Talk:Danny Elfman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Danny Elfman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Simpsons Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

edit

Collaboration: Featured topic Drive
Copyedit:
Merge:
Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten
Shorten plot synopsis:
Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen
Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield
Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out
Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More...

Claim about Elfman composing multiple versions of cues

Poking through the edit history here, I noticed that at one point there was a claim here that Elfman composes different versions of score cues and presents them to the director he's working with to choose which version they like better. However, this was an unreferenced claim that had been flagged for five years and was recently removed. As far as I know, this is indeed true, but the only time I've heard Elfman actually talk about it is in the DVD/Blu-ray commentary track for Pee-wee's Big Adventure. It sounds like this is typical of the way he works with Burton, or at least was at one point in time. I don't know if they still collaborate in this way. Anyone have a decent published source for this claim? —The Keymaster (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elfman sexual assault lawsuit claims

Elfman is one of my favorite film composers, and I was devastated when the lawsuits came out about sexual assault. While I understand the cases were thrown out, I noticed on Dec 4 a user removed all instances of his sexual assault case, even the mention of the cases being dismissed. I struggle with the removal of this entry because it was a controversial part of his life that I feel people should know about when they come to his page, to help them make an informed decision on how they want to continue to think about the composer.

Is it standard practice to remove legal cases from someone's page if they are dismissed? Has a precedence been established for removal of dismissed sexual assault lawsuits before? HicksHudsonVasquez (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HicksHudsonVasquez: Per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS "there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011" --FMSky (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unanimous consensus among editors" Hasty generalization and appeal to authority notwithstanding, the lawsuits were filed, as was the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Nomi Abadi. Are you implying because some editors claim that Rollin Stone magazine is unreliable, therefore the lawsuits are fake? LA Times and The Guardian reported on the lawsuits as well. Just because /some/ journalists say Rolling Stone is unreliable, the lawsuits still happened, as did the lawsuits being dismissed. 142.134.23.36 (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the articles in question are under the "music" section and not the "politics" section. I agree with the IP - there are other sources you could have used instead of deleting the section entirely. This is awfully suspicious to me because FMSky's actions aren't much different from the tactics of WP:COI and WP:PAID editors who are trying to whitewash the pages that they were hired to edit/have a COI with. wizzito | say hello! 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its completely irrelevant in which "section it was posted" (seriously, how the f is this even relevant). Its still a societally sensitive issue --FMSky (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me whether or not you have a COI with Elfman? This is still awfully suspicious behavior. wizzito | say hello! 05:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you or someone else can and should rewrite this based on non-Rolling Stone sources instead of just removing it like a paid editor would. wizzito | say hello! 05:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not, we should do an RfC. wizzito | say hello! 05:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont. An RFC sounds like a good ideaFMSky (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't respond to the IP's very legitimate questions as well, instead doubling down about Rolling Stone. wizzito | say hello! 05:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you guys just find a compromise that is a trimmed down paragraph? I've pointed elsewhere that there is way too much weight given to the allegation. The section was larger than the section on his time in Oingo Boingo. Maybe find a simple way to reduce the content down to one coherent paragraph and move on? Uhtregorn (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]