Talk:Danny Elfman

Can someone get a better photo of Danny Elfman?

The current (2022) photo for Danny Elfman might be the worst picture of him ever taken, his shirts unbuttoned, his hair looks absolutely awful, his skin looks dry, etc. for such a legendary composer this is such a crusty photo.

Besides that though, his look has changed since when the photo was taken; Danny Elfman as of 2025 has longer hair in the front and has more tattoos (though I suppose you wouldn't see that in a headshot anyways). The point is still does anyone have or can anyone take a better photo of Mr. Elfman ~2025-37620-67 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Despite your opinion of how he looks, this is him making an official public appearance at an event. So he must be fine with his look (at the time). --ZimZalaBim^talk 18:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

yeah, I don't think Danny cares that much; he enjoys looking freakish.

But this is the worst photo of Danny ever taken lol ~2025-39567-48 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2025 (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)

@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)

"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)

It's pretty obvious that Elfman's PR team "sanitized" this article, removing one of his accusers entirely and adding a paragraph intended to cast doubt on his first accuser. Wikipedia should not allow this. Fielding99 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 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. 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)

Be that as it may, The article has testimony from lots of sources; has anyone come out to denounce/deny it? Otherwise, it has too much information to simply leave out. Shastasaus (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

it's Time to Move on from these False Allegations on Mr Elfman, he did Nothing Wrong, this news is Now Old, so we're moving on, they are Officially Buried! ~2025-33704-67 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Air Mail source info

The section is repeatedly being expanded with content about Abadi's ex-boyfriend getting involved, cited from a single source which is a tabloid style in-flight magazine called Air Mail. This doubles the length of the section even though it was already balanced before. This dubious info adds no relevant facts, it is just 'he said she said' gossip reported by a single source. Looking at Air Mail's site it seems pretty clear it's not serious journalism. I've tried remove this added content multiple times but it keeps being added back. I believe it doesn't add any extra balance or reliable info. Can a decision be made?--Detachio (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV biographies of living people with ongoign controversies should present both allegations and the defense in a balanced manner when available. The disputed sentences provide context to the lawsuit with journalistic verification. Removing this section while keeping the allegations would violate WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE by presenting only one side of the dispute. Not to mention Rolling Stone magazine is a similar-tier source. If you want to make the case for trimming it, I would concede that point, but outright removal seems coutner-productive. Uhtregorn (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes of course, but the defence is already stated in the original paragraph simply by saying "Elfman denies these allegations" after stating the allegation. The added section is really just 'he said, she said' tabloid style claims from someone not involved with Danny Elfman's case and not adding any facts to the Danny Elfman case. I argue it doesn't add any extra balance and only expands the section on the allegations, drawing more attention to it and confusing the facts.Detachio (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The boyfriend's observations are much less appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have removed the text again per WP:ONUS, as no consensus has formed for the inclusion of this disputed text. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2026

Please add the following information to the "Appearances in film and television" section or another appropriate section:

On January 18, 2025, Elfman made his first appearance on Saturday Night Live, performing drums with A$AP Rocky during the song "Punk Rocky". Bassist Thundercat also performed. The appearance marked Elfman's SNL debut despite his decades-long career in music, as Oingo Boingo had primarily been a West Coast act and never received an invitation to appear on the show. Matt Brosky (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Le Grand Magic Circus

I wouldn't call le Grand Magic Circus as avant-garde, it mostly was entertainment. ~2026-98007-2 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)