career, he said it himself and properly fits in the article. Just because you don't like it is not a good reason. "We don't want to go into too much detail on non-Mad Men roles as none of them has been nearly as important as Don Draper", says who? The article is NOT supposed to be all about Don Draper. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miscellaneous tense fixes and other copyedits that ThinkBlue undid en masse. YLee (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was sure there was a rule against specifying an obvious shortened version of a given name in WP:MOSBIO but there isn't; it neither mandates nor forbids it. Withdrawn, although I still don't see the need to clarify that, yes, "Jon" is short for "Jonathan".
  • You misunderstand my objection. Words like "confessed" violate WP:PEACOCK, which discusses why using such florid wording is generally a bad thing. The sentences don't need to say who Hamm is 'speaking' to—that's what the cites are for—but yes, the passive tone with unspecified recepient worsens the overdramatic nature of the likes of "revealed". Words like "confessed" and "revealed" (the latter being probably the most-misused verb in all of Wikipedia) imply a motivation behind making the statement that almost never actually exists. "Said" or "stated" or "commented" or "According to" is almost always preferable.
  • You don't think that the fact that an actor was initially seen as too handsome during casting for his breakout role (what the article describes as "worldwide recognition") is a notable and interesting fact, especially when 1) that's a pretty unusual reason to not cast someone in Hollywood, and 2) there probably hasn't been a single article about Hamm post-Mad Men's debut that has not mentioned his good looks? In any case, the text mentions in the same sentence that ultimately Hamm's looks helped him to get the part, if anything. Stating such is no slur on the actor. The anecdote is, I'll wager, more interesting to readers and more relevant to the article than one about his difficulty with memorizing technical dialogue for a supporting role. YLee (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia Weasel Words

[edit]

Just removed reference to Hamm's father as 'Mafia connected.' Hamm states that his father had to deal w/ Mafia types as a trucking executive. 'Mafia connected' means that a person derives desired benefits fr/ association. By the removed citation's standard, every member of the Teamsters during Hamm's childhood would have been described as 'Mafia connected.' Tapered (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I wouldn't have mentioned the mafia at all except for the anecdote about the well-known mobster approaching Hamm after his father's death offering assistance, which implied a closer connection than just having to deal with the mob as part of the job. I chose "with mafia ties" because it seemed innocuous enough given the details but perhaps even it was too strong? YLee (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Background

[edit]

This article has been edited by an individual who adds Catholic background information to emphasize Catholic background of famous individuals who aren't publicly Catholic or advocates for the Roman Church. It's been deleted. Tapered (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Hamm's religious background should be reinserted.

Morover, I find the original heading of this comment threat ("Catholicizer") just as offensive as I would find a heading like ("Gayizer", "Japanizer" or "Jewishizer"), so I'm changing it to "Religious Background."

It's widely known that Jon Hamm was raised Roman Catholic by his parents. In the St. Louis area where he grew up and graduated from college, that is hardly suprising.

Moreover, biographical articles on Wikipedia almost always mention religious background, and it certainly is not the case that they do so only when the subject involved is still "publicly [name the religion]" or an "advocate for [whatever religion]." See Rupert Murdoch's entry as an example.

Wikipedia policy generally proscribes conjucturing about the motives of other commenters, including whatever individual entered the original (now deleted) information about Jon Hamm's background (not me, by the way).

In any case, people of many religions, cultural backgrounds, sexual orientations, etc. frequently do a good job of helping to ensure that biographical articles on Wikipedia reflect the diversity of backgrounds of people we are writing about.

I encourage others to agree on a mutually acceptable source of information about Hamm's religious background and cite it.

I agree that it should be included. I take the opposite approach as the standard. Unless, they specifically speak out against their background, it should be accepted as de facto. The standard that @Tapered has is that they must speak of it, first. This is very rare for anyone, of any background, to go out of their away and affirm their identity in public. Does he affirm that he is male, white, young, even an actor? Additionally, in Christianity the spectrum of belief is accepted. That is, there are many Catholics who rarely go to Church but are considered Catholics by themselves and their Church. Same with Protestants. In some religions, like Judaism, a gigantic percentage of Jews would not be considered of the Jewish religion (barring the ethnic component; speaking only of religiosity) since they are not Orthodox and so many people on Wikipedia then should not have Judaism as their religion...ethnicity but not religion. I generally find that Wikipedia has a bias against Christianity, especially Catholicism, in many of its users (I'm not Christian) and so see a lot of this counter posting by people. They seem to be motivated, in my opinion, by a belief that they need to stop other Christians from being proud of their Christianity by identifying with people of accomplishment.BinaryLust (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamm's arrest for participating in a violent hazing incident at the U. of Texas

[edit]

I have edited the article to add factual, notable information about an incident in November 1990 at the Univ of Texas and that information was supported by two reliable sources (Washington Post and the San Antonio Express-News). That information has been removed by two editors who have not provided one reason for removing the information other than to note that Wikipedia is not gossip and it needs to be discussed on the the talk page. These are not reasons to blank a whole section. I am going to re-insert the information which is notable and supported by reliable sources. Please feel free to modify or add to it.ML (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no encyclopedic value in this content. It happened long ago, the charges were later dropped, and it has no bearing on his later life or acting career. It does equate to gossip and doesn't do anything to help the reader better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with Winkelvi. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ML is correct that this has been widely reported as news in major media; it can't be easily dismissed as "just gossip". However, other considerations still apply. WP:BLP says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." On the other hand, WP:BLPCRIME says, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Hamm's case is borderline: the Associated Press report says, "Hamm, now 44, was charged with hazing and received deferred adjudication, which under Texas law means he had to successfully complete probation but was never convicted. A separate charge of assault was dismissed."[1] Based on what's been reported so far, I don't feel strongly that it must go into the article at this moment, unless the coverage lasts beyond one news cycle. Some mention of the incident may belong in our article about Sigma Nu, given that that article currently stresses the fraternity's "no hazing" policies and this incident led to the closure of the chapter. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not gossip as there is an arrest record and not rumors of one. I would think it merits inclusion as any bio should include noteworthy facts about the life of an individual and this was an important event in his and probably one that dominated his life, thoughts etc. for a short period of time. AaronY (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why something "happened long ago" is a justification for the lack of encyclopedic value. Otherwise the pyramids or Cleopatra wouldn't be in Wikipedia. This is a public figure, and this incident was made public in a court of law. Anybody who wants could find the public record in a court of law and make their own judgements accordingly - why shouldn't Wikipedia simply document the facts? jonfrate (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Take away that it happened long ago. How does something whereby the charges were dropped in regard to the incident help a reader better understand the article subject? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're writing a biography here and cataloging important events in his life. Even if it turns out that it was entirely untrue its still an important thing that happened to him in his life. We don't censor things because we think people are too stupid to take them in context. AaronY (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about censoring? You're attributing something to me that isn't even close to what I've said. First off, yes, it's a biography, but it's a biography in an encyclopedia. Adding something that amounted to nothing (charges dropped, nothing to see here, folks) isn't encyclopedic. My comments regarding helping readers better understand the article subject is a paraphrase of pretty much every MOS found in Wikipedia on the hows and whys of presenting content. I have no personal or emotional feelings about the article one way or the other. I just don't see how adding this content will improve the article and assist anyone reading it in better understanding the article subject. There's no censorship involved on my part, AaronY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charges being dropped doesn't mean that the incident never happened. He actually completed probation for the hazing and filed for deferred adjudication so its more than he was just charged and then they dropped it. Also, the only reason not to include I can think of it is because it paints him in an unflattering light. I can't imagine anyone thinking this is not a significant event in his life. AaronY (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might merit some very brief inclusion, but certainly not an entire section and the fact that it "dominated his life, thoughts, etc. for a short period of time" is not reason to overblow it in context with the rest of his life. Lots of things "dominate" a person's life for a short period of time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agreed an entire section is too long and looks agenda driven. AaronY (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

[edit]

Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTGOSSIP, I have removed some of the info on this incident in this edit. —  AjaxSmack  18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Hamm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions section?

[edit]

How notable is this? Comments about various celebrities does seem to be rather trivial. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. You're actually saying that an opinion section on an actor's page is a bit trivial? Isn't every actor's Wikipedia page trivial? I'm sensing that Hamm himself would find his own page trivial, but since he did publicly view his opinions about rather famous celebrities, it is notable, trivial as it may be. KamelTebaast 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much. Check WP:TRIVIA and WP:PERSON, for example. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 02:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jon Hamm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Hamm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry in early life

[edit]

Why is Irish linked but German and English aren't? -- Dyaluk08 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jon Hamm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jon Hamm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jon Hamm(actor)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jon Hamm(actor) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Jon Hamm(actor) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Hamm&oldid=1257860292"