Talk:Bill Paxton/Archive 1

Co-workers
Maybe this article should mention he often works with James Cameron.


 * Also Schwarzeneggar. He was in The Terminator, Commando and several others in small roles before being a supporting character in True Lies and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.138.181 (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He is not listed as an actor in Frailty (2002) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.252.198 (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture
Maybe we should get a picture of this guy since everyone knows the name but not what he looks like. In fact he's so forgettable that Family Guy had a joke with him regarding the confusion of him with Bill Pullman. I am among those many people who isn't sure which one is which. In fact I even remember once a radio show even said something to the effect of "This movie has Bill Paxton or Bill Pullman, not sure which one. Just one of those Bill P's that seems to be in a tonne of movies and nobody is sure who he is." Abrynkus 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed in many finctional films his characters name is also Bill (Big Love, Twister, probably alot more). Does he prefer to act under his real name, or is this just a coincidence i picked up?
 * IMDb finds four instances where his character has been named Bill. It's probably a coincidence concidering that Bill is a very common first name. Jafeluv (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
Second marriage The text of the article claims that he married his second wife in 1985, but the infobox claims 1987. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 10:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John Paxton
According to IMDB, Bill's father John played (the Osborne's) Houseman in Spiderman 3. -- Evertype·✆ 13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Futureshock link
In the filmography a 1994 film (/TV show?), Future Shock, is listed. This links to a Wiki articul about a book 'written in 1970'. There is a articule for a 1972 short documentary film, based on the book. I don't know where it should really point to, though I think not the book. Before I remove it, does anyone know where to link it? Dannman (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

personal life section?
There used to be a personal life section. When was it removed, and why?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pinball
I feel there should be a reference to his fan made pinball machine. 70.178.90.75 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Near Dark
Article body doesn't even mention some of his most notable performances, such as Near Dark, for instance. Laval (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What? No Martini Ranch?
Bill Paxton was half of the band "Martini Ranch". They had two popular MTV music videos, "How Can The Labouring Man, Find Time For Self Culture?" & "Reach", as well as a popular album, "Holy Cow!". They were aided and abetted by folks like Alan Myers + Mark & Bob Mothersbaugh ( of Devo ), Bud Cort ( the actor ), and Cindy Wilson ( of the B52's ) , among others. Somewhere this should be noted on THIS entry. ( Martini Ranch do have their own Wikipedia entry. ) 75.104.163.86 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Why is there a Daily Mail citation? I thought it was decided not to use the Daily Mail, and anyway, there are two other citations for the exact piece of information. -A la d  insane   (Channel 2)  17:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Posthumous"
"Posthumous" is being readded despite more than one editor removing it. I feel the addition is premature as we don't know if the film will be released at all at this point. Have removed per WP:CRYSTAL and am starting this discussion for other input per WP:BRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * How is adding Posthumous release to The Circle so contested? It's a film role (his last one at that) that's coming out after he died. Regardless if they delay it, it'll still release after he died. It's not speculative of me to add Posthumous. you're making an argument that they'll for some reason cancel the film within a months time that is baseless. There's been no indication the film is in danger of never getting a release, so it's speculative of you to assume so. Rusted AutoParts 17:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And I also don't like how you're following me over to other pages to revert my edits. I bring this up here since it seems I'm no longer welcome on your talk page since I get reverted anytime I say something there. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to chime in here? It's ridiculous as is we have to discuss whether or not the final film he worked on before dying counts as a posthumous release, it's more frustrating when no one else discusses. Rusted AutoParts 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with RustedAutoParts. There is no reason to believe that the film will be cancelled. That's just speculations. DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TMZ
I think the TMZ source should stay because they were the first ones who reported that Paxton died. They were also the first source that reported Prince's death too. DBZFan30 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * TMZ is not a reliable source and cannot be included no matter who first reported the story on Paxton's death. TMZ's unreliability has been discussed for years in Wikipedia.  Some of examples of past discussions stating such are found as far back as this and this.  I know there are other examples available in the archives of various noticeboards.  You can search them, if you'd like.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're citing 8-10 year old discussions there. Times change and in regards to news such as deaths TMZ have tended to be the breaking news site and contain the necessary info in regards to the death (COD, DOD, wherenit happened). I've seen TMZ cited by numerous reliable sources. Yes they're mainly gossip but news like this I feel we should use TMZ for. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. In order to demonstrate that TMZ has long been considered an unreliable source, it's not a new development.  There are more recent discussions that state the same and come to the same conclusion.  You can take it up at the BLP and/or RS noticeboards if you'd like, but I'm relatively certain you will get the same answer: TMZ is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.  The other thing you might want to keep in mind is we're not here to "scoop" anyone: Wikipedia is not a news source that posts "breaking news", it is an encyclopedia.  Everything in a BLP needs to be sourced properly - and if he actually had a stroke, then it will come out in a reliable source eventually (at which time, we can put it in the article).  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess that's why TMZ always puts humor into their stories when they're shown on their TV show. I don't think they would ever joke about Paxton or Prince dying though. DBZFan30 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Still not the point. TMZ is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.  This has been long-standing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It has also been a long-standing practice that TMZ has been used as a source at the Deaths in 20XX page. BurienBomber (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Us Weekly reference said he had a stroke after heart surgery. That's not reliable?UConnHusky7 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please keep these discussions on one page, preferably here. No, not a reliable source when they are using TMZ (a decidedly unreliable source) for their source.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  19:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If TMZ shouldn't be considered as a reliable source then there would be a hell of a lots of deaths that shall not be included on wikipedia including Bill Paxton's since most of the newspapers that reports about the death take their info from TMZ. DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Checked out Us Weekly, they do indeed cite TMZ, which has the stroke info listed as an update-- TMZ's reporting can be somewhat checkered in its content, writing, etc...it certainly isn't difficult to believe their people were lurking at the hospital, in an attempt to find a source that hadn't any qualms about giving out private, HIPAA protected info.It may be best to wait until other information is available to corroborate TMZ's report vs posting it based on Us Weekly's article that just link's to TMZ. Technically that wouldn't really count as corroboration. (love how the family's request for privacy was respected).--BrattySoul 69.249.125.97 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017
In the first paragraph of Career section, Paxton's name is spelled "Plaxton". Please remove the "l". JWHeck (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done @JWHeck: Thank you for pointing this out. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Image
Could someone find a new image of Paxton. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.253.13 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * His passing at so young an age, made me think of another one we lost.. years ago, years before. A fine actor, w/ great comedic timing: Bruno Kirby. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:B04D:F58D:1325:5145 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Date of Death Conflicitng Statements
The infobox has Paxton's date of death as February 25th, while the article has it as February 26th. Should we change the Infobox to February 26th?

Alexf505 (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He died the 25th. The death wasn't announced until the 26th. Article reflects this. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 07:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The New York Times, which is known for its fact-checking, is careful to say "His death, from complications of surgery, was announced on Sunday by a family representative. The statement did not say when or where Mr. Paxton died, but Rolling Stone reported that he died on Saturday." Rolling Stone seems to have gotten its information from TMZ – see above.  The TMZ report says "We're told the actor died suddenly Saturday..." but doesn't say who told them this and mainly seems to rest upon the family statement.  I reckon that, like the NYT, we should qualify details of the death and its date until they are confirmed by reliable sources. Andrew D. (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

PeterMan844 (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sad news. He was a great actor. :(

"Stroke"
So far, no major news agencies are reporting Paxton's cause of death as stroke. TMZ said "stroke" the day after his death, and other questionable and unreliable sources followed suit, originally stating it was from TMZ where they got that information. At this point, I think that until the family releases a statement stating it was a stroke and/or the coroner's report states it was a stroke, we should keep that diagnosis out of the article. This has happened previously with other articles on celebrity deaths, and I see no reason why we should not do the same here. There is no deadline in Wikipedia, after all. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Spin off list for Director jobs?
I propose that we spin-off Paxton's director jobs into a short separate list under 'Filmography'. Basically it would look like something this (under a 'As director' subhead):


 * Fish Heads (1980) (music video)
 * Frailty (2001)
 * The Greatest Game Ever Played (2005)
 * Tattoo (2011) (short film)

The advantage is that this would emphasize Paxton's directing, and would eliminate the awkwardness of including the The Greatest Game Ever Played in the Filmography table when Paxton had no acting role in that film. Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Career
Mr. Paxton's early film career also included a supporting role (as Cadet Major Gilbreath) in The Lords of Discipline (film) (1983). He worked with The Terminator co-star Michael Biehn in this film as well.

First it claims "Paxton has the distinction of being one of only two actors (along with Lance Henriksen) who has starred alongside an Alien (as Private Hudson in Aliens), a Predator (as Jerry Lambert in Predator 2), and a Terminator (as the punk leader in The Terminator). He holds a distinct honor of being the only actor to have been "killed" by all three, however, as each of his characters in these films meets his end during conflict with the lead antagonists."

He was not killed by the Terminator in the first movie. He was only shoved backwards and knocked unconscious. Only the punk that got his heart ripped out died in that scene. This is a common misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.47.203 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you see on screen, what we KNOW of terminators, particularly that one, is that they kill, kill, kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.83.232 (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We also know that the machines focus on their missions and ignore everything else. He took the clothes and left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.157.13 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His leading role in the 1983 film 'Taking Tiger Mountain' should be listed in the Filmography section.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.39.36 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the TV miniseries "Texas Rising" where Bill starred as General Sam Huston? By RAKruth — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAKruth (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC
Which image should be in the infobox? Choice #3 is the current infobox photo; #2 had briefly replaced #3 but was reverted out twice; #1 is from 2014 and has not been in the article or infobox previously. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Choice #1

 * Support as first choice. Cleaner photo, more flattering to the article subject, looks like an infobox photo/portrait to me.  #4 is as bad as #3 because of the lighting but is actually worse because of the weird smirk captured in that second the photo was taken.  Is not a characteristic look of Paxton's, which makes it an even poorer choice than 2 and 3.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as first choice. #2 is my second. #3 is awful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The way the background was painted out in #2 makes it look like crap. The colour in #3 makes it look like crap. That being said, there is some appeal for having a picture from his last "in character" presentation from Training Day but only an entirely different picture could get me to favour it over this one that is more genteel. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 07:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as first choice for better framing, decent lighting. #3 and #4 show poor lighting, and #2 looks edited.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Choice #2

 * Support as second choice. A definite improvement over the original upload (#3) - heavy shadowing removed, microphone blurred - making it less intrusive.  Works as an infobox portrait, but not as well as Choice #1. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  04:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Choice #4

 * Support Added a new option, and support this one as the lead photo due to the 1 and 2 photo being heavily edited and misrepresenting the appearance of the subject. Calibrador (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
What's wrong with this one? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 02:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It really is better to have an infobox photo without any obstruction in front of the face. This one, like the one I edited to get rid of the darkness and heavy shadowing (in which I did NOT add color to it, by the way, in spite of the unfounded accusation by the photographer, Calibrador), has a microphone in his face.  Which is why I blurred it out in the version I edited.  If you look at MOS for photos - especially infobox photos - there are things which are discouraged.  Obstructions are, if I recall correctly, one of them.  Aside from the MOS, it's just distracting and not the best we can do.  The heavy shadowing and poor coloring/lighting in the one you just put up is also not the best we can do. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That is hardly an obstruction, it's not in front of his face, it's below his chin, seems a little "Nit-Picky". This image is fine for the infobox in my opinion.  -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Infobox photos are best when they look more like portraits. If it were not so, we would use Flickr and photos taken by amateur photographer all day for people like the president, other actors and celebrities, politicians, authors, musicians, and so on rather than professional photos and official U.S. Government photos we have permission to use.  A microphone in front of the face is not preferable.  Anything in front of the face is not preferable.  If we have a photo that is better, fairly recent, portrays them in a familiar light and doesn't have something in front of or near the face of the article subject that detracts or distracts, we should use it.  Back to specific problems with this photo: Too dark, can't see his eyes, microphone is distracting, focus could be sharper.  We can do better, I think.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has stalled, consensus is obviously for choice #1. Closing. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 11:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Television
Paxton was guest host for Saturday Night Live January 9, 1999. Cast includes Will Ferrell, Ana Gasteyer and Jimmy Fallon. Musical Guest Beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:39C5:DC60:81D1:3E91:A038:A8B6 (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Retouched image
I've made a new version of the infobox image, which I reworked from the original. I've removed some of the background elements as well as his hands as I thought they were distracting, and I restored some of the facial tone and colour. Since my upload was reverted by User:Winkelvi I have re-uploaded it as a derivative, and thought I'd better post it here rather than editing the article and stepping on anyone's toes. I didn't realize there had been a vote on which infobox image to use either. I'll leave it to the regular contributors to decide whether to use the new image or not.  nagual  design   00:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since it has been over a week and there has been no discussion, let alone any decision making, I'm going to boldly edit the article. It would have been much simpler to have simply allowed the edit I made to the image. If anybody disagrees with the edit I am about to make, please discuss it here. Thanks.  nagual  design   02:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Emmys
That was in 2012 when he was nominated for an Emmy for Hatfields & McCoys, the mini-series first aired in May of that year which made it eligible for the year 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re page move
Please see Talk:Bill Paxton for an after the fact discussion regarding the page move to this title. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2017
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. ~ GB fan 16:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Bill Paxton (actor) → Bill Paxton – Too many incoming links to change for the actor, this is usually handled with a hatnote for the less noted person when there are only two with the same name. RAN (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The actor is the far notable of the two. See Michael Moore as an example of this. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 16:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unmove- this messes up all the links, and Bill Paxton (actor) is definitely the primary topic. Doing this unilaterally was particularly ill-advised, and done by a very experienced editor. This is a mess for now ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  16:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Move back to Bill Paxton, as this was an undiscussed move. The only other Bill Paxton on WP is this one, and there's no need to move this one to create a disambig page.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Move back. I'm not sure what the basis for calling Simsong a "very experienced editor" is as they only have 366 edits as of now, but it was not properly moved regardless, and I doubt a discussion would lead to such a move.  The article about the computer scientist is currently only supported with primary sources, leaving aside the fact that the actor is more prominent. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

bill paxton
don't know the year but Bill Paxton was in the tv show American Diggers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:92FD:BF00:E03C:99E0:4F76:B7B7 (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Forest Lawn?
The article notes that Bill Paxton is buried at Forest Lawn. In fairness, the article should address whether anyone sang the song "Forest Lawn" by Paxton the folk musician in association with the funeral, or whether any of the aspirations in that song were met in the actual ceremony. Phytism (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Unless reliable sources show the song WAS sung in association with his funeral, there is no reason to mention it at all, true or not. I doubt anyone is willing to dig very hard for such trivia just to satisfy one person’s curiosity. I don’t even think Paxton the singer is related to William. Since it’s clearly you who is curious if these two are related in some way (I’m assuming you must be, else you wouldn’t have brought this up), “in fairness” you could do some research, find some reliable sources, and if your speculation turns out to be true, sourced, and can be cited, add it to the article. If you can edit a talk page, you can edit an article. If it is true, it IS certainly worthy of adding. 2601:180:10A:D3A9:E015:8DDE:9F18:F4B7 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Plantiff Charges
I would find out who was allowed to speak to the Funeral home on the Family's behalf. I would think the wife only would be making decisions at that time. If so, I would most definitely be sueing the Funeral home and everyone involved in the first surgery.

Hard to believe it's been 5 years already. Probably 5 years of good movies we missed. 😔

Jamie 208.114.92.192 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

A Bright Shining Lie
Why is there no reference to Bill Paxton's role in the HBO movie "A Bright Shining Lie"? 12.105.209.196 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)