Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Featured articlePhil Hartman is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

Free-use image

If anyone has, our knows someone who has, or can find a free-use image of Phil Hartman, please upload it. Thanks. Gran2 11:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search of flickr and found none so far. :( Using a copyrighted image should be our last resort. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, just asking, are you SURE that that first pic is Phil Hartman? It says "Phil Hartman in character as Chick Hazard, Private Eye, c. 1978" but below that, in the Filmography there is no listing for anything before 1979, the first being appearances as voice only for cartoons Scooby Doo and Scrappy Doo. "The Gong Show Movie" in 1980, is his first listed movie appearance. The Early Career (1975-1985) Section does not mention Chick Hazard, Private Eye.

Phil Hartman did play a character on SNL of that name, and previous to that in an Improv Group called the Groundlings, and there are Google items that say that's him but I have to say that even if that is him, that is not the look that most people would associate with Phil Hartman. (All I see are a bunch of Tumbler, Pinterest posts with nothing but the pic and his name and the character name. No links to anything there that confirms that that IS Phil Hartman in character as Chick Hazard, Private Eye.) SNL Archives shows 2 B&W pics from when Mr. Hartman performed as Chick Hazard on the show. He looks nothing like that pic on this page. Was he in an accident and had reconstructive surgery like Mark Hamill? Phil Hartman looks like "Phil Hartman" on "The Pee-wee Herman Show" "SNL" and "News Radio" and none of the pics from those shows look anything like that first pic. Did he gain a lot of weight in his face? Do massive amounts of drugs between 1978 and 1980-81? A screen cap from "The Gong Show Movie" looks very little like that first pic. Here is a short video of Phil Hartman in "The Gong Show Movie": https://vimeo.com/37914509 You can see him close up. This one is much better quality than the Youtube offerings. That being said, the movie on Youtube looks like one of the worst things ever made, the quality of posted videos is so bad.

Sorry for the long post, if that is a verified image of the correct Phil Hartman, I would say place it next to his early work and put something closer to his peak years as the top image. It looks "like" him but if you told me it was Phil Hartman's son or a younger brother of Phil's, I would believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.154.85 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pee-wee's Playhouse writing credit

The other day I edited the "writer" credit off of Hartman's listing for "Pee-wee's Playhouse".

I'm a huge Phil Hartman fan and a huge Paul Reubens fan. As a writer their collaborations were terrific and I think "Pee-wee's Big Adventure" (which was co-written by Hartman, along with Reubens and Michael Varhol) is arguably the greatest comedy ever. The entire cast (including Hartman, credited using the original spelling of his last name with two n's) is also credited for writing the brilliant "The Pee-wee Herman Show", which was essentially a prototype for "Playhouse" and the first major project centered around the character.

That said, Hartman's credit as writer on the show has been on IMDB for years but it's simply not accurate. The same 5 writers (Reubens, Varhol, John Paragon, George McGrath and Max Robert) are credited on all 13 episodes produced before Hartman and Reubens had their falling out. Furthermore, the first season of "Playhouse" coincides with Hartman's first full season on SNL (Reubens brought him onto the show the previous year as a writer when he hosted as Pee-wee and he made his SNL debut in a minor appearance as well) and as impressive as it is to think he was pulling double-duty as a performer on SNL and "Playhouse" it simply makes little sense to suggest he was on staff as a writer on "Playhouse" with such a full plate.

In any case, very episode of the show is readily available on DVD. I just ran through the credits on every episode just to make sure there wasn't a Hartman credit somewhere. Anyone with the DVD's can see that he's not credited. I'm a fan of the guy, I wouldn't hesitate to call him the greatest SNL castmember in the history of the show, I love his work on "The Simpsons" and "NewsRadio" as well. I'm not a part of some secret global conspiracy with a sinister agenda to deprive the late Phil Hartman of a "Pee-wee's Playhouse" writing credit. I even added the credit to "The Pee-wee Herman Show" so it's pretty much a wash, I just saw an inaccuracy (and IMDB is inaccurate too) and corrected it.

But again, the whole series is available on DVD. I could post all 46 credit screens (45 episodes plus the Christmas Special, though Hartman's association with the show ended after the first 13-season episode) and you could say I'm omitting the Hartman credit and duplicating a non-Hartman credit but a simple screencap of the credit in question would put this whole issue to rest.

He wasn't a writer on the show. IMDB and Wikipedia were wrong. Alert the press.GuruAskew (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, IMDb is more reliable than you just saying something, so that's what I have to believe. However, as it's unlikely you would pretend to go through all the credits, then I see you are correct! I myself am a big Phil Hartman fan, mainly through The Simpsons and his films, but as I live in the UK I cannot buy any DVDs of SNL or NewsRadio. Gran2 18:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit done

Okay, I did a thorough copyedit per request, and by and large it looks good. My only larger comments are as follows:

  • The final sentence in "Personal life" (about driving, flying, sailing, etc) feels like fluff. I vote for removing it.
  • There is one quote box on the left side of the article. I recommend either right-aligning all the boxes and images, or staggering them regularly.

Good luck with this! A well-researched biography of a great actor. Scartol • Tok 16:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long / awkward sentence

Hartman met comedian Paul Reubens and the two became friends, often writing and working on material together; one of their collaborations was the character of Pee-wee Herman.

This should probably be split up into two sentences. I just encountered a similar problem with a long sentence also using a semicolon in that portion of the article. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. Cirt (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overusage of semicolon

It seems there is overusage of the semicolon in this article, in some cases in conjunction with comma(s), which has the effect of creating a pause where there often does not need to be one; or at times perhaps the editor just wanted to throw in an extra semicolon or comma, perhaps just to create an air of intellectualism; but really I am not sure, also this sentence is getting a bit long; and maybe I should stop writing it, but also it is fun; and so now I will announce that the sentence is over. Also, semicolon. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to cut them down. Gran2 23:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing. :) Cirt (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Nice work overall. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is overuse of semicolons in many artices. Just as Gran says, feel free to cut them down. I do. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I note that this article contains a picture of Sinbad appearing in the TV program Houseguest. Why?. Surely, what we need is a picture of HARTMAN appearing in Houseguest. I note that two seperate editors (I am one) have attemted to remove the picture as being pointless... only to be reverted. OK... but I would ask those who wish to include this picture to give a rational for it. What purpose does it serve? How is the article improved by including it? Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Houseguest is a film, not a TV show. Secondly, the image isn't of Sinbad appearing in the film, it's a free-use image of Sinbad. It's included because it can be; the caption is factually accurate and relevant to the article and the section would otherwise have no image at all. I'd like an image of Hartman, but the article already includes two fair-use images of him and that's more than enough. No free-use image of him exists. And I don't want to sound like a politician here, but you say "How is the article improved by including it?" Well, how is the image affecting it negatively? It's not like the caption says "THIS IS PHIL HARTMAN", it says that Hartman's first starring role in a film was alongside Sinbad. As the image of Sinbad is free-use, why not include to illustrate some point in the section? Especially as the caption explains it. It's decoration, but it's not a fair-use image, so policy-wise I fail to see the problem. Gran2 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... but that still begs the question... if this photo isn't from houseguest, then what "point" is this picture illustrating? And why does this article need a picture of Sinbad in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hartman had his first starring role in 1995's Houseguest, alongside Sinbad." It doesn't need it, but then it doesn't need anything. But it is adequately relevant, it is free-use and the section would otherwise be empty. I fail to see how it is harming the article. Would you rather the section had no image? Or can you suggest a "more related one"? Gran2 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is this specific image "relevant? It does not even show Sinbad in the context mentioned in the caption, much less Hartman and Sinbad together. The fact that the picture is free-use is not an issue, I am not questioning whether it is free-use... I am questioning the images relevancy to the article.
Compare the relevancy of the Sinbad photo to that of the picture of Pee-Wee Herman ... in the Pee Wee case, there is direct relevancy, since it is stated in the text that Hartman assisted in creating the character shown in the photo. That photo directly illustrates material in the text of the article. But the picture of Sinbad does not... It does not illustrate the fact that Hartman and Sinbad appeared in a movie together. It does not even show Sinband appearing in the movie. It serves no purpose in this article.
So, yes... if the choice is between using this specific image, and the section having no image, I would argue that the section should have no image. Nothing says every section in an article has to have an image. Of course the best outcome would be to find an image that does have some direct relevancy to the text (I don't know if this is possible, but the ideal would be non-copyright image of Troy McLure). Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not possible. Well, this is clearly a matter of opinion. As I've said, it is just decoration, but as it's free-use I think it's just a personal opinion whether it should be included. I think it has enough relevancy, but there we go. Gran2 06:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the nub of it. It is an editorial choice, not a policy or guideline issue. I suppose it comes down to this... you seem to focus on whether the photo harms the article, while I focus on whether it benefits the article. I don't think it does. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose you're right about it not strictly benefitting it. It is just decoration. But I do think it would harm the article if there wasn't any image in the section. Perhaps an image of Bill Oakley? I really don't want another fair-use image of Hartman himself. Gran2 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would it harm the article to not have an image in the section?
FYI - I have posted a request for outside opinions at the Village Pump... (see: here). Perhaps someone there will have a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never encountered the idea that every section of an article needs an image. If the choice is between no image and an irrelevant one, no image makes more sense to me. The guideline at Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature says, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic." Of course it would be nice to have scads of high quality free use images to choose from for each article, but from the limited supply we have we should choose only those that belong. Ntsimp (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I've never encountered the idea that every section of an article needs an image." Neither have I, and you have not done that here. I want an image, I'd rather there was one, but is not needed. However, my point is that it is relevant enough. Gran2 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that puts us back to asking how this photo is relevant to to topic Phil Hartman? Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read through all of this, and took a look at the article itself... Thinking about it, I can see both sides, but I'm leaning towards agreement with Blueboar here (for what that's worth). There isn't actually anything wrong with either including or excluding the image, but... the fact that Mr. Hartman doesn't appear in the image at all seems convincing to me. Yes, he was in the movie, and so that's a valid topic to illustrate, but the picture being used just doesn't convey the right message. Isn't there anything else from the movie that could be used as a compromise? A title card, or something?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the photo in question isn't even connected to the movie. It is a shot of Sinbad at a charity event. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Blueboar here. The photo is just confusing, even if the caption says it's not Hartman. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, given the outside opinions, I am going to again remove the image. Let's look for something more appropriate to use. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current image of Sinbad doesn't make sense. I think Ohms law makes a good suggestion in trying to find another related image. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Well I still disagree, but I guess the "majority" has spoken. I can think of no possible replacement. The article already has two fair-use images, that is enough... Gran2 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, it seems that I am too late to give an opinion, the photo is gone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical photo

Why, exactly, is the main illustration for this biographical article a picture of the actor in-character from a production in the 1970s, looking nothing at all like he looked in the vast majority of his media appearances? Ford MF (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the only free-use image of him in existence. Gran2 15:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hartman is dead, so any image (free or not) is acceptable if it's meant for representing this article. Just put a non-free media criteria box on the picture. Personally, I like the piscture. It looks cool. Dpm12, 8:36 AM (PDT) 8 October 2012

Odd nomenclature

Everyone else is referred to by their surname so why is Brynn Omdahl referred to throughout as 'Brynn'? It reads really oddly. Is this an MoS thing? 86.133.48.120 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because when she married Phil she took the surname Hartman, thus, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Family members with the same surname she should be referred to as "Brynn" because Phil is referred to as "Hartman". I mean, sure, we could put "she took the name Hartman after marriage", but is that really necessary? Gran2 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Let's end the legacy section on a better note than an unrealized promise of honour. I suggest we re-order Hartman's unrealized honour, and if that's too awkward, let's remove the optimistic expectation of it.Nailles (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the end because it's the most recent thing. I don't really see a problem with it. What is your suggested re-wroding? Gran2 08:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest removal, a failed attempt at recognition shouldn't qualify under the Legacy header. If he is recognized someday, we can include it then.
Nailles (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but, the fact that it has thus far failed doesn't matter: it achieved notability through press coverage and therefore should be mentioned. Why should something only be mentioned if it is a success? Gran2 10:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is different than legacy. Notability means it's something worth including, but because it's worth including, that doesn't necessarily mean it would fall under the classification of legacy. If it failed, it's not a part of his legacy.
Nailles (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is part of his legacy that people are trying to do it, that there is a campaign to get him recognition. The article merely states that the attempts have thus far failed but will likely succeed in the future. Gran2 15:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I disagree for the reasons I've already outlined above. Failure is not a kind of success, even when it reveals supporters. After all, there might have been more supporters for the other candidates, did Hartman have a minority support as compared to other candidates? We don't know, but we know he did not have the support of those that make the decision. I think it's very straight forward that this wouldn't qualify as a legacy. If he is recognized someday, we can include it then.
Nailles (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign was not limited to 2010 and is still ongoing; I guess the article does not make that clear. My point is that there is a campaign, which has achieved press recognition and family support; the result thus far is not really the issue or main point. How about changing it to "A campaign was started in 2010 on Facebook by Alex Stevens and endorsed by Hartman's brother Paul to have Hartman inducted to Canada's Walk of Fame". If not, I suggest you request a third opinion to resolve this impasse. Gran2 17:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I would include in the wording the campaign is ongoing, but the re-write is yours. Unless you're not interested, I've give you the edit.
Nailles (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album Cover examples

I replaced the picture of the band Poco with an album cover designed by Phil Hartman. I felt that the article should include at least one example of his graphic design work. However, I chose the specific example almost at random. It was just the first one I could find. It was the cover for the album Legend. If you think there is a better example then feel free to add it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, but I've reverted your edit per WP:NFCC#8. The image is copyrighted so can only be used if it is totally necessary to the reader's understanding of the article, which in this case it is not. Anybody who wanted to see one of the album covers could simply click on the link to the article. Gran2 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Né" vs "born"

The term "née" is specifically used to refer to a woman's maiden name. If Phil Hartman had married a man and changed his last name, I could see using the masculine form "né," despite the fact that it really isn't being used that way in today's English. Since this was not the case, and Phil Hartman merely changed his last name, I think the epithet "born" would be more appropriate here. Shiggity (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. For example, John Denver was born Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr., but changed his name and the article didn't use the word "ne" in there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me. Gran2 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phil Hartman. 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) 01:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Hartman. 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) 23:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phil Hartman. 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) 18:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria

The Filmography section is almost unsourced. Needs references to continue to remain a featured article. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources for as MANY as I could find. LM150 18:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circular link Brynn

Why does the link for Hartman's wife point back to this page? TAPwiki (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burial

The article claims that Hartman's ashes were scattered, referencing two news sources stating that the request was written in his will. However, both Brynn and Phil Hartman appear to be interred in a family plot in Greenwood Cemetery located in Thief River Falls, Minnesota (Brynn's hometown). Details on the grave are available at https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/3021/phil-hartman

I have not found any other information as to whether Phil is actually buried in the grave marked with his name or if his request to be cremated was fulfilled.

spleebo 00:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spleebo (talk • contribs)

  • Findagrave lists his grave as a cenotaph, implying that he isn't buried there, ashes or otherwise. Suppafly (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Hartman&oldid=1060125801

Leave a Reply