Talk:Philip Seymour Hoffman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Capote (film)

• Just saw the film "Capote" at the 32nd telluride film festival yesterday. first cut was finished on friday of last week. it is an astonishing tour de force performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. His portrayal will be considered a defining moment in his career. i would be willing to wager he will win the Oscar. Naic 03:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Let's hope your wager lives up Naic! Anyway, this article is vastly lacking in information. When I get the time, I aim to update things. 06:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'has distinguished himself'

Firstly, the sentence did not state who he distinguished himself from (and cite a source) Secondly, this seems promotional in nature (it is subjective, and therefore must be a view that is held by someone - who?) If there are sources for this view, revert and provide a source --206.248.165.190 (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image advertises 'Capote' more than Philip Seymour Hoffman

Can't we get a more appropriate image for Hoffman than a movie poster?

It was a bit difficult finding a suitable pic, but I think I got a pretty good one. Thebogusman 04:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A big improvement for the article. Thanks. --BlueTruth 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Height

If Phil is 5' 9½", how did they get him shorter for Capote? Chris 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

3.5 years after the question was asked, but I thought I'd answer this in case anyone else is curious. The answer is Forced perspective. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace

Phil wasn't born in Fairport, but in Rochester. Rochester is where the hospitals are, and he wasn't born at the family home (King's Lacey Way, to be exact).

Although all the hospitals are in Rochester, every biography on the net says he was born in Fairport.

Irish heritage

Given his surname, he is clearly of German heritage too. Why isn't it mentioned?

Clearly? Last name doesn't confer heritage. For all you know, some Hoffman ancestor changed the name a few decades ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.65.173 (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Capote4.jpg

Image:Capote4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Header

i'm pretty sure the ip editor's intent is to say that hoffman is an 'award-winning actor' rather than an 'award winning american', but either way, the phrase is hackneyed and cliche. --emerson7 07:33, 13 December 200

Drinking

I read somewhere that he doesn't consume alcohol. Is that true? I, myself, never drink, and take notice to things like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.204.43 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Who knows. That's something you'd have to search out for yourself, since apparently there aren't sources available in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true. In December 2008, he did a great interview on NPR's Fresh Air show [1]. I myself don't have an alcohol problem, and I didn't really understand alcoholism, but his comments were most enlightening. Particularly at one point Terry Gross asked him if he gets jealous when he sees other people enjoying a glass of wine socially. His response was no, that a couple of glasses of wine isn't interesting to him... a couple of bottles, maybe. He'd see a couple of glasses as just 'annoying'. So, hearing him say it like that put a new perspective on alcoholism for me. Cryocone (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Chlotrudis Award

Can we remove reference to these "awards". They are the domain of a few friends in Boston and it strikes me that including reference to them on this page, and others, is an attempt at self-promotion and aggrandisement.

Titanic (1997 film)?

The introduction says he was in Titanic (1997) but the filmography does not list any role. I also do not think, though I am not positive, that the film credits him for anything. Is this an error? Rugz (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done This has since been removed. Doniago (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Filmography

Unless I simply overlooked it, I could find no reference in the article to his role in the movie Pirate Radio, in which he co-starred with Bill Nighy.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.112.36 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's there, listed under its original British title, The Boat That Rocked. Funcrunch (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

--99.17.210.196 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Phillips 1999 incredible performance in Flawless, opposite Robert Dinero , has not been listed and I cannot fathom how this film was overlooked in your film history......PSH was at the top of his game, in my opinion, for portraying a transexual neighbor to Bob D. This was one of his finest perfomances and has always been at the tope of my list for his unmatched acting abilities-This is a very very sad sad loss-Drugs yet again, take a valuable and beautiful soul!

Did you even bother to search the page? Flawless is listed in the filmography. Funcrunch (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Filmography contains his work on the stage as well. Should this heading change from Filmography to simply "Works" to encompass this broader meaning (and current use)? Is there a Wikipedia standard of which I'm unaware? WikkanWitch (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Death being reported by WSJ

I understand that there was a recent death hoax, but did this actually fool the Wall Street Journal?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626804579358943360702878?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304626804579358943360702878.html

And the New York Post? http://nypost.com/2014/02/02/philip-seymour-hoffman-found-dead-in-his-apartment/will381796 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

NYT reporter confirms: https://twitter.com/jdavidgoodman/status/430049196633112576 72.39.222.96 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

His age is being reported on the page as "-1". Harlanhaskins (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

His death is confirmed now- no confirmed cause, but drug overdose is being reported. 24.128.127.115 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The WSJ article that everyone (including all other news agencies) is citing has been taken down. Way too quick to the draw, guys. This is pathetic. Gossip on Wikipedia? Are you kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The BBC are reporting his death here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

How many sources are needed here? The Chicago Tribune and the NY Times are quoting law enforcement sources; CNN has stopped their other programming and are doing a special report. The Wikipedia page protection actually seems "Iraqi Information Minister"-ish at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.149.24 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it common to lock the pages of people who've recently died? 108.180.252.74 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So your logic is that when Wikipedia locks a page, that in itself is a confirmation that they are in fact truly dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were responding to me, then no that was not my logic. I believe you have misunderstood the intent of my comment, and I now realise that I may have misunderstood the comment I was replying to. 108.180.252.74 (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, because news agencies never get anything wrong. Yeah. The Marathon Bomber falsified media reports never happened (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-fact-fiction). Nope. 'Law enforcement sources' said it, through a reporter, so it is absolutely true. How could I have ever doubted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, things shouldn't be put in Wikipedia when they're reported by news agencies, because news agencies get stuff wrong, occasionally. This is silly. Thanks.99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

He died today, Feb. 2, 2014. See http://www.nytimes.com/ This page needs to be updated to reflect that. 63.210.97.9 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Page is updated. Gloss • talk 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You can't seriously be citing the NY Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.100.25 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The article that the NYPost cites (WSJ) has been taken down. Stop turning Wikipedia into a tabloid. I hate you. I hate you I hate you I hate you I hate you. You suck. Wait until it is undeniably a fact.

NY Post is still reporting his death as are many, many sources. Stop turning Wikipedia into the word of god. I hate you. I hate you I hate you I hate you I hate you. You suck. Stop waiting until you can see the body. 99.245.11.41 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

TIL Wikipedia is now everything I hate in the world because its users don't care if they get facts wrong. If you did, you would 'wait until you could see the body' (realistically, just waiting more than 15 minutes after news broke to start declaring it an absolute fact that he is dead). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The users got the facts right. For some reason, you insisted on not believing. *shrug*99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Amateurish content

The Catholic Church isn't a denomination, it's always been known as the Church since Christ founded it. (I know that no one on Wikipedia knows anything about religion though, so this is an understandable error.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.16 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's some real Christ-like humility there, brother. 184.97.140.49 (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church, however, is a denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.148.30.53 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Found dead?

I'm hearing reports that he was found dead in his home today. Can we get any confirmation? --108.162.77.129 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are what I want all Wikipedia users to be. You ask for a confirmation. Unfortunately, everyone here already resigned this as a fact, within minutes of the story breaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Turn on your tv and tune into CNN. Tvoz/talk 20:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess when the moon landing was broadcast, we should've waited a good hour to post. ... Silly. 99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, because news agencies never get anything wrong. Yeah. The Marathon Bomber falsified media reports never happened (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-fact-fiction). Nope. 'Law enforcement sources' said it, through a reporter, so it is absolutely true. How could I have ever doubted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The source ("a law enforcement official who requested anonymity") also appears to be good enough for the NY Times, whose article also states "At a short distance from the crowd, two men who identified themselves as friends embraced, sobbing.": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/movies/philip-seymour-hoffman-actor-dies-at-46.html

(From the article I cited about the Marathon Bombing) "The New York Times reported three unexploded devices" - That was later proven to be completely fabricated. Yes anon, the New York Times also f&$%ks up. And people can cry over a rumor. That is something that happens in real life.

I suppose there's no vital urgency since this is an encyclopedia article and not a source for instant breaking news. Granted, a non-denial is not a confirmation, but the fact that Mr. Hoffman's production company gives "no comment", that there is a scene at the apartment, that an anonymous source says there is an obvious heroin death, that the NY Times and other sources have picked it up..... I'm guessing the standard is to wait until there is an official statement from the family or some form of public record? Again, I don't know how the procedure of confirming a death works in general, but I love Wikipedia and am curious. ~ Kris / SWNut

official statements from the family or "public record" would be WP:OR which we are not supposed to use. we are supposed to use reliable sources WP:RS such as a report from the New York Times or CNN. in other words we are not trained journalists doing research and writing a news report. JKshaw (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Because journalists never ever get anything wrong or post false statements. And of course, we don't want to learn the facts from the people in a position to actually know them (the family).

Sad news. Can someone who knows what they're doing update the article? As a long-time lurker I'm curious as to how this process works. ~ Kris / SWNut — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.88.166 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To IP75: The story that he died is being widely reported, by many reliable sources. The medical examiner(=coroner) is with the body now according to CNN's live report. What is your point other than to bash Wikipedia and news agencies? Do you have some kind of contradictory evidence?

To Kris: People who know what they are doing are here, updating, as we get reliable confirmation of events like this. Unfortunately, people who don't know what they are doing flock to pages like this and put nonsense in, which is why the article is now semi-protected so that only confirmed users can post for a few days. We do our best, and we do actually care about accuracy - at least some of us do. Tvoz/talk 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia now considers itself a venue for breaking news, yes, I am here to bash. I am here to rip into you. I am here to remind that you describe yourselves as an encyclopedia. That means posting absolute, undeniable facts. That means providing well rounded, thorough information on any particular topic. That means you WAIT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. You can't cite news agencies. You just can't. There are numerous, well documented instances where they are incorrect, or flat out lie.

Don't believe me? Check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries

Or this: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/regret-the-error/197279/the-best-and-worst-media-errors-and-corrections-of-2012/

Or this: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-misinformation-911-newtown

Or this: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/boston-marathon-bombing-fact-fiction

I'm not saying PSH is NOT dead, my problem is that you locked in his date of death in under an hour after the news broke. That's tabloid. That's TMZ. That's inexcusably pathetic.

I don't want Wikipedia to be lumped in with this: "CNET - Worse Information, Faster" http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-57580464-256/social-media-as-breaking-news-feed-worse-information-faster/

Silly.99.245.11.41 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent input. I now have a clear understanding of your position, and your reasoning. Thank you for being a positive contributor to society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. You could try reading my replies to any of your other dozen posts in here, but why bother when you know everything.99.245.11.41 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, re: the NYT article cited for his death, is there a chance that an additional source can be cited? NYT says that a syringe was found in his arm (as does the Wiki article), but a syringe is only the pump mechanism, and I'm quite sure that it was not found "in" his arm. The LA Times states that a hypodermic needle was found in his arm, which is a more logical scenario. (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-philip-seymour-hoffman-dead-20140202,0,7122179.story#axzz2sCdGsIvE) Thanks! Rustypup49 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Time of death?

The entry claims he died today, February 2nd, but do we know that? The news media articles I have read only claim that his body was discovered today. Is there a source for his time of death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachi292 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, "found dead on" is not the same as "died on". He may have died before 2 February. Danrok (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Date/time of death

No news source is reporting the date or time of his death, yet this article says he died today, Feb 2nd.

We are waiting for more information from reporters, who are waiting for more information from their sources and the medical examiner.

JKshaw (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

CNN says he was last seen last night at 8pm.

JKshaw (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

He is dead. 98.200.236.54 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Read the article please. Tvoz/talk 20:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

He died Feb 2, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/02/showbiz/philip-seymour-hoffman-obit/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 98.234.101.51 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Read the article please. Tvoz/talk 20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The man is dead, for God's sake. Wikipedia has become the Information Bureau, for sure! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/movies/philip-seymour-hoffman-actor-dies-at-46.html?hp --74.91.100.75 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No one doubts his death, 98. But the circumstances of his death are highly controversial and we don't want a bunch of drive-by editors unfamilar with our policies throwing in tabloid accusations that may cause harm to his relatives, friends or associates who might be implicated somehow.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Which David Katz?

there's an editor who is not happy w/ the WSJ source for the person who found Hoffman, David Katz

eventually I am sure we will be able to agree on this, but a previous edit had a wiki link to what I believe is the wrong David Katz here who is an author

I think the correct article is probably this one as the article states he is a screenwriter and has even worked with Hoffman in the past.

JKshaw (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is likely that you are correct. Here's a source referring to Katz as a screenwriter. We want to be sure not to link to an uninvolved Katz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

HE FUCKING DIED 71.57.66.134 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The article already reports his death. What is your problem? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he believes it should be protected because he has died, when in actuality it should be protected if there are vandals, which there isn't, yet. JKshaw (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Keeping encyclopedic tone

Could we all please agree to keep an encyclopedic tone not just in the entire article but especially regarding his death? When celebrities die under scandalous circumstances, it's tempting to "scoop" others, but this is still an encyclopedia. How about taking a little more care? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

When MANY, MANY reliable sources report something, it should go in the "encyclopedia". THANK YOU. 'Nuff said. 99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between adding information cited from numerous news articles, it is another to add info from BREAKING NEWS articles, which rarely include reliably accurate information. There is no rush. Get the facts before turning this into a tabloid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

News is news. "Rarely include reliably accurate information"? Please. The number of times they get it wrong is DWARFED by the number of times they are absolutely right - as in this case. Next. 99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Winklevi is engaging in edit-warring to scrub the article of any mention of "heroin" "syringe" "arm" "envelopes" I even tried to use the word "paraphernalia" to be as vague as possible and this was unacceptable to him.

The New York Times is reporting a law enforcement source who says it was an apparent drug overdose due to the drug paraphernalia at the scene. Simply saying it is a mysterious drug overdose is leaving out relevant facts. Winkelvi has reverted these edits numerous times and continues to do so. JKshaw (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "scrub" anything. Nothing is known for certain until the coroner's report. This is still an encyclopedia and there is no "deadline" here. Please remember that. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you were, Winkelvi. Shame on your for denying it. If you believe you did the right thing in engaging in the edit war, defend that, don't deny it. Shameful. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that attempting to sanitize the news is inappropriate. It's one thing to argue that until the ME report is available, that early reports that his death was the result of an overdose are speculation, even if they do come from the investigators. But the NYTimes definitely states that a syringe was found in his arm. That's simply a fact and scrubbing this from the article until the ME has filed a report is simply ridiculous. This is merely what the investigators saw when arrived. By the time the ME gets the body, who knows if the syringe will still be there for him to confirm that it actually was in his arm. It seems quite possible that by that time, the syringe will have been removed and sent off for testing to determine conclusively what was in there. Winkelvi, I came here because you asked in your edit summary reverting me. What explanation can you offer? Are you arguing the investigators were merely speculating what that object was, that perhaps they cannot be relied on to recognize a syringe or an arm when they see one? Msnicki (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Who were these "investigators"? Newspaper people? NYPD detectives? The Medical Examiner? "Investigators" is pretty vague. As far as what the NYT says: newspapers say a lot of things. Just because it's said doesn't make it fact, even if it is from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. There is no deadline in Wikipedia and we are not newspaper reporters trying to "scoop" one another. We are supposed to be supporting the writing of content in an encyclopedia. Hypodermic needles, envelopes, and the like reported by unnamed "investigators" just isn't encyclopedic. We can do better than that. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, here's something you can do better: Avoid breaking WP:3RR, which you've done by scrubbing the word "syringe" from the article four times, reverting 3 different editors: 1, 2, 3, 4. I've asked for an explanation and frankly, you haven't offered a good excuse for this behavior, especially as, exactly as you point out, there is no WP:DEADLINE. I think this warrants a report. Let the admins sort it out. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Go for it if you're truly doing it for preventive purposes rather than seeking a punitive action. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for a report from the medical examiner and creating the article from that would be WP:OR Original Research. that is not what we are supposed to be doing here. 24.92.43.54 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Then what the hell are we supposed to be doing? Are we an encyclopedia, or a tabloid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.103.161 (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your trying to label things is not helpful. But, you're not trying to be helpful. You're trying to get your way.99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's an obvious sign of recentism in this version, with Investigators searching his apartment found 72 bags for heroin (49 sealed, 23 unsealed), used syringes, and prescription drugs.[27][24][28][29][30] Law-enforcement officials found bank records indicating that Hoffman had withdrawn $1,200 the day prior to his death; they also found the drugs buprenorphine, Clonidine hydrochloride, Vyvanse,[27] and examined a computer and two iPads found at the scene.[26] Hoffman's body was removed from the apartment around 6:40 pm on February 2.[24] Why do we need the number and detail of the "sealed" and "unsealed" bags of heroin? We know he shot the shit, so the syringes are a given. I think "a large quantity of narcotics and prescription drugs were found by authorities examining his apartment" just about covers the drugs angle. The iPad, and "body was removed from the apartment..." also seems to be tabloid trivia, and I don't see what these brings to the party. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%, Ohc. I tried to fight the trivia days ago, but decided no one else seemed to care, and let it go after a vendetta 3RR was filed on me. Take all that crap out, by all means. If need be, I will have your back on keeping it out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Do fellow editors need to be reminded that WP is not a memorial, thus no place for eulogies, even if from the great George Clooney? ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Please add the following to your Philip Seymour Hoffman page:

Philip Seymour Hoffman died on Sunday, February 2, 2014, age 46, of an apparent drug overdose at his home in New York City. He is survived by his partner Mimi O'Donnell and their three children. (New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times)

24.60.138.107 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)catwitz

Mention of O'Donnell and their children is made in the Personal life section of the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is too long, especially compared to how long the article is. The intro should be trimmed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Who the fuck took down Philip Seymour Hoffman's death section? The NY Times The NY Daily News CNN Fox and The Huffington Post have all reported him as having passed away this morning Not only is it sad that it took until late afternoon before someone put his death up here, it's fucking infuriating when it gets taken down minutes later. He's dead. People should know. He was a great artist and now he's no more. Whoever fucking took his death announcement down should be (deleted threat) Put it the fuck back up and gain some basic sense of journalistic integrity. 128.239.184.244 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody took it the fuck down. It's still there. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There is an entire section on his death Philip Seymour Hoffman#Death and it has been in the article for almost 4 hours now. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mention of death in lead

We should mention his death in the lead paragraph. I added it in but I have been reverted. Let's discuss. Jusdafax 22:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The article gives his date of birth and date of death in the first sentence and speaks of him in the past tense. Normally, we don't otherwise discuss the death of other dead actors or celebrities in the lead, but rather in the body of the article. Why should this article be different? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead needs to be re-written. It is too much like a list. It should have a short bit of information about his early life and it should mention his death. 24.92.43.54 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. Hoffman's unexpected death deserves a sentence in the lead, in my view. Jusdafax 23:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that his death should be in the lead of the article, I don't agree the lead needs to be completely re-written. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Think of 20 famous dead actors and check the leads of their biographies. Their deaths are indicated clearly and unambiguously by including the date of death and referring to them in the past tense. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and any content added now should be with the intent that it stay for years. Why would we otherwise mention his death in the lead five years from now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point(s), Cullen. Thanks for pointing out the obvious that I missed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of adding the following final sentence to the lead, which will hopefully satisfy all parties: In its front-page obituary, the New York Times referred to Hoffman as "perhaps the most ambitious and widely admired American actor of his generation." Jusdafax 01:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't object to that, since it is a summary of his career in an excellent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

← See below: it still seemed to come out of nowhere, so I added a phrase to that NYT quote sentence, which gives context to the obit. Tvoz/talk 03:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

Philip Seymour Hoffman passed away on February 2nd, 2014. 12.207.106.70 (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It was put in the article hours ago. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

Have some respect for a human beings final moments and remove the fact that a needle was discovered in his arm. Jesus think about this mans kids!!

71.49.138.174 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree that the details according to an NYPD source are not necessary at this point in the article - people can read the source material to find out those details. However, when the coroner's report comes out with definitive cause of death, we might reinstate some. While sympathetic to family concerns, and with an eye on BLP policy which applies to a recently deceased person and his/her family as well, our primary responsibility is to accurate presentation of reliably sourced material that has relevance to a person's entire life and/or career. In this case, sadly, a history of drug abuse and addiction is relevant. Tvoz/talk 09:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was saying exactly this yesterday, but a stubborn long-time editor accused me of "scrubbing", got pissed when I didn't bend to his will, kept reverting the needle and other tabloid-style writing back in, and then reported me for 3RR. Such is Wikipedia. Glad others finally get the needle in the arm doesn't belong just yet. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

- Redacted per  Not A forum   and general trolling -