Talk:Jeffrey Jones

Crucible
I think the Crucible ought to be listed in the filmography section. Should a table be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.54.202 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off
I had to highlight Principal Rooney. It is a classic. 27 Jan 05

Hacking
"It was later revealed on a European news program that Jones' computer was hacked in an elaborate extortion scheme. Hackers exploited Jones' love for online poker and reportedly uploaded various materials including bomb making, tips for committing credit fraud, and pornography. Whether this revelation will affect his standing in the U.S. criminal justice system remains to be seen." I removed this part. A search of all major European print sources turns up nothin on Jones after July 2003. This can't be verified. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot image
The image that I uploaded (I'm spliph on the article history) was taken from the IMDB and is a screenshot, protected for use, labelled with the following:

This definition can be found on the Image copyright tags page, and is considered fair use as film screenshots are allowed, one per article.
 * As the image is being used as information on how Mr Jones looks like, and not for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents, we can't claim fair use here. --Abu Badali 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we could get a better picture?
I uploaded a screenshot from Beetlejuice to replace the mug shot, which may not even have the right licensing information (I'm pretty sure he was arrested in Florida court, not federal court). Sure, he's kind of a funny-looking guy, but there's no reason to make his only photo an unflattering mugshot. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As Mugshot explains, mugshots form part of a legal document. Legal documents and public records created by state and local government agencies are public domain. The photo was taken by an official of the Sarasota, Florida police department, which falls under the umbrella of "state and local government agencies". So, the image is free. Once that's established, you can't really justify replacing it with a non-free fair use image (with a faulty rationale at that, since it wasn't being used to illustrate the film), regardless of whether its "prettier" or not. GeeJo  (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because the image is "free" does not make it appropriate. It is biased. It is not NPOV. It should go, and I will remove it unless it can be shown why it should stay. Jake b 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'd put it up with the caption "Jeffrey Jones, noted baby-eater and all round evil guy" it would be, but I disagree heartily that putting the only free image we have of the guy in an article in place of a fair use one is biased or POV. However, I'll accept that the image really isn't that flattering. If you choose to remove the image I've no real objections, provided that no fair use images are put in its place. If you believe that the article is better off without any images, go ahead and remove the mugshot, but I'll happily return the favour if any fair use images are subsequently added. GeeJo  (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Second that. --Abu Badali 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is NPOV. As this is the only image we have, there's no POV decision being taken. If we had two or three images from him and we were picking up this one for the article, we would probably being POV.
 * The article without an image would encourage people to upload (faulty) fair use images, that would be removed. Let's leave the article with the ugly image, as it encourages people to find better free images. --Abu Badali 11:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The mug shot just makes me sad, because he's a really great actor in my opinion. It sucks that he'll be remembered this way.


 * I think the image should be changed because I knew who the guy was once I found pictures on Google. It's very hard to recognise him from this picture. BillPP 22:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and removed the mug shot. I don't think it adds much to the article (in that he is barely recognisable in it), it is highly unflattering per WP:BLP, there is already another more suitable image in such a short article, and the removal appears to be the consensus in the above discussion. If anyone has strong feelings otherwise, do speak up, however.  Rockpock e  t  06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, while it might be arguably defensible to include the Beetlejuice fair-use photo alongside the mug shot, one thing we cannot do is substitute fair use for free images. That defeats the entire purpose of fair use, which is that they are the only option we have, so we have to infringe on your copyright, but only as little as is strictly necessary. Of course this is a paraphrase of Fair_use, but you get the idea. I'm reverting your changes, having learned from my similar suggestion above several months ago. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat confused, if the problem is using fair use when we don't strictly have to (since we have another option) why leave the fair use image there? It should surely be removed.
 * It makes no difference to the copyright holder whether the fair use image is alongside the free image or by itself. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement; the image is either a valid fair use claim or it isn't. I have no argument with using the free image on that principle, but i really can't see the logic, nor the legal argument, that fair use is valid alongside the free image but not by itself.  Rockpock e  t  05:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the above note about fair use only applying to the work/subject being presented. Technically, the FU image isn't depicting Mr. Jones, it's depicting the film. Therefore it's probably ineligible. I didn't remove it myself because I'm not 100% sure on this point, but what I *am* sure of is that you can't replace a free image with a fair-use image on Wikipedia. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the screenshot is not fair use here because:
 * It's against film-screenshot, as it's not being used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". It's being used to show Mr. Jones face so that the reader would recognize who this article is talking about.
 * It's against rule #1 on Fair_use, that is, we can't claim fair use when we have a free replacement. (The mugshot being the free alternative way to make the reader recognize who the article is talking about).
 * I have tried to remove this image before, more than once I guess, but it keeps comming back. --Abu Badali 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with that line of reasoning is, if both images were already there (as was the case), and the free mug shot was/is removed, the fair use image is not replacing the free image. As both editors above point out, under the terms of fair use there is no justification for it being there at all. I have removed it.  Rockpock e  t 


 * here is counterexample 8 to the fair use rules: 'An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like'. this fits that counterexample and therefore can't be used under fair use

I would like to point out to you guys that police mug shots are matters of public record by governmental agencies and they have no copyrights attached, in the U.S., anyways.24.243.2.132 (talk)

Florida mugshot
This seems tricky, but in order to view the subject's entry in Florida's list of sex offenders, you must click on the link. You will see the site's general home page. Click on the back arrow on your browser menu to return to article. Now, click on the link again. This time the Jones' record will show up. Don't know why this is the case, but this is the only way you can view the entry utilizing the link. --XLR8TION 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It goes straight to Jones' mugshot when I click the link only once, they must have fixed it.172.201.91.31 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Invader Zim
According to the commentary in Invader Zim, he voiced a hobo on the episode "Gaz, Taster of Pork." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.185.163 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 January 2007

Sexuality
The "bisexual" categories should be removed. His child pornography arrest does not automatically make him gay or bisexual; absent any other evidence of his sexual orientation, this is an offensive (and, I'm sure, unintended) statement that pedophilia and bisexuality are somehow related. They're not: check your own articles on the subject. --Treybien 21:39 12 July 2008 (UTC) moved comment to bottom of talk page per WP:TALK. --SSBohio 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I can see where, at first blush, it looks questionable, the circumstances of Jones' offense indicate that it did not involve a prepubescent child, so his activity does not constitute pedophilia. Sexual attraction to a peri- or post-pubescent member of the same sex, coupled with a previous history of heterosexual involvement would, to my understanding, constitute bisexuality.  --SSBohio 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How are they not related? They're both paraphilic manifestations of mental illness. 68.47.27.143 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bisexual is not a mental illness.Dannman (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, what would you call confusion over one's own sexuality and or gender?173.86.60.239 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is not a forum about the subject of the article, Jones. It is a place to discuss the article, itself. Only if the matters described above are found in a reliable source, should they appear in the article or be discussed here. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Child porn charges & his frequent arrests
I don't know why but it seems that someone is making a great effort at scrubbing this page clean of all references to this guy's child porn arrest & conviction and his LIFE TIME status as a sex offender. He has been arrested twice now for failing to register. Once in Sarasota, FL, and now just recently in LA. Needless to say, I will keep on top of this and make sure that this information stays on the site.24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus

Well at least part of my own question was just answered - some fool is using some kind of robot program to mess with peoples' pages!!!! I wish there was something I could do to stop it. I will look into that. 24.243.2.132 (talk)Biggus_Dickus —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC).
 * You are correct, but calm down. Jones is indeed a sex offender and someone has removed that information. His rap sheet is noteworthy so I'm going to restore the info with reliable sources when I have time for it. Karppinen (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I already have reliable sources - links to the court records themselves as well as news articles.24.243.2.132 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Biggus_Dickus

Sex abuse lawsuit
I just found out that Jones has been sued by the young boy for sexual abuse and have added that information to the article. Republic of Texas (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing cam eof it it was withdrawn, please don't come adding stuff like that, I also do not like your homo comments on the talkpage, please reign it in, you may have strong opinions about it but this is still a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lawsuits are often times 'withdrawn' or dismissed upon payment of a settlement. How do you know this is not the situation?  I believe the fact that he was sued concurrently with his criminal conviction is an important issue as they are both related - just like the civil suit against OJ for killing his wife is related to OJ's murder case.  It is no different here with this guy.  He molested a boy, was found guilty in criminal court, and now was sued civily for it.  I do not understand what is 'excessive' about it?  I can't help it if the guy keeps getting into trouble and it keeps getting reported on.  Just because he has multiple incidents of misconduct does not mean it is 'excessive.'  I think the term 'excessive' would mean if you repeat the same identical report over and over and over.  The civil case is something seperate.


 * Because of the frequent incidents of vandalism to this article - by people attempting to remove information about his criminal case - I am learly of anyone coming along here and trying to minimize this issue or remove information from the article. These are all factual matters and matters of public record here, and they should be included in the article.


 * Regarding the 'homo' comments, it was made as a part of the discussion as to whether or not this guy should also be listed as 'bi' or bisexual. Some one said no, others said yes.  So i added my opinion to that discussion and my argument as to why it should be so.  Homo is just short for homosexual, as we all know.

Uncited section
Anyone able to see if our cotent is a copy vio from here? Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't that content be a copy of our content? Lots of people cut & paste stuff off of Wikipedia and then repost it somewhere else.  I think you need to establish what the circumstances were, and what was copied from whom, before you start erasing stuff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.179.35 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankenweenie?
The article http://www.deadline.com/2010/09/burton-finds-his-frankenweenie-cast/ does not list Jones as being in this movie and neither does IMDB. I'm not sure where the last sentence of the article came from but I am deleting it. If you have a reliable source, please feel free to reinsert the information. Wickedjacob (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored vandalized picture
There are worse pictures out there than this that are from other mug shots. This is one of the better ones. You would think an actor would have more presence but I guess when you are sexually abusing children that may slip your mind when you get caught. He could flee to France and that would make for some more interesting arguments. He was sued by the boy he abused but it appears to have been settled out of court. There are many people trying to defend Jones image in public and that definitely violates wikis neutral point of view. He committed the crime, plead no contest which is the same as an admission of guilt under CA Penal Section code 1016(3) for "all" purposes. By doing so he saved himself from going to prison and a long public court trial on TV thus ruining any future he may have left. He ruined his image, not the people reporting it. Let the cards fall as they may. 172.56.11.8 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I asked for the courtesy of discussing the use of non-free images, here. Your reply was in an edit summary as "obviously fail NFCC#8, nonfree screenshots in actor BLP, not remotely debateable". The criterion in question states: "8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Both "significantly increasing" and "detrimental to that understanding" are judgment calls.

I'll grant that it's probably undesirable to have multiple non-free images of routine portrayals. However, I request that we discuss the one non-free image that I'm restoring, before you opt to delete it. This is the image showing Jones as Emperor Joseph II in Amadeus, a defining role for Jones. We have an image of Jones as a person in the infobox. The significantly increased understanding with use of this image arises from seeing the transformation into a role. The detriment to understanding is the inability to see how Jones' portrayal of an august historical figure achieves an odd and eccentric effect. That one picture is worth the "thousand words". Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For better or worse, consensus is well-established against your position on this point. Absent substantive sourced commentary on the point, focusing on the performer's specific appearance in the role, nonfree screenshots simply aren't allowed in performer biographies. Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron, Robert DeNiro all get by without nonfree screenshots, and I could fill a page with more examples. And while a single still photograph might be an adequate demonstration of the makeup artist's craft, it does next to nothing to illustrate the nature and quality of the actor's actual performance. Given a few hours in the makeup artist's chair, it wouldn't be difficult to create a comparable image of me portraying the same person. It would hardly demonstrate my capabilities as an actor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo).  Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your explaining that to me, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This was more helpful than your earlier summary, which might have been "WP consensus establishes that screenshots fail WP:NFCC #8." Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Role as Captain Cook
Unless I missed it, the section listing various roles that Jones has played does not mention a role he made featuring Captain Cook in a documentary about the same. I think it was on one of the Discovery channels. Anyone recalling this? Okama-San (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I can find no reference to such a role, Okama-San. If you can, perhaps you could cite it here with a link. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I did some digging around and looked through some Cook documentaries, and now I believe I may actually have mistaken the actor Matt Young for Jeffrey Jones as they both have cetain facial features in common, which might explain why I did not see Jones listed as Cook. So; sorry, my mistake.:P Okama-San (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring
This article has been fully protected for 3 days due to edit warring. Rather than edit warring, please discuss the content disagreement, develop consensus, and seek help resolving the dispute if needed. Getting a third opinion may be helpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Material relating to Paul Reubens
We've multiple third-party, reliable sources cited stating both cases, investigations, and individuals are related. Text reflects this. In the m:The Wrong Version that was protected, additional references were included to further support and strengthen this material – consensus through editing seem to accept these additional sources.

The IP contributor has presented no information supporting their preferred version, nor contradicting the RS. (IP has further indicated they may not be here in good faith to collaborate, as evidenced by .)

We welcome the IP contributor to engage in a collaborative process, explain how the information is factually incorrect, and to present evidence supporting their position. -- dsprc   [talk]  22:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections?
, in your recent restoration of a references needed tag, you suggest that "there are sections that are still largely unreferenced". I don't see what you might be referring to. If there are specific sentences that would benefit from a reference, then "ref needed" would be indicated. From Reliable sources: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Do you see any information that is likely to be challenged? If not, it's probably OK, as is. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The main issue is the lack of references in the Filmography. Compare that section to the same section in Suzanne Somers or Ian Holm, for example. My experience is that articles like this are virtually certain to be rejected for any kind of mention on the main page, including the recent deaths list. Perhaps this should be spelled out better in a guideline specific to entertainment industry BLPs, one way or another. Anyhow, I think section tagging is sufficient. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply, . Indeed, I overlooked those sections because I thought that the links lead to the necessary verifiability.
 * You give exemplars of best practice for citing filmography. Is it important for every article about actors to achieve this level? Do you think the listings in the sections of concern are likely to by challenged? Often, the credits are in the linked article where the main onus for verifiability exists.
 * I notice that TV Guide (magazine) has many of these entries covered, it's often with a movie poster, rather than words. I would expect that source to be considered reliable, despite its unorthodox method of giving credit. What do you think?
 * Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I see that TV Guide "is considered generally reliable for television-related topics" in Reliable sources/Perennial sources. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)