Talk:Neil Patrick Harris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sexuality

does speculation about someone's sexuality really belong in an encyclopedia? (unsigned comment)

Officially has come out of the closet as of November 4th: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15553356/?GT1=8717.

I think that as long as speculation is called just that, it does have a place in an online encyclopedia.

yeah, that comment seems really out of place. i thought this was a place for information, not hearsay. Hamilton burr 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's legitimate speculation. Plenty of other figures have pieces on their sexuality, and the long standing rumors have made enough impact to warrant a mention. --AWF

I also agree that mention of the speculation should be in the article however it does have to be carefully worded which is why I reverted the latest edits back to a previous version. Please help keep it clear that at present these are only rumours. -- Lochaber 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a stir recently at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy that included whether or not speculation and rumor belonged in a Wikipedia article. My position: "What I have been trying to do is determine the role "rumor and speculation" should play in Wikipedia articles...I think that clearly-labeled "rumor and speculation" should be allowable, at the very least because it contributes to the body of information an article provides. Whether or not this information is based in fact or fantasy is up to the reader to decide: if the rumor is clearly-labeled, he has been warned that the information may in fact be false. Knowing the fact that a certain rumor exists might open doors for further discovery, e.g. hearing that there may be a western passage from Europe to East Asia might prompt someone to look into it. As to the source of a rumor, I don't think it matters how reputable it is; anyone can hear rumors/make speculation...I'd rather give people the choice to believe -- as JCallender pointed out -- than presume to take it from them. If JCallender's grandfather wrote an article about how he heard that Coca-cola could power rocket ships, I could quote that in a rumors section, I think, without leading people to challenge the integrity of an article about rocket fuel. I think that reaching concensus about "rumor and speculation" would contribute to article integrity, much more than does picking and choosing whose rumors to believe and dismissing sources...without due consideration."

While the subject matter is valid if printed by reliable media, I removed the rumors and innuendo that existed in the article, due to lack of citations. Wikipedia's guidelines are unambiguous. Read them at Wikipedia: Verifiability and Wikipedia: No original research.

4.228.216.205 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I'm very uncomfortable about this new verifibility / cite sources business. Sure there is a lack of citation in this article but you and I and everyone who edited that part know that whether he's gay or not there is speculation on his sexuality and by removing that paragraph we have removed real and verifiable information from Wikipedia because no one has put a point to a URL beside it. It just doesn't sit well with me.

And how much proof do you need to know that there is speculation, at the very least it's on message boards all over the internet. Is this enough to confirm it? [1] (last couple of paragraphs) -- Lochaber 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If speculation is to be stricken from every Wikipedia article, not only will entertainment articles suffer loss, but also those concerning science, philosophy, history, etc. Clearly-labeled speculation and rumor, regardless of how we feel about the source, can be useful in an article. As I stated above, knowing that speculation exists can lead to future discovery of factual information. Also, just because one doesn't like/agree with a source -- and just because one doesn't think a source is verifiable -- doesn't mean its speculation aren't somehow useful in description, discussion, or future research. For example, if it is a FACT that a scientific journal published by Nazis printed that they believe it may be provable that Jews are biologically inferior, then it would merit inclusion somewhere in an appropriate article regardless of the majority opinion about Nazis, Nazi scientists, or Nazi science journals; a description of Nazi science suffers without the inclusion of a description of their speculation. In this case, too, if it is a FACT that a tabloid printed Neil Patrick Harris is gay, then whether or not we like tabloids or doubt their reliability, a discussion of Neil Patrick Harris's public image suffers if lacking mention of this speculation by a major national publication that was read by at least hundreds of thousands of people. Turly-burly 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Sources of Dubious Reliability":

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ..."

Note that in this example, a tabloid is cited, as its use is justified in that what it adds to the article is "relatively unimportant", i.e., what it adds is important. The sexuality of an individual is important biographical information.

And at Wikipedia:Weasel words:

"The following is just as weaselly: "The president's critics have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate." If we add a source for the opinion, the reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability: "Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush asking, 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'" (My emphasis)

In this example, a cited opinion is left intact in the article in order to let the reader decide what they will believe. Turly-burly 09:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind: We are talking about a living person who can sue for libel or defamation, and thus rampant speculation lacking citations (as has appeared previously in this article) is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, in particular (emphasis mine) "Editors must take particular care with writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity as well as strict adherence to our content policies...We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives." Also read Wikipedia:Libel. Finally, near the bottom of the page of the Wikipedia: Verifiability article is an important guideline: "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it."

4.228.213.152 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is citation of another person's printed speculation libel? It is not stating anything slanderous as if it were fact, nor is it stating that Wikipedia wants other people to believe any certain thing concerning NPH's sexuality. I don't think stating that speculation exists concerning sexuality is the same thing as printing "NPH is gay", which could be slander. Turly-burly 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, it is up for the justice system to decide. You may want to look at the Wikipedia article "accessory (legal term)", which states "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal." Thus, anybody believed to be an accessory could certainly be named as a co-defendent in a lawsuit and have to participate in a trial to determine their innocence or guilt.

4.228.213.92 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the latest revert, and it will continue until it is sourced at the bottom of the page by anyone that would be considered reputable (i.e., His own press release, the NYT, AP et. al.). If this occurs, the basic reason for the revert will move to appropriateness in talk pages by most patrollers. TKE 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer to my earlier postings. While I agree that the article should not include lines saying that he is gay, I don't see why the article should not make mention of the fact that there is speculation as to his sexual orientation. This is a fact, whether he is gay or not. To me anyway the article that I cited earlier is clear proof that there is speculation, in particular about his relationship with David Burkta. Can it be used? [2] (last couple of paragraphs) -- Lochaber 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When reviewing any article I ask myself, "Would this be in Encarta? Or Britannica?" or any of the others. Right now speculation is speculation, and even referencing the sites you did fail to show importance. The sites are LGBTG run, not independant news sources. If he is homosexual, it hasn't effected his acting work or shown any signs of political activism. Should this be an active part of his professional life, specualtion would be worth a mention in the article. As it is not currently, leave the page alone. The enclusion of the quote on his homosexuality appears on many pages on vandalism. I reference all of you to the "History" page for the article and check out the contributions [3] of the latest IP to change the page. It just invites trolling, I think. TKE 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• And BTW, I'm hard pressed to think of any celebrity in my life that I haven't seen labeled as rumored gay at some time. I think my ultimate point is that like every other person, unless you chose to make your sexuality a large part of your life, that it is private. Activism of some sort would acknowledge that you open up your personal life for public debate, but this is not the case here. TKE 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not people like the fact that speculation exists doesn't change the fact that it does exist. Whether or not the subject under speculation is private doesn't change the fact that it exists. And until NPH threatens legislation, why deprive the readers of the encyclopedia of useful facts pertaining to NPH's character? And by this public forum's very nature, if NPH doesn't like what it says, can't he change it/have it changed? No one is stopping him. I think it's dangerous to strike speculation, dangerous to shape content to please one person, and dangerous to be so presumptuous as to decide for the reader that certain information, though available, isn't important. Turly-burly 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think my post made it clear that I was being very specific as to what kind of speculation is important. I read your previous comment on the topic and I agree with you. My point is, based on standing in line at the grocery store, I can come home each week and tag eight articles with speculation that the person is homosexual. If a person wants to find out if someone is rumored gay, they have plenty of non-academic resource on the internet. To reiterate my point: unless a person makes their sexuality matter, than the information is trivial and frivolous and not academic, encyclopedic pursuit. Wikipedia has enough issues with this (ref. Special:Newpages). TKE 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not to hammer away, but this really should be put to rest and I think I have a good example. King James was homosexual, though there was not "coming out" in the 17th century. It is an important speculation academically, because of favoritism he gave his proported lover, the Duke of Buckingham. He made serious blunders because he loved another man, just as other kings failed over love of a woman. The sexual preference isn't the issue, it's the surface that people see. The issue is the consequences of the actions based on love, no matter the sex. If Neil Patrick Harris is homosexual, that is decidedly unimportant to an encyclopedia. TKE 01:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can tell that current speculation about NPH won't be historically important in the future, nor do I know how you know that current speculation about NPH won't lead to the uncovery of more definite (or more interesting) information. Furthermore, it would have been vastly helpful, as a courtier of King James the I, to know that he was possibly in love with the Duke of Buckingham; however, if I were looking in Wikipedia: 17th Century for helpful information concerning my king, under your rules such speculation wouldn't be there, and I wouldn't be as well off as I would have been had I access to a more comprehensive Wikipedia. Turly-burly 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a valid point, one which I respect and understand. The discussion here is actually very good for such a topic on a talk page. To me, as a changes patroller and a historian, the discussion should left to the talk pages until more substantive evidence is gathered. It's a problem for what's to be an encyclopedia, weeding out the history. Lizzie Borden has a mention of her being a spinstress and a proported lesbian, but we do have 150 years between us as well as historical research and documentation. In other words, if someone wants to know that much about NPH, a fansite is more appropriate than an encyclopedia, which should give you salient details that are known at this point in time. TKE 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and it was known at the time about the king, there are jests about him in private diaries. Print media just wasn't up to par yet to feed us ;) TKE 02:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How do we know he doesn't appreciate being asked questions about his sexuality? If he said it in an article, include a citation. If he said it to the person or near the person who added the statement "he doesn't appreciate being asked questions about his sexuality", it's original research. If it's NPH himself, it's not only original research, it's autobiography. I am removing the statement concerning NPH's preferences concerning have his sexuality questioned pending further research. Saying someone definitely has a certain feeling is more libelous, in my eyes, than saying that speculation exists concerning a person's sexual orientation. Turly-burly 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's a good example as to why leaving it out all together per verifibility. Good to see an agreement from both sides. TKE 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the quote we do have says: "rather than ignore those who choose to publish their opinions without actually talking to me, I am happy to dispel any rumors," which suggests that he prefers to be asked directly.

Since he went public this week about his sexuality, does it even really matter? Personally, I see no reason to even bring something like this up. After all, nobody has discussions on Abraham Lincoln being Heterosexual, so I see no reason to discuss a person being Homosexual. Unless they themselves have brought it up. 72.161.216.93 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

People talk about Abraham Lincoln's marriage and earlier romances all the time. (unsigned comment)

We need to not interject our personal points of view into a debate - deciding whether or not to add something because of whether you think it's appropriate or not, or whether the person in question will "appreciate" it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a fan page, or a form board for opinions. It is a repository for information. Although obvious unsuppoted speculation should NEVER be here, there are times where news reports indicate that the speculation is growing, or buzzing, and if something is stated in a verifiable news source, or is being widely discussed for a long period of time (think Whitney Houston) it merits at least a brief mention in the article.

So this article could have taken one of three tacks:

• Prior to any printed information about his sexuality, there should have been no mention of is. Because, as the blurb under your edit windows clearly states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".
• At the juncture where it may have been reported, but unsubstantiated, in the press (ie, mentions in tabloids or in gossip columns), a brief mention of the speculation, along with a citation of where it was printed, may be acceptable. This is a little more of a gray area, but I think if it had run in Liz Smith, or on the Village Voice website (versus, say, the National Enquirer), then it could be added. The sentence after the brief mention would need to say something like, "Harris has neither confirmed nor denied such speculation."
• Now that he's come out, what is in the article is appropriate - a brief mention of where the information is found, and a quote from him.

Just my two cents on this whole debate. NickBurns 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everything's pretty clearly stated, in media and Wiki now (well-cited), don't you all agree? Mowens35 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Gay

Gay. Smootsmoot 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for that one-word sentence there - how informative. Are you going to tag every gay actor's talkpage as gay? Perhaps instead, you could add the correct category to their article. NickBurns 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof that he is gay. He just claims to be gay, but we know that John Mark Karr claimed to kill JonBenet Ramsey and that wasn't true. Harris should not be in any gay categories until it is proven a fact. 75.2.250.145 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's a pretty ridiculous stance to have. What will it take to satisfy your quest for 'proof'? Other than him, rather publicly and proudly, stating that he is - do you require photographic evidence or perhaps you want independent third-party lab testing of his Santorum samples? -- wtfunkymonkey 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. he VERY PUBLICLY came out as a gay man just this week. NickBurns 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is still no proof. He could claim to be an African-American, would that mean he would go in the African-American category? 75.2.250.145 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say "worst effort at trolling ever" but you seem to have caught a couple people, so...go you. 68.164.190.110 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So...do you want him to be gay, or not? I'm guessing not. Tell us what you need here. Be specific. What sort of proof would you believe? I'm genuinely curious. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could just ignore all this. Otherwise you will get into an argument to no purpose, and which will not benefit Wiki in any fashion.Mowens35 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an argument, and I won't continue the discussion should 75.2.250.145 attempt to engage in one with me. As I stated, I'm genuinely curious what sort of proof would suffice, for future reference in such disputes. As for your opinion of what "will not benefit Wiki in any fashion", I'll have to judge that for myself, based on policy, and on the words and deeds of those whom I trust to light the way. But thank you for your opinion. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as any of us should be concerned, in this and any other case, is the subject's public announcement that he is what he is, properly cited. If he changes his mind, then we'll just change the article to reflect that. Seems simple enough. (And the argument starting comment wasn't directed at you, but at the anonymous poster.)Mowens35 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That'll teach me to post before having a shower, bagel, and some tea. Heh. Please accept my sincere apology. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 18:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange that Wikipedia usually requires proof for the website, but in this case, it's not important. Let's change the wording to point out that Neil Patrick Harris claims to be a gay man, but until that is proven, we can not say it is a fact. 75.2.250.145 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm even trying, but would the word "told" instead of "confirmed" get you to stop posting on the discussion page?Mowens35 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignore it and perhaps it will go away. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to User:75.2.250.145's talk page, they are actually User:Joehazelton, a permanently blocked user with a history of unbalanced and flagrant violations of WP policy. Seeing as this person has lost their Wikipedia privileges, it would seem to be a waste of our time to even engage them, much as Mowen35 previously posted. I think the process has begun to permablock IP 75.2.250.145, so all we have to do is ignore them. Oh, and if Neil says he's gay, he's gay. Any "proof" would certainly be no one's business save Neil's. Period. Paragraph. End discussion*. * Ended for me, anyway. Ha. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

weirdactor, that is not true. I have no idea who that person is. Someone accused me being him because of one edit I made out of many. That user has since apologized to me for the accusation. I now ask that you too always apologize to me. 75.2.250.145 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a user name and use it, so we can all be on the same playing field.Mowens35 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

weirdactor should use some common sense and not make a baseless accusation.

Wikipedia should also care about facts and acknowledge that there is no proof that Neil Patrick Harris is actually gay. 75.2.250.145 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just be aware that vandalism in the face of verified facts/statements will be dealt with swiftly. Mowens35 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Backstory?

Is it really unnecessary? Turly-burly 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"sneering"?

I thought "longtime sweetheart" was cute. 68.164.187.3 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be acceptable if stated thusly, ie "what the website described as his 'longtime sweetheart'" ... on the other hand, it's perfectly accurate now as well. One person's charming is another's sneering, obviously, all depends on how much coffee one has had before reading.Mowens35 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Could we get a better picture? The one on here right now looks kind of cheap. I know we try to keep the pictures free of copyrights, but I think we can do that without sacrificing that much quality. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo is photoshopped. The website depicted on his shirt added their logo to his shirt. Brain fork 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! Not just spam, but a particularly sleazy and sneaky kind of spam. I vote get rid of that thing. MrBook 12:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

At some point the image of Harris was replaced with a non-free image. I have removed that image and replaced it with the original free image (following our attempts at the least restrictive media). Please don't replace an image that we can replicate for free with one that requires fair use and is not portable. Keegan^talk 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What a pity that -aparently- there is no fan club of this guy listed, thus we can ask them for a better pic that's free. The one displayed here not only is ugly but misleading. --Magnvss (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Harold and Kumar go to White Castle

He actually isn't playing himself. If you watch the commentary on the DVD he was purposely credited as palying 'Neil Patrick Harris' and not himself. In real life he isn't a sex/drug crazed heterosexual and that was the gist of the explanation of the commentary. I propose that 'himself' be removed from the article.

IMDB backs this. IMDB credits the two Harold and Kumar go to White castle movies as 'Neil Patrick Harris.' Other roles he's been in such as entertainment tonight are credited as himself.

Christopher Masterson

Were they separated at birth? They could be twins! Anyone else see it? --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Ted87 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See also section

What is the reason for the short, selective "see also" section of other (rather obscure) gay actors? He is already in the category Category: Gay actors from the United States -- so to the extent that it's not POV, it's redundant. I'm inclined to cut it. Dybryd (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed wikilink to category, to prevent this talk page from being included in the category. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut it. Dybryd (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that "see also" section too. Thanks for cutting it. --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you look at the articles that were included in that list you may find the answer you are looking for. I went ahead and removed the same section from the other articles as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

use of "closeted" wikilink

An editor has now again reverted, of all things, a wikilink. I am posting here to resolve this. I have linked openly gay to closeted as that is the logical target article for this subject. Per policy - link to "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully" and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) - "Links should use the most precise target that arises in the context, even where that is merely a simple redirect to a less specific page title."

The editor insists that I "demonstrate a "life-shaping pattern of concealment" on the part of the subject" which is ridiculous. We use wikilinks to point to other articles to benefit our readers. The two appropriate target articles are coming out which is about the process of coming out of the closet; and closeted, which explains what being closeted is in contrast with someone who is not openly gay. Sometimes wikilinks are counter-intuitive; for instance if you wanted to wikilink anti-discrimination the target article is discrimination. I hope this is clear and makes sense. I'm re-adding the wikilink back now, per policy. Banjeboi 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the two words: "openly" and "gay" are linked to separate articles, and from what you write above, it would better to link the two-word phrase "openly gay" to "closeted". It would be better still if a more focussed link to an appropriate section within that article were used, for example Closeted#Related terminology, where the second bulletted point uses the phrase "openly gay". I suggest the link becomes [[closeted#Related terminology|openly gay]], which seems far more relevant in the aim of understanding what is being claimed here about the guy, makes more sense since in this context "openly gay" should be understood as being one term made up of two words, and it also seems to satisfy the requirements of the MoS to a greater degree than simply linking "openly" to "closeted". So, I've made that change.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded. Both openly and openly gay go to ... closeted. Banjeboi 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not true. Both openly and openly gay go to coming out, which is not the same as closeted, as "coming out" clearly defines a process and not a state, which is what closeted is, and, indeed, what "openly gay" is. In fact, given what you have now said, it seems clear that openly and openly gay both currently point to the wrong article. They should at least point to closeted, and there can then be a debate over whether they should link to a section within that article or not.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, my bad, redirects fixed. It would seem to cause more confusion to point to a subsection in the closeted article. It's short and the reader can pretty easily sort it out. Banjeboi 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology?

Is he a scoentologist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.193.171 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No. 96.244.95.105 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Parents Names?

Why are his parents names listed as Stueck? In a quick internet search, several secondary sources list his parents as Ron and Sheila Harris. None of the listed references has this info from a primary source. What's with this business about listing the religion of the parents? Seems strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwharris (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Television credits?

Shouldn't his television work be listed in the credits section? 70.231.30.158 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should, does anyone know why it isn't there? It lists Theatre, Animation, Internet, Film, but not TV which seems odd, especially since, as the article states, he is best known for his roles in Doogie Houser and How I Met Your Mother, which are both TV roles NIKKKIN (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1st or 15th?

Anyone know his actual birthday? Wiki says the 15th but his bio on CBS.com says the 1st? 87.194.114.231 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB says the 15th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reputable source. In any case, it appears that the 5 is just cutoff on the CBS site.--J.shellenbarger (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions needed

Neil Patrick Harris played the role of Le Dauphin in the 1999 miniseries Joan of Arc with Leelee Sobieski. This should be added.

He also played in ""the man in the attic" (1995) thats not listed

There should also be a list for the voice acting he has done in video games. He was in Saint Row 2 & Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.20.209 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Credits

I find it quite messy at the moment. Is it possible to have it shortened down, or possibly put into a table containing years and similar? --Chrill (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I eliminated some of the extra structure which cleaned up the table of contents; the article actually needs to grow and likely his credits and awards spun off into a subarticle. However we are a long way from that presently. -- Banjeboi 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.100.148.131, 2 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Home fires burning, film 1989

77.100.148.131 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks! For anyone who cares, you can see Harris' name on the cover of the DVD on the imdb page, which seems like clear confirmation to me.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God, I can't get the link to Spike to work in the first paragraph. Done - Nunh-huh 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vitalyp, 16 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Whendy - Neil Patrick Harris

Vitalyp (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See our policy on linking to external websites. -Atmoz (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dehartenator, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Neil Patrick Harris won the golden harmonica on the Late Late show with Craig Ferguson on 3/4/11, or 3/3/11. not sure because the show runs over midnight. Dehartenator (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Not done: A comedy bit on a late nite show is really not important enough to include here. - Nunh-huh 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Best and the Brightest

The link is wrong. I can't edit it so i'm letting you guys know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.21.75 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rio

Is NPH really in Rio and if so, why is he not mentioned in the corresponding article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.26.227 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Company

The 2011 production of Company with Neil Patrick Harris and Patti LuPone will be released in limited theaters on June 15th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMusicalMaddie (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Engagement to David Burtka

Following the legalisation of gay marriage in New York in June of 2011, David Burtka annnounced that he and Harris had proposed to each other and that they had both said yes. Harris later tweeted that they proposed to each other five years ago and had worn engagement rigs since then, but were waiting until 'the right time,' referring to the legalisation of gay marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.3.25 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

a petition for neil patrick to host the oscars

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_236663916348155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.0.220 (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Table

One of the tables has a problem, but I don't know how to fix it. The bottom line of the table is missing. Alphius (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Give us a clue, which one? --Fæ (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Star on walk of fame

The wiki page mentions that he will get a star at the walk of fame. This is now a reality, ref: His walk of fame page Someone should update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.177.245 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Awards

There is an award missing: 1990 People's Choice Award, Favorite Male Performer in a New TV Series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8qccb7lrvA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_People%27s_Choice_Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelgb (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Jeopardy

On November 13th 2006 Neil Patrick Harris defeated Bebe Newerth and James Denton on Celebrity Jeopardy, winning $50,000 for a charity that assists the homeless in LA. More details anyone?

Do you have a source for the info? HotshotCleaner (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Spouse vs. Partner

Why is David Burtka listed as a spouse? Spouse states: 'In some usages, a partner in a civil union, domestic partnership or common-law marriage.' Is there a standard listed somewhere for use on bio articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentile27 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2011

Coolmmorsy (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You used the edit request template, but didn't actually request an edit. The edit request should take the form "Please change X to Y". - Nunh-huh 14:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"they both are twins"

Are you sure? Not only one of them? --91.10.23.99 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That was a little weird, yes. I have removed the names altogether as they are not themselves notable per Template:Infobox person. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit request}}

Please move Category:LGBT television personalities to the new Category:LGBT television personalities from the United States

please add him as virginia's father in yes virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.196.55 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

These requests have both been fulfilled. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

Please add that is now in the christmas play: 'A Snow White Christmas' (2011) He plays the Magic Mirror..

You also have missing a lot of awards he won throughout the years. Check the IMDB file for a (almost) complete list.

2.81.29.221 (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Partly done:. I've added his role as the Mirror. You're welcome to re-open this request with a more specific suggestion regarding his awards, but note that IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#IMDb. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

NPH's character in a movie described seemingly wrong

Neil's character in movie "the best and the brightest" seems against what is mentioned in the article. His character is more responsible and caring than "a carefree father". Mittgaurav (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

Please add that he won a Drama League award for his performance has Mark in Rent. Also add that in 2010, he was named one of the 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine.

Source: http://lgbthistorymonth.com/neil-patrick-harris?tab=biography

2.81.53.56 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: In the lede is the times magazine already mentioned ;)

The Drama Award was added in the table. mabdul 13:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011

You're missing this: Harris made his theatrical directorial debut with "I Am Grock" at the El Portal Theatre, and he has subsequently directed productions of Jonathan Larson's "Rent," at the Hollywood Bowl, and "The Expert at the Card Table" at the Broad Stage.

Source: http://dadt.com/live/guest-cohost.html

2.81.53.56 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. If you can supply the words you would like to use and tell where exactly you would like to have them added, someone can help you add this to the article. The text you supplied is verbatim from the source and we cannot include it. Regards, Celestra (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012 "Yes, Virginia"

The link provided for the filmography entry "Yes, Virginia", under Television, leads to the article for the album by The Dresden Dolls rather than an article about the short film. This should, perhaps, be rectified, though I'm sure the Dolls appreciate the extra attention.

85.165.91.124 (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done seems that somebody changed this already! mabdul 13:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards

Is there a reason that Harris' 1990 People's Choice Award for favorite male performer in a new television series is not listed in the awards section? If not, then how do I request its addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsisson (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To request an edit of a semi-protected article, you can post a request, as you have; but it's better to use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template to make sure it's noticed, and to provide a source for your proposed edit. The fact was easy enough to confirm, so I've added it with an appropriate source. TJRC (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsisson (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "partner"

Hi, this is a message to ESTABILISHED REGISTERED users: In the following article, Neil and his fiancé talk about the word partner and how they are not "fans" of it, I suggest to change the two places the word appears in wikipedia's article to fiancé or "Husband-to-be" or something like that, thank you :) http://www.out.com/out-exclusives/2012/01/11/neil-patrick-harris-david-burtka-love-couple-stars-children?page=0,2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endymx (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Partner" is a better description, whether they care for the word or not. "Fiances" generally don't have children together and live together, while "partners" generally do at least the latter. They are partners and fiances; neither word alone gets the job done. If they want to change the word used to refer to them here, they could always get married. :) - Outerlimits (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, true, Webster uses it for that... So be it. Thanks. --Endymx (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012

Add a movie to the "Filmography", the film is Priest. He played as Hicks.

CandyComboMeal (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You mean this film? That's not Neil Patrick Harris. The article here is incorrect (and I'll be fixing it shortly). —Al E.^(talk) 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

his twp children are adopted. 69.121.174.117 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done No request. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the spelling this is not correct. They are not adopted-they were carried by a surrogate. Neal Patrick Harris is the biological father of one and his partner is the biological father of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Career Section

Section has subheaders for- (In following order): Film, Stage, Television. Section overall does not read well. For Section title I expect it to read in chronological order. - It does within the subsections, but the order of the subsections, is odd, - overall chronologically order his first major area was Television. So why is Television no the first sub-header? Is the order perhaps dictated by some Wikipedia directions? I am suggestion change the order of the subgroups. Wfoj2 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

New Webseries

Neil Patrick Harris just recently published a 1st episode of his new webseries Neil's Puppet Dreams, the episode can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.154.23 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Emmy Award

Hello...just wanted to say that Neil Patrick Harris won an Emmy (pic) on the last Emmy Awards but I can't find the exact name of the category. His win has to do with the Tony Awards. I think he won as a host, like in the past, but I can't find it. Someone can help so the article can be updated? Thanks TeamGale 20:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind...found it on the Emmy's archieve! :) And he also won for 2012. I updated the table. TeamGale 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Occupations

I was wondering if I can add these occupations (voice actor, singer, dancer, comedian, and magician.) to the infobox and the main sentence, since thats what the general public know him as. Thanks for your understanding and have a great a day. User:Mr. Planck (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 9 February 2014‎

No User: Monterrosa, we will not add them. STATic message me! 04:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, the general public knows him primarily as an actor (which includes voice actor); and it's not helpful to add the other occupations to clutter the infobox, which is intended to be a concise descriptor of the article subject. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nightmare Before Christmas

Somebody added that he's on the cast album of a 2000 New York Concert version of Nightmare Before Christmas. This, of course, sent me into a google fervor trying to find this awesome intersection of one of my favorite actors and one of my favorite movies. And I can't find anything. At all. No evidence of it existing outside of this wiki. So either a) it should be removed or b) PLEASE whoever added that tell me you weren't making it up and where I can find this album! hahaha Masterchef604 (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed due to lack of evidence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

Please change "he" to "the" in the following sentence:

In he film, he plays a caricatured version of himself as a womanizer who is only pretending to be gay 96.42.200.46 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

Now link leads to Starship Troopers, but it should go to Starship Troopers (film) - this guy never appeared in the book.

 Done One of the three links was wrong. Thanks for noticing it. TeamGale 08:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please add his wedding

In this tweet, Neil announced that he'd gotten married to his long-time fiancé David Burtka. Someone please add this information. https://twitter.com/ActuallyNPH/status/508967499229331457 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.211.29 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done TeamGale 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Marriage

Italy does not conduct or recognize same-sex marriages or even civil unions. Any same-sex marriage performed in Italy is not a legal marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Occupations

I'll be adding two occupations to his page since they both seem to fit with him: The first is comedian and the definition for it seems to go with him, is a person who seeks to entertain an audience, primarily by making them laugh. And the last one is magician and for that one I'll be adding a link to biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic Meltdown (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Future Gazing

Atomic Meltdown (talk · contribs) keeps adding info about a future event (next years Oscars) to the Filmography/television section. While there is an appropriate mention of his getting the Oscars gig within the text, the Filmography section is about stuff he has actually appeared in, and is past tense as per WP:BALL. Are we agreed that it should not appear there until he has done the gig? Patient12 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Patient12— there has been some similar discussion regarding this in the past. This RfC discusses whether or not to include unreleased projects in filmographies, and the consensus that it is OK to do so as long as principal photography has commenced. That result doesn't exactly apply here, as the Oscars are a television production and not a film, but the spirit matches the key phrase from WP:BALL/WP:CRYSTAL, which is that the event is "almost certain to take place". Yes, it is true that NPH might get sick or be abducted by aliens or something, but that's not the kind of outside circumstance that WP:CRYSTAL is meant to address. I do not have a strong personal preference regarding this matter, but my opinion is that it would not be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to include it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you're saying he might get sick, die, or even abducted that is speculation and false. According to the Crystal Ball, the oscars is confirmed on that date and it was reported by a very reliable site, Variety. So I don't know why you keep reverting it. It is not a violation. Atomic Meltdown (talk) 20:27 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you at last. The matter seems to be in dispute. There are at least 2 editors who think it is future gazing, and 2 who think it's not. Do you accept that there is a legitimate dispute, and that we need to achieve consensus on it? Do you know of any examples of similar instances where previous discussions agreed that it doesn't breach WP:BALL? If it's been agreed previously, I'd be happy to go with that. I personally don't agree that that the entry in the Filmography/TV section is necessary given that it's already been mentioned in the article text above, which would satisfy the requirements of BALL. Patient12 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

I think this is ridiculously WP:UNDUE, of course homophobic Christians are going to criticize Harris. Regardless of the fact there are 4 sources, wikipedia is not WP:GOSSIP and is WP:NOTNEWS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Any time an article is written, the authors exercise some level of editorial judgment, opting to include what's important, and to exclude what's trivial. This judgment doesn't rely on counting the number of sources that can be found; it's inherently subjective. I agree with you that this is a case of a totally trivial incident that doesn't merit inclusion here. - Nunh-huh 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The WorldNetDaily article itself isn't notable — yes, of course it's going to criticize Harris — but the comments were important enough for Harris to respond via Twitter, and important enough to be mention by the sources cited (and these, if they're reliable: [4][5]). No, I'm not saying we should simply count the number of sources, but those in the article are reliable independent sources (apart from possibly UPI). "Editorial judgement" doesn't mean "don't include anything that's obviously bollocks", otherwise I could delete Scientology and Alien abduction and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and anything else I consider to be ridiculous. WP:N says: "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge [notability]", and we have evidence from enough of those to mention the controversy in this article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 19:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the section. The content barely qualifies as "controversy", if at all. It does qualify for trivia as well as gossip. Such "content" is more suited for a gossip rag than an encyclopedia. Further, verifiability doesn't necessarily guarantee inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then what does guarantee inclusion? If it's not reliable sources, then how do we judge what to write? It's not "gossip" — it was someone's (I think we can agree) grossly misinformed opinion, but it was mentioned by big media organizations. Calling it names does nothing to establish reasoning behind removal, and I would say that something along the lines of (just looking at the first section of the article): "His parents ... were lawyers and ran a restaurant" would be more suited to terms like "trivia" than this content is. Additionally, the title of the section ("Controversy") is irrelevant to whether the content under it should be included in the article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your question is best answered at the following section in the article on what Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTNEWS - specifically point #2 re: News reports. Just because it exists, just because it's in the news, just because it's verifiable across the netz - that doesn't make it encyclopedic and doesn't guarantee inclusion here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone else's grossly misinformed opinion belongs in someone else's article. Editorial discretion certainly extends to the exclusion of that which is "obviously ballocks" if the only consequence of that ballocks is a "tweet". What guarantees inclusion? Editorial judgment that the information adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article—rather than, say, to the reader's understanding of the person/newspaper/weblog that is opining. If you think it is important that the World Net Daily criticizes Harris, by all means add that information to the article on World Net Daily. But the World Net Daily's bizarre response to a commercial featuring Harris tells us nothing important about Harris. BTW, "controversy" sections are generally discouraged in Wikipedia—though in some cases they have proven unavoidable. - Nunh-huh 21:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

An analogous situation occurred some time ago in the Niger Innis article when someone insisted that the fact that MSNBC had miscaptioned him as "Nigger Innis" must be included. It was verifiable, but it was [1] utterly trivial and [2] meaningless with regard to someone hoping to learn something about Niger Innis. Ultimately, good judgment won out. The fact that something verifiably occurred does not require its inclusion in an encyclopedia article about a subject to which is it somewhat tangentially related. - Nunh-huh 21:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added the content to WorldNetDaily... under the section marked "Controversy". I've seen these sections everywhere on WP — what guideline, policy or essay disapproves of them? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 22:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I suspect that one can find the warnings against such sections scattered in various places, but one of them is WP:CSECTION. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Career

Stage

In 2004, Neil Patrick Harris co-starred on stage with Ron Rifkin, Patricia Wettig, Josh Radnor, and Lawrence Pressman in the world premiere of Jon Robin Baitz's "The Paris Letter" at the Kirk Douglas Theatre in Culver City, California.

References:

Playbill
Variety
New York Times

Kenzbeard (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

Please change "Actor, writer, producer, director, comedian, magician, singer" to "Actor, writer, producer, director, comedian, magician, singer, dancer, host" please. Because he is such a great host and he has hosted many times, so... As far as I know, he's not a comedian, he's just funny. But if you want to add that, OK. Harrismuffin (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's too long as it is, and as you say above, part of your requested edit doesn't even apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupation

This article's lede suffers from a fairly common problem: an opening sentence that lists every job they've done since they stopped waiting tables. It's an eyeful, and it confuses the reader by overloading them with detail and trivia, more than it informs them. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor parts of his resumé, and therefore fails to give due credit to his more notable accomplishments. While it's accurate that NPH has on various occasions worked as an actor, writer, producer, director, comedian, magician, singer, and television host, that list doesn't serve the main purpose of the opening sentence of a bio article, which is to tell someone who this is, and why they're notable enough to have an article about them.

For example, NPH does perform magic. But does he do it regularly, professionally? Would anyone refer to him as "Neil Patrick Harris the magician"? Or is it a hobby (albeit one he pursues avidly)? The body of the article credits him as a "writer" just once, as one of several things he did on a short web series starring himself. I'm sure he writes other material he performs, but that kind of goes without saying. Does he write for other people's projects? Or books or essays? The kinds of things that might lead someone to describe him as "Neil Patrick Harris the writer"? Also, the opening sentence calls him a "comedian"; how is that distinct from being a comedic actor? How is it distinct from being an awards-show host?

I see two possible solutions: 1) Take the opening sentence and trim out the odd jobs that he only does once in a while, or in combination with his main occupations, and just list the three or four that he is best known for, perhaps: actor, singer, awards-show host. 2) Simplify the opening sentence by summarizing his occupation as a "screen and stage entertainer", then follow up in the rest of the lede, explaining that he's best known for his acting, that he does musical theater and other gigs in which he sings, that lately he's been hosting a lot of awards shows, that he produces and directs some of his own programs, and performs magic on the side. Either one would avoid an opening sentence that reads like a resumé in the form of a run-on sentence. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: Thanks for raising this Jason, I agree the opening sentence is convoluted and unhelpful. I think either of your two solutions would be good. It seems to me he is notable primarily for acting (both TV and theatre) and more recently for hosting so perhaps something like "American actor, known for his television and theatre roles as well as hosting award shows." The subsequent descriptions of some of his best known roles probably doesn't then also need "known for" but could just be "He played Barney Stinson" and then "He portrayed the title character" etc. Just some thoughts, but as I said I think you are right that it is unhelpful as it is and either of your suggestions would be an improvement. Melcous (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

Can we also include Neil Patrick Harris' role as the host of World of Color: Celebrate the Wonderful World of Walt Disney? 98.125.172.241 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that confirms he is the host and explains what that is? ~ Rob^Talk 07:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

it says in his article that " He serves as the President of the Board of Directors of Hollywood's Magic Castle" when in fact he is no longer the president as per their website. he is listed as a past president.

Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Neil Patrick Harris edits his own wiki entry in video

In the following youtube video, NPH goes to different websites, to answer questions about himself, and at the 4:39 minute mark, he visits wikipedia, making comments about his own article. Apparently he makes, editions on his entry, however I could not find a record of him committing the changes. Should we edit those changes here knowing that they come straight from the horse mouth?

YouTube link: Neil Patrick Harris goes undercover on Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube |GQ Jcnegron (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he actually edited the article. There was a sound effect when the mouse cursor was on the "Publish changes" button, but there was no real edit. The username which he supposedly used hasn't made any article edits. It was funny but it was an illusion. 88.115.43.181 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Extraneous detail?

The "philanthropy" section includes:

"Harris attended a dinner for the Elton John AIDS Foundation..."

I understand that this was a charity event, but I don't think "attended a dinner" belongs in a section called "philanthropy" unless a tighter link can be drawn to the subject's contribution to the cause. It's a bit of a gray area, since I celebrity attendance at events increases overall giving and could be construed as a contribution unto itself, but at the very least this should be expanded to justify its inclusion here, since at present this statement feels more like a snippet from the "Star Tracks" section of "People".

Not trying to diminish NPH's contributions to charity; he's an incredibly generous, generational talent in my book. But this one feels off.

LittleWalrus (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't this whole section violate the rules on lists? This part of the article should be eliminated or drastically be reduced. Lmlmss44 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The list is lifted from a not-especially authoritative source that doesn't explain the significance of what they mean by "has supported". Writing a check to a charity once because a friend asked you to is very different from having an active, long-term relationship with a charity... WP should only note the latter. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

Add a movie, Neil Patrick Harris acted in the 1994 film, Snowbound : The Jim and Jennifer Stolpa Story, there is already a wiki page for the movie and it does list him in the cast, it is just not listed on his main wikipedia page for his filmography, it is a good movie and I feel people should know he acted in it in his early acting days! 2001:5B0:44CE:4F28:E029:B72:6F95:A381 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

add a movie and change phrasing, Neil Patrick Harris acted and starred lead male actor in the 1994 movie, Snowbound: The Jim and Jennifer Stolpa Story, and it was most likely his first movie role as an adult as the movie was released in january of 1994 when Harris was 20 years old, though I can’t find the dates it was filmed to confirm but he had to be over 18. I just feel that it should be added at least since it was one of his first roles in film and possibly first adult role! Piratefairycatlady (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the section about his television work, and listed in his television credits. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Neil also worked in a Schlotzsky's in Ruidoso. During middle school, his hobby was juggling and taught others how to juggle. PickinItUp (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023: How I Met Your Father

I’m sure this could fall into NORUSH, but Harris has reprised his role as Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Father in a recurring role for season 2 at the very least, and therefore could use the lead, the body, and his filmography updated. Source: Schwartz, Ryan (January 24, 2023). "How I Met Your Father Shocker: HIMYM Star to Return After Premiere Cameo, Will Have 'Major Impact' on Season 2". TVLine. Retrieved January 24, 2023. 108.41.81.126 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse cake controversy

I added a section to personal life (there's not yet a tab for controversies) about the infamous Amy Winehouse cake incident, but it was removed for supposedly not being newsworthy, although several outlets reported on it such as NBC News, Rolling Stone, and Variety. This was more than just a Twitter controversy, it was important news about the figure and I don't see why it can't be included on this page. Reidht (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional film

Neil Patrick Harris also film credit, Sudden Furry 1993 film. 2600:8801:190:DD00:BD68:E2F8:7C67:F52D (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Philanthropy

The philanthropy section feels a bit excessive, I can't think of anyone else I've seen with a list that long. Seems like a PR move Climbingflowers (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong date for starship troopers

Starship troopers year is listed as 2004 and that is incorrect. The correct date is 1997. Minto972x (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)