Talk:Phil Hartman/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled thread

The case is in the books as an "unsolved case" because the killer was never brought to justice as she killed herself, therefore eliminating all hope of completely investigating the case. Therefore questions surrounding the case remain unsolved. So even though we know who did it, the circumstances behind Hartman's murder will never be known. The category of "Unsolved Murders" is hereby reinstated.

You and OJ can join forces to find 'the real killer'!

What are you saying? That all murders in which the murderer is killed are unsolved - and unsolvable? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if that's what you believe, then you're crazy. Mirror Vax 22:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea that this case is "Unsolved" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Brynn Hartman KILLED Phil Hartman. CASE SOLVED. 17:45, 30 June 2005

I believe the whole point of the original message was to point out that there isn't just the Killer and the Victim in any case of murder: you must also take in consideration a) the circumstances and b) the ultimate cause (the second partially resulting from the first, obviously enough). The truth is that, ultimately, it is impossible to determine a perfectly explicit, and rationably acceptable reason for the occurence, for the fact that there were no witnesses, and both of those involved have been eliminated. So personally, I see a reasonable (though not ideal) reasoning behind the classification of the case as an "Unsolved Murder", though ultimately, it doesn't make much of a difference classification-wise, what with it not being a particularly explicit example. Still, to sum um what was said as "the stupidest thing [one has] ever seen" seems somewhat counterproductive to the construction of a proper article. Anyway, moving on. Zeppocity 17:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I just got an email from Butch Hartman stating:

"I am NOT PHil Hartman's brother. That's a rumor that is incorrect.

Thanks -

Butch Hartman"

All I did was go to his website and ask.

goto Butch Hartman's imdb page for resolution--Muchosucko 1 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

I have seen A LOT of false information on imdb.com. It's not that hard to add incorrect data. --Methelfilms 1 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

If this is true, then the Butch Hartman article needs a major overhaul. As it stands right now, IMDb is conflicting itself and the diff between the two articles imply that both Phil and Butch Harman were born from the same parents: Rupert Hartmann and Doris Hartmann. Would you mind including this email you received, complete with headers, here on the talk page? Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

This is the entire email I got from Mr. Hartman. I am blanking out the email addresses, because I don't think they should be public. Methelfilms 1 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Subj: Re: Question

Date: 6/30/2005 11:30:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: XXX@XXX.XXX

To: XXX@XXX.XXX

Sent from the Internet (Details)

I am NOT PHil Hartman's brother. That's a rumor that is incorrect.

Thanks -

Butch Hartman

XXX@XXX wrote: There is a rumor going around that you are the late Phil Hartman's brother. I'm correcting an encyclopedic entry for him, and if you could confirm or deny this, that would be wonderful,

Thanks!

Murder suicide

Near the bottom, it refers to Hartman's death as a "murder/suicide", while there is an article on the correct term, murder suicide. Should this be changed? ShadowMan1od 19:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Thanks for pointing that out methelfilms 05:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra

Should it be added in the Trivia section that Hartman died exactly two weeks after Frank Sinatra (whom he impersonated) died?

Definitely not. --Evildevil 18:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the coincidence. Even if they died on the same day, it would hardly be a coincidence. Phil Hartman played alot of characters. Taco325i 03:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Education

It lists him as an alumni in the Wikipedia's Cal State Northridge entry, but when I added it into his biography it was rejected on the grounds that it was original research.

Being listed in another Wikipedia entry is generally not acceptable under Wikipedia:Verifiability, nor should it be. If you would, please WP:CITE a verifiable external source for this information, as we've had problems with facts related to this article in the past. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone also list some resources as to Phil's education at Redondo Union High School that prove that the school is where he went?

Phil Hartman went to Westchester High School (go comets!). There is documentation linked in the WHS article. -nj 8 August, 2008

photo in infobox

There was a headshot in the infobox before that looked much better there, does anybody know what happened to it? Registered User 92

artwork photos

the photos of his album cover artwork are all hosted on different sites. shouldn't these images be transfered to the wikipedia servers, incase those sites move/rename the files?

surely it can't be because of copyrights. low-resolution images are legal for album covers, I believe. I'm not positive however, so I'll leave it for someone more informed.

Merely placing these images in this article does not fall under fair use. They would be better suited for articles about the individual albums. While we're on the subject, Phil Hartman is not named anywhere in the credits for Aja. The art direction is credited to "Oz Studios." If Oz and Phil hartman are one and the same, then perhaps someone can cite a reference to that effect. But in the meantime, in absence of this I'm removing Aja from the list. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Other works in progress when he died...

Along with the other mentions of projects that Phil was planned to be involved in before his death, should "3rd Rock From the Sun" be listed? He appeared in the season cliffhanger that year, and when Phil died, I believe they had to completely rewrite the next episode, now that his character could not appear.

66.218.28.46 05:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

too much personal info?

should this article really contain info such as the amount and timing of insurance/wrongful-death settlements to Hartman's children? and what they were found wearing? 128.12.165.8 20:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think so. The wrongful death suit is particularly notable, detailing as it does what ultimately happened to his family. I think it's entirely within the scope of the article. 81.110.14.145 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Futurama voices

I thought he was only supposed to do Zapp Brannigan's voice. Does anyone have some sources on the voices he was intended to play? 199.126.137.209 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

At a glance, it looks like just about the entire account of Hartman's death has been copied verbatim from Hartman's Rotten Library entry. Just a thought. G-my 08:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for editing this talk point here but I can't seem to find my way to creating a new bullet point. Anyway, re: my recent edit. It's a bit vague saying that "the drug did not do this", especially given the relative paucity of primae faciae (spelling, possibly. Sorry...) evidence on this, and the available documented (alleged) links between SSRI compounds (aka selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) and suicidal tendencies/mental instability....So I just added the odd "was found". I think it's more accurate like this

Cheers

Martin Munnery (cnutheadAThotmail.com

Brynn Last Name

Minor point, just wanted to clarify - I added Brynn's last name to the death section because, when looking at that section alone, it is not clear that she is his wife. I added a link to that section from the Lionel Hutz article and thought the section should have that small addition to make it clear immediately. Cheers...

Wileycount 08:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)wileycount

BLP concerns

I've removed a claim sourced to a gossip column. Such sources are not acceptable for making or repeating potentially defamatory claims against a living person. Please make sure that any claims that may be contentious are referenced to the highest quality sources. Vassyana 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like it's a blog or something. It's an interview with an actor who says its true and I think it's worth noting that a friend of Phil Hartman blames Andy Dick. Either way, I've removed any names from the sentence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is "blog or something". It's a gossip column. It's not an interview that was published with full editorial oversight. It's a gossip column. This change is not really any better, because the article still cites an unreliable source.[1] Vassyana 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that? I mean yeah, it probably isn't the most reliable thing in the world, but Lovitz told them what happened, its not like there saying "Jon Lovitz reportedly said blah blah blah," he told them. There's a difference. Gran² 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Use some sense. It's a gossip column. If the claim is credible, it should be repeated in a reliable source. Vassyana 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, as you seem determined to not find one yourself... [2] [3] [4] (recording of Lovitz talking about the whole thing on Larry King) Of course with the last one you'd have to cite the show itself, not the Youtube video, but there you go. Gran² 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

review

I came to this page via the biography portal "biographies needing attention" site. The article reads pretty cleanly now. I agree with Vassyana above that gossip magazine sources are just that, gossip. I'm unsure of where Larry King Live falls? One option is to say something like, "Friends believed that Brynn's reintroduction to cocaine contributed to her downward spiral," but this sentence assumes a lot of things as fact (i.e., she was on cocaine previously, she got back on it). Again, I don't know if Larry King Live counts as a news source or as a celebrity tv show. Feedback welcome, Renee --Renee 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

I threw out the bit about the children and where they live and who raises them. There is no real reason why people would like to or should know that IMO, apart from sensationalism. I just left the info that relatives from Minnesota are raising them. Everything beyond that is like spying, and since the children or the relatives are of no public interest whatsoever, leaving it in the former state would just be plain wrong. All the stuff about the murder could also be shortened down quite a bit, it reads as if it were out of some yellow press rag or something. Freely accessible information is all well, but there are such things as tact and taste. - Andi, 30.11.2007

Of course, now that you said this, it's easy to go to History and find that information. CapnZapp (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Blasto

There should probably be a mention in here that Blasto (video game) was one of the last things Hartman did voice acting on the game in fact was released less than a week after his murder. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The current image of Sinbad doesn't make sense. I think Ohms law makes a good suggestion in trying to find another related image. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...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)

So, it seems that I am too late to give an opinion, the photo is gone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Feel free to cut them down. Gran² 23:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Doing. :) Cirt (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nice work overall. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Because it's the only free-use image of him in existence. Gran² 15:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

No objections from me. Gran² 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126154319/http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/Artists/H/Hartman_Phil/1996/12/01/758979.html to http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/Artists/H/Hartman_Phil/1996/12/01/758979.html

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)

Circular link Brynn

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

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)

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