Talk:Danny Elfman

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)

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)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Second this. There were two separate lawsuits covered by multiple sources. Find some sources and put those paragraphs back. No reason this shouldn't be included 205.186.52.207 (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree that this needs an RFC, pronto. I was one of the people who contributed sourced information to that section, including the dismissal of one of the cases, and I find it troubling that the entire section was just unceremoniously wiped. I understand WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS is an issue, but those refs could have been flagged with a "better source needed" tag, or could have been removed entirely and substituted with a "cite needed" tag. It appears that an anonymous IP tried to add a truncated version of the info recently but was reverted due to a "copyright issue" with the Entertainment Weekly article? That doesn't even make sense. Unless this information presents a valid conflict with WP:BLP or something, it should be re-added, but probably pared down and without the problematic sources. The Keymaster (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I am assuming the last removal due to WP:COPYVIO is because the editor had most likely plagiarized the info from Entertainment Weekly. The edit is not visible in the edit history, which is why I was puzzled at first. The Keymaster (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Attempt for new discussion that doesn't include the Rolling Stones as a source

I created the following paragarph to try to summarize the issues not using Rolling Stones as a source. Happy to work with others on this further to address the issues cited above. Remember (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Composer Nomi Abadi has alleged that Elfman had been involved in multiple instances of sexual harassment and misconduct with her that took place from 2015 to 2016. Elfman has denied these claims. Reportedly these allegations resulted in Elfman and Abadi agreeing to a non-public settlement and nondisclosure agreement with Elfman that would have allegedly paid Abadi $830,000. Abadi alleged that Elfman defamed her in statements he made to Rolling Stone in 2023 regarding this matter and has sued for the full settlement of $830,000.

This looks good to me, but I've been advised that this matter should be taken to WP:BLPN, so I'll post about it there first. I'd hate for you to add all of that just to have it reverted. I'm also wondering if the second allegation should be mentioned as well, or if it's essentially been rendered irrelevant because of the case's dismissal. The Keymaster (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. Just trying to help out. Remember (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The lawsuit easily meets WP:PUBLICFIGURE.[1][2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Concur. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would agree. So should we add Remember's truncated version of the information, using these four sources as refs? The Keymaster (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think its fine FMSky (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Great. Remember, would you like to add it, or should I? I think I would also like to add a brief mention of the second dismissed lawsuit, which I think would also bring a little more balance to that section. The Keymaster (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy for you to add. I’m tied up for a bit. Remember (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Addition looks good to me and the second dismissed lawsuit also looks good. Not saying this can't be revised further. Just that it looks good for right now. Remember (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I ended up tweaking your edit just a tad before adding it. I meant to mention that before adding it but I forgot. I was just thinking how best to briefly cover all facets of the case while also trying to maintain neutrality, to help prevent it from being removed again. Thank you for doing the legwork there. The Keymaster (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. You did great. I thought my summary was a little clunky anyway. Remember (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Has this section been edited further past this? There are 2 seperate cases against him, one named and he settled and another with a Jane Doe that was dismissed which is the second paragraph and cites a random in flight article written by a journalist who i think is anti Me Too.

Im incredibly suspicious at this paragraph seemingly insinuating Naomi's case was dismissed which it wasn't. Very suspicious. 2401:D002:8305:4700:6916:C243:947E:CFAE (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems an editor removed all of the information about the Jane Doe case in March on the grounds that the case was dismissed. A second editor added the second paragraph with the "updated" information about Abadi in April. It seems a little sketchy and I think that section could be improved. The Keymaster (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, looking at the page for Air Mail, it seems the accuracy of their reporting has been called into question at least once. The Keymaster (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)