Talk:Michael Richards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Richards article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

/Archive 1
/Archive 2 Laugh Factory Incident (consensus February 2007)
/Archive 3

Contents

[edit] Consensus section

NOTE TO EDITORS: THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS AGREED BY A CONSENSUS OF EDITORS AFTER A VERY LONG AND DETAILED DEBATE ON THE TALK PAGE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED, UNLESS A CONSENSUS TO DO SO IS LIKEWISE ACHIEVED

In November, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards shouting at an audience member, "Shut up", followed by "He's a nigger!" (using the word at least 7 times altogether), and also making a reference to lynching. He was addressing a group that the media reported as "black hecklers". There were retorts, "That was uncalled for" and then "fucking cracker-ass motherfucker". Richards made a public apology for his remarks, during an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. He described going into a rage and said, "For me to be at a comedy club and to flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry." He explained he was trying to defuse heckling by being even more outrageous, but that it had backfired. Richards met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss personal issues related to the event.

Kyle Doss, one of the members of the group that Richards had addressed, gave his explanation to CNN of the events prior to the cell phone video. He said that they had arrived in the middle of the performance and that, "I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he [Richards] said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'" Richards then continued with his routine. Doss added, "And, then, after a while, I told him, my friend doesn't think you're funny", which triggered Richards' outburst. Doss and a friend Frank McBride (also involved in the incident) engaged Gloria Allred to seek compensation from Richards but, as of February 2007, there has been no report that they have received any.

See the archived talk page for more details

[edit] Consensus for lead sentence

We've gone over this before in agonizing detail, and I'm disappointed that the same two editors, as they have in the past [1][2], seem to be lending ill-advised support for the questionable actions of every sockpuppet that inappropriately changes important wording without first achieving consensus. Although we do our best to assume good faith, we must not encourage the actions of those--including uncommunicative "new" users (who I can assure you are far from new)--who are clearly not interested in discussion or consensus-building.

Help decide on an agreeable wording for the opening sentence on this page, then apply those changes. Tyrenius took painstaking effort to demonstrate how consensus can be achieved on a contentious issue; don't shrug off everything he taught you and begin revert-warring or aligning yourself with destructive users; work together with the handful of editors that choose to behave themselves.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Bus stop, your recent edit summary is incoherent. You were party to the discussion centering over what must be included in the lead sentence and what must not be. You are forcing me to repeat my argument from that discussion: I am not arguing whether his stand up comedy should be left out of the article (and I'm certainly not even touching on "whether or not [Richards--obviously notable] is sufficiently notable to have an article about him); I am arguing that his contribution in that specific field is far too insignificant to mention in the lead sentence, which should summarize only crucial information about the subject. As for Cleo123's strange justification that because the "He's a nigger!" tirade is highly notable and occured during a stand-up act, we should mention stand-up comedy in the first sentence. If that's the case, mention the tirade in the opening line, not the failed activity he was engaging in when the tirade occurred; but somehow I doubt Cleo123 wil support that suggestion. In any case, I'll support any lead sentence that has been sensibly vetted on this page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's please not call editors "sock-puppets" unless they are proven to be so. I agree that Richards' stand-up comedy work is insignificant enough to warrant first-sentence mention. If it were my edit, I'd remove the reference to Seinfeld as well, or alter it so that it doesn't seem to make it sound like his life's work. Bulbous 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- I find this quote from Tyrenius on these Talk pages, from February 11: "I read in the talk that some of his serious, but minor, acting roles had been omitted. They should be included. If the subject is notable, then features of his life, which are not notable in themselves necessarily, become eligible for inclusion to give a full picture of the subject." Doesn't that quote from Tyrenius indicate that even Richards' "minor" endeavors are to be included? Bus stop 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify/repeat myself: there's a difference between omitting minor accomplishments from the article altogether (which is what Tyrenius is addressing here) and not including them in the opening sentence. No one's arguing that the article should completely ignore Michael Richards' non-Seinfeld, non-racist rant endeavors--merely that we should keep all but the most important information out of the lead.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Since 2002 the opening sentence of this article has has mentioned Richards' work as a comedian. For four years there was a consensus among what probably amounts to close to a thousand editors that Richards' work as a comedian belongs in the introductory sentence. It is entirely improper to demand that concensus be achieved before Mr. Richards' legitimate accomplishments can be re-inserted. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back never had consensus to remove "stand up comedian" in the first place. Many editors, including myself, strongly disagreed. The discussion grew very tiresome and I decided to devote my energies elsewhere. Wearing other editors down by arguing the same point over and over again is not the same thing as gaining consensus.
The timing of this edit is troubling, when one considers the years of edtitorial stability connected to the article's introduction. Shortly after the Laugh Factory Incident The Fat Man Who Never Came Back decided that Richards' work as a stand up comic didn't warrant inclusion in the introduction. It seems to me that his edit is motivated by the Laugh Factory Incident, which has no bearing on the subject of this biography's profession. Opinions as to whether or not he is a good comic, a bad comic, a successful or an unsuccessful comic are irrelevant points of view. This is Richards' biography and he is by profession both an actor and a stand up comedian. According to our article, it was his success as a stand up comic that led to his "big break" into television. He first came into the national spotlight as a stand up comedian, and he continues to hold himself out as a stand up comedian.
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. You seem to be analyzing this through the prism of notability standards applicable to an AFD discussion. Why not try looking at it as a simple writing exercise? It is a biography. In the first sentence, we are introducing the subject of the biography. Who is he? What does he do? By profession, he's a stand up comedian, who went on to achieve success as an actor. A considerable portion of our article's text discusses our subject in the context of being a stand up comedian. How can we not include that in the opening sentence?
It seems that you are merely trying to discredit Richards and somehow diminish the man's legitimate accomplishments. You stated in one of your edit summaries that your objection was to the use of the word "stand-up". Frankly, I think the whole thing is very petty but I may have a compromise. I'm going to adjust the sentence so that it does not "specify" his type of work as a comedian. I hope that works for you. Cleo123 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comedian is fine with me, as it overlaps heavily with most types of comedic acting. His most notable and memorable appearances on Fridays and other late night TV (e.g., the sandbox stunts, the chain smoking fitness experts--his most significant pre-Seinfeld work) were in the vein of sketch and character-based comedy, not stand-up. Also, the fact Michael Richards article received little editorial attention before his embarrassing blow-up is a poor reason to let questionable wording stand. There are plenty of sub-par articles that have existed in that state for years. Even if this lack of attention paid to the then little-discussed actor somehow constitutes "consensus" by default (which it does not), consensus can evolve. To your exaggerated claim that "many" editors strongly disagreed that his minor accomplishments should not be listed in the opening sentence, I would counter that "many" other editors felt their inclusion was inappropriate. During instances of such disagreement--no matter how "petty" or "tiresome" you find them--it's best to open discussion on the talk page, which I have done now; I'm happy to abide by any decision reached here, as long as the opinion of disruptive editors and sockpuppets are ignored.
I agree that the lead should summarize who a guy is and what does he do. He's Kramer primarily, and talented and wacky character actor besides. That's how people knew him before last November. Other details can and should be relegated to the other sections of the article.
Your continual complaints that I want to "discredit" poor Kramer (actually one of the funniest guys on TV, IMO)--or that such minor textual changes could even accomplish such a vicious task--aren't really appropriate, are speculative at best and should probably be kept to yourself; but you already know that. Assume good faith.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with the change made by Cleo123. Bus stop 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Cleo123 was right I looked up the old version prior to November 2006 it looks like this
Michael A. Richards (born July 24, 1949 in Culver City, California) is an American actor, three-time Emmy Award winner, Freemason[1][2] writer, producer, and comedian, best known for playing Cosmo Kramer on the television show Seinfeld.
It seems that this version was quite stable as Cleo said ,but after the Laugh Factory Incident writer, producer, comedian, and Freemason was omitted. I think its best to move closer to this old consensus version or even just simply restore it as it was. Ecostaz 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ecostaz, I don't know who you are, but your history of silly Dick Cheney-related edits [3] and inappropriate suggestions as to what constitutes a suitable article lead[4][5] do not inspire confidence in your editorial judgment. I have previously stated my grave concerns about the relevance of Richards' work as a writer and producer (and don't get me started on the Freemason label) being included in the article lead--and if I recall correctly, others expressed similar concerns. That being said, if I am now the only one who objects to documenting these minor phases of his career in the opening sentence, by all means, install the currently determined consensus version, not the version that sat collecting dust when this was a very low-traffic article. Please see WP:Consensus can change. My aim is to determine whether and to what extent it has changed since this became a frequently-edited page. Cleo123's preposterous claim that the stability of the lead pre-November 2006 reflected the consensus of what "probably amounts to close to a thousand editors" belies reality. Note that this talk page was subject to roughly 18 edits prior to November 20th. What does that tell us--that everyone was happy with the wording of every section? No, it merely means that no cared enough to comment, until now.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your carefully couched statement is somewhat misleading. You first adjusted the opening sentence in mid December of 2006. [6] I count approximately 1,200 edits to the article prior to that. My statement was a "guess-timate" not a "claim" - which is why I used the word "probably". In light of the more than 1,000 edits prior to mid December 2006, I wouldn't characterize my statement that the article has received substantial editorial scrutiny as "preposterous".
The remarks you have directed towards Ecostaz are not particularly civil. I don't see how this user's edits to other articles (taken out of context) relate to their contributions to this article. Your attempts to discredit Michael Richards are bad enough. Do you feel it is also necessary to discredit other editors, simply because they disagree with you? If someplace on Wikipedia, you have been appointed to evaluate and judge the work of other editors - please let us all know. Otherwise, let's try to discuss the content of this article. It would be best to comment on content as opposed to commenting on contributors. Cleo123 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Assume I have no motive other than to write a good article and to keep disruptive editors from interfering with the construction of the same. I've asked you stop speculating about fellow editors' motives. Others have asked you to cease using the talk page as a forum for counterproductive speculation. So just stop. It's really not that difficult. As for Ecotaz's prior contributions, I am justifiably wary of those with thin editing histories and prior incidents of disruption. But I'll also try to assume that Ecostaz has since reformed and wishes to join us in building a useful article. And thank goodness no one needs to grant you or me or anyone else the privilege to evaluate and judge another editor's past edits. The User contributions feature is public for good reason.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you did not ask me to stop speculating about "other editor's" motives. The citation you include is about your apparent agenda, which should be pretty obvious to any editor who reviews your contribution history to this article. Please, stop? Stop what? Pointing out your inappropropriate behavior and holding you accountable for your actions? No, I will not. I am glad to hear that you are now willing to assume good faith on Ecostaz's part and I am happy that my comment above had some impact on you. Hopefully, in the future you'll be more mindful of WP:BITE.
As for assuming "good faith" on your part, I have and I will continue to try and do so. However, when you initiate an un-ending debate with other editors' over very obvious facts - such as whether or not Michael Richards is a notable "stand-up" comedian - it's very difficult. I believe you are wasting everyone's time on a minor petty issue, which can have no other basis than your personal opinion. When confronted with facts, such as he got his big break as a featured stand up comedian on Billy Crystal's show - you opt to ignore the facts in favor of your opinion. If your User contributions demonstrated that you were deleting pertinent professional endeavors from the opening sentences of many biographies accross a wide spectrum, I'd feel differently. It seems, however, that you have singled Michael Richards out for this special treatment. It is also very difficult to assume good faith from someone who makes so many uncivil remarks targeted towards any editor who disagrees with his point of view. If you do not like me pointing these things out, then I suggest you heed the old biblical citation: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Dynamic Duo" Member Cleo123 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "ignoring" the fact that he's done stand-up; it's mentioned later in the article; I'm just pointing out that it is not generally what he's remembered for. I've responded to the non-Richards related stuff on your talk page because it doesn't pertain here. Please try to keep a cool head when editing; I have observed that if you chill out, other editors will like you more and will find your arguments more persuasive.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop your attacks and name calling (dynamic duo and others) on other editors, it makes your much quoted assume good faith toward you a lot harder if not impossible. According to your public contributions you were blocked two times yet you continue your attacks and disruption. You should stop before admins notice your behaviour and block you again. Ecostaz 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Responded to non-Richards matters on your talk page. Both blocks were mistakes for which admins later apologized.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's logic is impeccable here. While it is true that one can talk about a defacto consensus relative to a prior version, it is a false argument to claim that all of the editors who were editing on the article were in accord about certain details of this article. Regardless, relative to our cited sources the Laugh Factory event gives everything a different perspective. (→Netscott) 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But why is it of such crucial importance to leave things out? Yes, it is the opening sentence. But why not include all his accomplishments, even if some might regard them as only minor dabblings? I just don't see what the big deal is. He is not a stand up comedian? He has done stand up comedy. Who is judging how accomplished he is in that realm? Why is this a point of contention? Is the inclusion of Richards as a stand up comedian going to skew the article? Is it going to mislead the reader into thinking things about Richards that are not true? I think these things are all in the same ball park. We are not arguing for the inclusion of Richards as a real estate developer. Why be so careful as to pare back, for instance, stand up comedy, from acting? I think our concern should be with good writing at this point, not so much with meaning. As long as the meaning is not wildly false, I think we should just be crediting Richards with his accomplishments, even those that some might argue are minor. Bus stop 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that consensus can change, WP:Consensus that you linked also states that "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent", and warns about Asking the other parent "by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue.". So while you are quick to completely dismiss the old version, according to WP:Consensus it is a relevant precedent that some kind of consensus was achieved then and this needs to be considered in the current discussion about the lead. Ecostaz 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Precedent would comprise a previous discussion, not previous lack of discussion. If some previous discussion had explicitly decided that the old lead sentence was flawless, and I were trying to unreasonably generate enough support to override that precedent, then your comment would apply. As it stands, the only previous discussion relating to the suitability of the lead can be found here and here. I re-read those discussions. Other than the usual dynamic duo (Cleo123 and Bus stop), the only one in support of the "old" lead sentence was the now banned mischief-maker Kgeza67. Wahkeenah, JJay and I disagreed with Cleo123 and Bus stop. This is not the stuff of consensus. As JJay suggested during that brief debate, please show us when the issue was even addressed pre-November; failing that, focus on the current effort to build consensus, and stop alluding to the infrequently edited "stable" version of yore.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- According to the "dynamic duo" of Cleo123 and Bus stop, Michael Richards is a stand up comedian. Bus stop 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC) . Bus stop 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop that he is a stand up comedian. However, I can accept the compromise version that uses simply the word "comedian". The Fat Man Who Never Came Back does have a valid point in mentioning Richards' work in sketch comedy. I happen to see those accomplishments as an additional to his work in stand up. The term "comedian" on its own can be construed as inclusive of both points of view. The reader can draw their own conclusion as to what "type" of comedian Richards' is. Cleo123 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The lack of previous debates over the opening sentence, does not mean that there was no consensus. There have been minor adjustments to the sentence over the years, but none so extreme as to warrant a talk page debate. The fact that so many editors have worked on the article and have not made substantial changes to the sentence implies consensus because no fault was found with it. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's edit is controversial and has inspired some revert warring. That is the only reason for this discussion. Cleo123 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just passing through to see how you all are. If it's any help, then the lead section should be a summary of the article for those that don't want to read the whole thing. It would therefore be misleading to list major and minor achievements as if they were equal to each other. If it is considered necessary to include minor ones, then that should be apparent, in case a reader gets no further than the lead. It may be that minor ones are not necessary to a basic picture. Tyrenius 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laugh incident

Where is the part where he said: Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass? And why are the people defending themselves being called black hecklers? — Migospia 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Greetings Migospia, welcome to the Michael Richards talk page. If you have not already done so I strongly recommend you read as much of the talk above (and in the archives) surround the Laugh Factory incident to gain a better perspective of where the editors who've been working on this article for some time stand. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
During prolonged discussions between editors a consensus has been arrived at as to the best way to present this incident. This included a discussion of what parts of the transcript of the incident should be quoted. We are not going to put everything in word for word. They are called black hecklers, because that is what they are called in verifiable reliable sources, and that is wikipedia policy. Tyrenius 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add the following sentence based on the interview that can be seen at YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBqf52s-l_s):
"The audience at the Late Show with David Letterman seemed to think he wasn't serious and sneekered at comments that Richards made, like Afro-American (an outdated word to describe American-Americans), and at one point, Jerry Seinfeld had to tell the audience to stop laughing."
Please give me consensus to post this. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for lead sentence, again.

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- You are narrowing down Richards' acting to that of a comedic nature. But he has also had serious roles. Why do you want to call him a "comedic actor," when he has also acted in a "serious" capacity? By calling him a "comedian and actor" we are also alluding to his serious acting roles. He may be less notable for being a serious actor, but do you think it has to be left out? Wasn't there a television series that was only short lived in which Richards played a serious acting role? I understand your argument that the introductory paragraph only should contain what is of primary importance. But I find "acting" and "comedic acting" to be such similar ideas that I can't see contriving to limit him in that way. Can you tell me what is accomplished by that? Bus stop 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, "comedian and actor" is fine with me. But I'm just one person (the size of several).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to unprotect page?

I think it's time to end the semi-protection of the Michael Richards article. The vandalism has been extremely low recently. Sure, I expect we'll still get the occasion vandalism (i.e. stuff like "KKKramer" and "Michael Racist-Richards," but I don't think it'll be enough to warrant semi-protection. I know I was the one who suggested we maintain the semi-protection, but that was over a month aago. What do other users think now? Acalamari 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. A month is a long time for protection. Tyrenius 01:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay good; as I said, we should be able to handle any vandalism that appears. Acalamari 02:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unprotect, this long is silly. Jtpaladin 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a lead update

User:Hoponpop69 has been making good faith efforts to introduce into the lead of the article mention of the Laugh Factory incident. On User talk:Bus stop he asked why his edits were being reverted and in doing so he made a very good point about what Wikipedia guidelines specify should be in the lead. Namely that, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies" (emphasis mine). Given this is an actual guideline I agree with him that the lead should include mention of the very notable Laugh Factory story. (→Netscott) 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(→Netscott) -- Briefly and balanced is what is called for, not a restating of the incident as contained in the body of the article. Bus stop 21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion of the lead above, but Cleo123 pointed out that a consensus already existed about the lead, until a user omitted writer, producer, comedian, actor, Freemason and replaced it with the comedic actor, but recently the term comedian was re-inserted. Cleo found that the old lead survived 1200 edits ,four years of editing and was very stable. It looked like this "Michael Anthony Richards (born July 24, 1949) is an American actor, three-time Emmy Award winner, writer, producer, comedian and Master Freemason[2][3] best known for playing Cosmo Kramer on the television show Seinfeld." Ecostaz 22:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which clearly illustrates that the old lead is out of date and needs an update. An article's lead is supposed to mention notable controversies as specified in Wikipedia guidelines. (→Netscott) 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There was already a lengthy debate led by Tyrenius about how the LF incident should be covered in the article. It was my understanding that there was a consensus about a certain way of coverage ,which did not include mentioning it in the lead. In any case ,major changes should be debated on the the talk page first, not introduced into the article outright. Ecostaz 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, consensus was arrived at for this section of the article. (→Netscott) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I do not agree with User:Hoponpop69's edit introducing the word "racist" into the lead. The original wording that I entered was articulated in view of the consensus of editors on this article relative to the language we established to use to decribe events surrounding the Laugh Factory aspects of Richards' bio. (→Netscott) 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think instead of edit warring we should use the method of the previous debate. Propose revisions, discuss them ,build consensus and then take them live. The current lead which is in the article now is of low quality with parts like "Richards was heavily in the news". Ecostaz 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well this is a wiki so by all means, if you are so inclined, improve the wording there. (→Netscott) 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: "An altercation broke out in November of 2006 in the Laugh Factory, a West Hollywood, California, comedy club, between Richards and audience members, in which racial epithets were exchanged, and which was widely reported on by the news media." Bus stop 00:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a nice try but the fact that "epithets were exchanged" is not why the Laugh Factory story broke the news. Also "altercation" just reads silly as it tends to insinuate a physicality to the events which were only verbal. (→Netscott) 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- We are not recounting the contents of the article. This is a summation. Of necessity, it must leave out details. Yes, there were racial epithets exchanged in both directions. And, no, we do not know what preceded the cell phone video. It was a verbal altercation. Then insert the word "verbal." But please don't begin an indictment of Richards -- out of context, and lacking balance. Bus stop 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying things that imply that I am editing in bad faith with regards to Richards. This is not the case. My edits have all been verifiable and backed up by sources. This lead edit is no different and I actually took pains to word it neutrally prior to introducing it into the article. (→Netscott) 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? To what incident in 2007 is the user referring? Bulbous 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC):Well

Well given your rather sarcastic response I do want you to know Bulbous that I'm ready to stick to this for the long haul. Again Wikipedia's guidelines are quite clear about this. (→Netscott) 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm? I still don't understand... the original editor keeps trying to post something about an incident in 2007 or "headlines in 2007" or words to that effect. Either I missed something critical, or possibly the editor is very unfamiliar with the facts in this case? Bulbous 01:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(→Netscott) My "sarcastic" response is not just to you, but to User:Hoponpop69 too. I'm not saying anyone is editing in "bad faith." But "spin" can imply anything on a spectrum of meanings. Defamatory "summations" would be just as bad as defamation in the body of the article. I think the mention of the Laugh Factory incident should alert the reader to that they have come to the right article if they wanted to read about the incident in which Michael Richards let loose a stream of racial epithets from the stage, and which was caught on a cell phone video. Those are the facts. That is what the hoopla is about. I don't want to underplay it or overplay it. I just want to alert the reader that this is the correct article they've come to if they wanted to read about that incident. Bus stop 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Bus stop, I'm appreciating the fact that you are cognizant that the lead does need to mention the incident (and your logic is impeccable in that regard... letting the reader know they've found the right article). Please edit the article accordingly. (→Netscott) 01:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am still firmly against this and the reader already has a "contents" table with the section heading 2: Laugh Factory Incident, with a huge link right under the lead, so it can be found quite easily as it is. However the issue here is not only about mentioning the incident it is about also including or omitting writer, producer, freemason (double sourced) and the exact wording. I fear that mentioning the incident in the lead would open a can of worms about the exact wording, and restart the same debates which were closed in the consensus section. Ecostaz 01:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no fear about a drawn out discussion. I'm open to all proposals for changing the lead's wording to include other details. Make no mistake about it though, the controversy that the Laugh Factory generated was very notable and as such per Wikipedia guidelines needs mentioning in the lead. (→Netscott) 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I propose the following lead. Michael Anthony Richards (born July 24, 1949) is an American comedian ,actor, writer, producer, freemason who played Cosmo Kramer on the television hit show Seinfeld, a role which earned him three Emmy Awards. He is also creator of his own sitcom the Michael Richards show, which ran for 9 episodes. In late 2006 Richards made headlines after a video clip of him exchanging racial epithets with the audience during his stand-up act was released to the press. In any case please do not take your own versions live until consensus is establised. Ecostaz 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In terms of mentioning the Laugh Factory incident I prefer User:Tyrenius' version below. It covers the "niggers" aspect as well as the "black hecklers" aspect... which is obviously very attributable. His version also doesn't introduce POV wording like "racist", etc. (→Netscott) 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion, I am not even convinced it should be mentioned at all at this point. What is your opinion of the other parts such as mentioning the Michael Richards show or that he was a freemason according to sources? The MR show could be linked to it's wikipedia article even. Ecostaz 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

The lead should contain a condensed version of all the important points of the main text (it may be all that some readers wanting a quick overview will read). Obviously the LFI has to be mentioned, and in such a way that the reader will grasp the essential facts. I think this is the least that would suffice:

In early 2007 late 2006 Richards was heavily in the news after a cell phone video clip of him making racist remarks during a public performance was released to the press.

I would even be more specific and state the facts:

In early 2007 late 2006 Richards was heavily featured in the news after a cell phone video of him calling black hecklers "niggers" during a live performance was released to the press.

Please note this follows sources and not original research through personal analysis of the video. The lead needs to be referenced as well as the main text. The lead should be longer than it is, and increasing the first paragraph with positive information about his career would offset the later incident. If you're still stuck, consider one of the options in WP:DR. Tyrenius 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

People are still reverting to the incorrect version. Can we get this page locked?Hoponpop69 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it will not necessarily be protected to the version you want, so I don't advise it. I advise leaving it alone for the time being and concentrating on getting a consensus on the talk page. Reverting backwards and forwards is, well, I'll leave out the words here. You will note that I did not put in my suggestion to the article. I put it on the talk page. Tyrenius 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the references to 2007. Review the facts involved. The "Laugh Factory" incident occurred in 2006. All the supporting references are from 2006. If you are talking about some other incident, please provide references. Bulbous 06:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, {{sofixit}} instead of mindlessly reverting? (→Netscott) 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there is much more wrong with this edit than just one digit. That one digit served to prove that the editor was not familiar with the facts involved. In addition, Netscott's characterization of this as a "good faith" edit is obviously complete nonsense. The editor in question was factually incorrect, using edit summaries to insult and demean others, and was banned for a WP:3RR infraction. There is nothing "good faith" about that. Bulbous 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I entered that last line with the erroneous date... while I agree that the other editor was disruptive, my edits were in good faith. Your removing this entire lead line while citing a minor writing error was laughable. (→Netscott) 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What I was reacting to was what I considered to be vandalism as opposed to a "good faith" edit. For your part, considering your lengthy participation in this article, I would have expected an attempt to seek consensus on the edit. I, for one, don't think it is appropriate. We just completed a significant discussion about the opening text discussing a proposed change. In any case, as it stands now, please explain the term "released". Usually that implies some kind of agency. Wouldn't "leaked" be more appropriate there? Bulbous 17:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but TMZ.com released it, did they not? (→Netscott) 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Good question. But then again, isn't TMZ also "the media"? Bulbous 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, per what you are saying here is a clearer version:

In late 2006 Richards was heavily featured in the news after a cell phone video of him calling black hecklers "niggers" during a live performance was released by celebrity news and gossip site TMZ.com.

(→Netscott) 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's better overall, but seems a bit run-on. Not so much so that I would worry about it, however. I still object to the reference to the Laugh Factory incident in the lead, but I will take that discussion to a different section. Bulbous 19:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection

I don't feel that the current controversy warrants mention in the opening section. It is merely a current event, and as such is being given undue weight. When weighed against an entire career, a one-night meltdown is not so significant, and will certainly grow less so with the passage of time.

Many editors which support the current edit cite guideliness to the effect that "notable controversies" can be noted in the lead. I would submit that this is notable only in the sense that it is more or less a current event; it is not notable within the big picture. I think we're being myopic here.

As research, I have been reading other articles of persons who have had a short-term controversy in their career. Evidence is not conclusive either way, and the quality of the articles has not always been the best. If anyone can point me in the direction of a FA that is similar, I'd be very interested. Bulbous 19:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above assesment. I understand that a wikipedia guideline could be an argument for inclusion but as the current revision shows, that sentence utterly dominates the lead now. This lead should summarize the whole life of Micheal Richards and we should avoid giving undue weight or falling into the trap of recentism. However if we do decide for inclusion in the end ,other parts of the lead should be expanded, and the mention should be kept to an absolute minimum so it will not take up more than 50% of the lead. Ecostaz 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are unmistakably clear on this... "notable controversy" an internationally reported event relative to this man's bio. definitely corresponds to WP:LEAD. I'm not arguing against including further details in the lead (I think User:Tyrenius's advice about that is spot on) but again make no mistake about it the Laugh Factory story needs mentioning there. A single neutral point of view worded sentence about the Laugh Factory story is all that is needed in the lead. (→Netscott) 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was editing an article a week or two ago, adjusting it according to established WP standards and guidelines. A dissenting editor suddenly hit me with a guideline that I had never seen before - WP:IAR. From that point on, I have considered any citation of guidelines to be moot... and I lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia that day. Bulbous 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see, well when editors who share this view try to contribute on Wikipedia they're going to encounter difficulties. Look even User:Tyrenius (besides User:Bus stop, User:Hoponpop69, and myself) agree that mention in the lead makes sense per the guidelines. If you continue to fight this then I suspect we'll just have to go to dispute resolution to get this settled. I can tell you one thing... with outside editor/admin User:Tyrenius offering his view in support of this we can be pretty sure how WP:DR is going respond. (→Netscott) 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If by "fight", you mean "articulate my opinion", then you are correct, I will continue to do so. Expression of opinion on a talk page usually doesn't go to dispute resolution, so I'm not sure what you are trying to gain by making threats? As far as opinions expressed on this subject go, it seems to be 3-2 (not counting the temporarily banned user), so consensus is far from met. However, as long as your viewpoint holds the larger number of supporters, I wouldn't revert you. Bulbous 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am with Bulbous on this. The "controversy" should not be allowed to dominate the opening of the article. Add my vote to your side Bulbous! Cleo123 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

(→Netscott) -- Don't cite me as supporting mention of the Laugh Factory incident in the introductory paragraph. It doesn't make sense to me. I can see in plain English that the Wikipedia guidelines say that controversies, if any, can be mentioned in the lead paragraph. But I don't agree. Not in this instance. The controversy may have received widespread news coverage but it is of inconsequential importance in the life of the comedian and actor, Michael Richards. I am not looking for a scapegoat for racism. To me the incident should be reported in it's context, which is the entire life of Michael Richards. The introductory paragraph can make slight reference to the minor incident, because it has received widespread media coverage. But I think Wikipedia should be responsible enough to not distort racism in America by making an example of one creative individual. That sort of witch hunting activity should be frowned on by all. But it is not. All this energy so many of you put into tarring and feathering Michael Richards should more productively be put into writing about the real origins, history, and actual present manifestations of racism. I have little tolerance for petty attacks on people who in reality bear zero relationship to racism. Bus stop 22:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you made this edit why exactly? (→Netscott) 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- I allowed for mention of the Laugh Factory incident in the lead paragraph and I allow for mention still. I do so because I respect the underlying rules of Wikipedia. You were correct in citing my support. But I don't really support it. Sorry for being misleading. It was inadvertent. I see that the rules say that the lead paragraph can and perhaps should include mention of any controversies. So I feel that I have to go along with that, especially since other editors are citing that in support for their edits. But you are not correctly stating my position on the issue if you are saying I support it. I go along with it, unwillingly. There is a difference. Bus stop 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In support of removal of this is the fact that I cannot find any precedent for it. Check the following articles: Paul Reubens, Sinead O'Connor, George Michael, Mel Gibson and Marge Schott (the last of which is actually very close to being on point). Bulbous 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Faith Edit

"A verbal altercation broke out in November of 2006 in the Laugh Factory, a West Hollywood, California, comedy club, between Richards and audience members, in which racial epithets were exchanged, and which was widely reported on by the news media." Bus stop 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this version is just wrong as it sugarcoats the story. The Laugh Factory story didn't make headlines because a "verbal altercation broke out". The only reason it made headlines is that Richards was captured on cell phone video uttering racial epithets in a very agressive manner. (→Netscott) 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I chose to leave out mention of the cell phone camera because it is not as necessary as the altercation itself, but it could be added. (Actually, I don't even think the word "verbal" is necessary.) What do you find as "sugarcoated?" Bus stop 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you attribute such a description of the event as, "a verbal altercation"? I'm going to tag your introduction as [original research?] because you're editorializing by using the words "verbal altercation"... or even just "altercation". (→Netscott) 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Per Wikipedia guidelines, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies" (emphasis mine). Given the Worldwide coverage of this notable controversy relative to his biography should the lead sentence include a mention of it?

Responses
  • Absolutely, in the life of Michael Richards this controversy is prominent enough (and figures large enough in this article about him) to warrant at least one sentence referencing it there so that when readers browser the article's first paragraph they'll know that they have the correct one about the event. (→Netscott) 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No mention is warranted. This event is only notable because it is current. Its importance will diminish with time to a minor event in the overall picture. Bulbous 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whenever people are going to be talking about the history of who Michael Richards was, you're saying that they are not going to be citing this event? That's just non-sensical, even relatively minor stuff like The Fridays incident is mentioned when people discuss Richards. (→Netscott) 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It depends how long they talk about it. If they discuss him briefly, it would not be mentioned. If they discuss him at length, it might. That's precisely the difference between our opening para and our main body. Bulbous 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No mention is warranted. A guideline speaks about general article leads when it mentions controversies. This is a special article, it is BLP and it should be written conservatively and carefully as not to libel or defame the subject. A guideline is only there to guide us not for anything more. The lead should summarize the life of the subject. We cannot give undue weight to current events and we cannot summarize the life of Michael Richards as the sum of Seinfeld and the Laugh Factory Incident. As the current lead shows inclusion would only cause the utter domination of the lead by this mention. Ecostaz 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely No Mention I can't believe this is even under consideration! BLP concerns FAR outweigh Netscott's desire to adhere to this policy. Hard to believe this is even under consideration when the fact that he IS a stand up commedian apparently can't be included. Either this goes from the opening paragraph OR the "Michael Richards" show, his work as a producer and a stand up comic etc.- must be included in the opening. If there is to be an overview of the article - then all of Richards' career accomplishments have to be included, as well. As is, the opening now falls into the categaory of libel, in my opinion. Cleo123 08:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but BLP talks about unsourced or poorly sourced negative details in an individual's biographical article. There's no shortage of sources for these details. The argument to BLP is a hollow one. As I wrote earlier on this talk page, I am open to all additional suggestions for improving the lead. (→Netscott) 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, it's an absolute joke that people think this shouldn't be included. The fact that you consider the current lead section libel makes me question your intelligence. Wikipedia clearly sates controversies should be included, and those it would be an injustice ot the article not to include this.Hoponpop69 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Hoponpop69|Hoponpop69] -- It is only because some people are agitating for the demonization of Michael Richards that there should be mention of the Laugh Factory incident in the first paragraph. It is mentioned in the body of the article and that is sufficient. Wikipedia does not have to abide by rules, if those rules don't make sense. It is only a suggestion that Wikipedia makes that controversies be mentioned in the first paragraph. Wikipedia also advises us to ignore a rule and use common sense where that is clearly called for. We know that Michael Richards is not a racist, but some people are intent on portraying him that way. Please don't question Cleo123's intelligence. Have you ever heard the saying that when you point a finger at someone else there are four (or three) fingers pointing back at you? Perhaps you need to question your own insistence that Michael Richards be portrayed in a negative light. He happens to be a creative professional. The evening at the Laugh Factory is inconsequential in the span of his life. Michael Richards bears little to no relationship to racism. Is it just more convenient for some people to demonize Michael Richards than to address real, hard questions? Racism is real. But Michael Richards as a racist is besides the point. Bus stop 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculative nonsense, you're assigning character traits to a man whom you absolutely do not know. This is what is known as "original research". If you're arguing that there are those trying to demonize Richards then you should be concurrently arguing that there are those who are trying to glorify him. Both angles are wrong. We write the article in a neutral point of view and cover pertinent attributable details accordingly. We're not to sugarcoat and whitewash the article about him as much as we're not to darken/villify it. (→Netscott) 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Netscott, your rhetoric and edits are growing increasingly hostile. Usually, you are rather objective! I think you may need to step back from this for a bit. To the best of my knowledge no editor has tried to "glorify" Richards (other than the odd vandal); if you have any evidence of that suggestion, I am interested in seeing it. Bulbous 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Glorification through the downplaying (read whitewashing/sugarcoating) of well sourced negative details about an individual in the article about that individual. Although I wouldn't tend to say it in such an incivil fashion User:Hoponpop69's above commentary is spot on when other editors are talking about a neutrally worded and highly well sourced intro that includes negative aspects of a person's bio as being "libel", utter, utter, utter, nonsense. (→Netscott) 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's take your viewpoint as accurate and assume, for the sake of discussion, that users are removing "the gory details" in the interests of defending Richards. Even in that case, removal of "negative" information can never rise to the level of "glorification". You can't make someone "glorious" simply by removing negatives. In order to do that, you would have to enter praise, and there is just no record of anyone doing that.
The problem you have is that the lead is a summary. In order to summarize, details have to be removed. I'm sorry that you don't quite agree with what is and is not being stated. But the fact remains that details (and in this case, certainly negative details) will necessarily be lost in a summary statement!
And again, your most recent edit summary has very negative overtones. You need to calm down. Bulbous 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed you can. If someone is known for glorious acts and is not so known for other acts that are the opposite of glorious and an individual makes efforts to hide the not so glorious side then yes that person helps to glorify (though maintaining others' false perceptions of the better known glorious aspects of the individual) through deception by omission. It is tiring to overcome the downplaying of this event that has been occurring here and continues to occur here. You yourself are actually suprising me because I have not previously percieved you to be a downplayer/sugarcoater but now I am. Especially when I see such an illogical response (specifically the "vandalism" part) coming from you to User:Tyrenius. (→Netscott) 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to refer to my talk page (although you are completely welcome to comment there), as I also made the vandalism comment above. I stand firmly by it. In any case, are you suggesting that Micheal Richards had a "glorious" career? That's a stretch. Also, the word "sugarcoating" cannot in any way apply. "Sugarcoating" something is dressing it up in order to make it more palatable. The content is not being altered to make it sound better; it is being summarized.
There is NO WAY that the specific comments should appear in the lead, even if Tyrenius suggested it. This is NOT for the purpose of making Richards sound better. It is because the lead is a summary. But I'll tell you what. If you can show me some precedent, I'll take your side. Find me an article that gets that specific in the lead. Bulbous 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The precedent is in the lead already in the wording "played Cosmo Kramer on the television show Seinfeld, a role which earned him three Emmy Awards". This is specific. It doesn't say "played a character in a well known comedy, a role that earned him three famous awards." The reason it doesn't say this is because it would be a very poor expression of the facts. A summary doesn't have all the details, but it must contain the key ones. It is crucial to the whole LFI that Richards used the word "nigger". That was what all the controversy was about. Just as it is crucial to his acting career that he played Cosmo Kramer in Seinfeld, and the awards were Emmys. Tyrenius 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tyrenius. That's a pretty good argument! However, irrespective of the wording, the whole incident does not bear mentioning in the lead. From what I can see, other similar articles do NOT mention such petty controversies in the lead (see "Rejection" above). Those that do (and I have found some) do NOT get that specific. What we are proposing is completely out of line with the rest of Wikipedia. Bulbous 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69's cited Wikipedia guidelines when he edited the lead of the article. Anyone citing guidelines and making edits in correspondance to them is not a vandal and I should think that you would know that by now. Such a thing is self-evident which is why User:Tyrenius left you a message about it suggesting that you merely edit the "early 2007" part rather than make what is easily construed as a bad faith reversion while citiing "vandalism".

Why don't we go back to the wording that I originally introduced?
My original wording was thus:

In late 2006 Richards was heavily in the news after a cell phone video clip of him making racial remarks during a public performance was released to the press.

It was concise and neutrally balanced, but it was removed. To be honest I prefer User:Tyrenius's version but I'd be perfectly fine with reinstating this version above. Let's face it the news wasn't about the heckler's response with their own epithets but it was about Richards launching into his unprovoked (in terms of racism) tirade. (→Netscott) 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is non-neutral about the following sentence

"In November 2006 a much reported incident involved a series of racial epithets exchanged between Richards and audience members at the Laugh Factory comedy club."

Can someone fill me in on why the neutrality of this should be disputed?Hoponpop69 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What is non-neutral is that it sugarcoats the events. The story wasn't about an exchange of a "series of racial epithets" but was moreso in accord with this line (which User:Tyrenius essentially proposed above):

In late 2006 Richards was heavily featured in the news after a cell phone video of him calling black hecklers "niggers" during a live performance was released by celebrity news and gossip site TMZ.com.

(→Netscott) 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • How about this as a merger (compromise) of those two:

"In November 2006, a much-reported incident at the Laugh Factory comedy club involved Richards and several black hecklers exchanging insults, including racial epithets such as "nigger" and "cracker"."

I can't remember exactly what was said, but I seem to recall the hecklers calling Richards a cracker in response to him calling them a nigger. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks .V. for joining the discussion. If you haven't already done so I would recommend reading this section of the article. (→Netscott) 02:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An informative lead section

If a reader gets no further than the lead, they should be able to leave with a good grasp of the essential facts. As regards the LFI, the one thing that stands out above all others is the fact that Richards used the word "nigger", which is generally seen as unacceptable and offensive. The lead also needs to be referenced, and therefore it must follow sources accurately. We have studied the use of these sources at length in arriving at a consensus. I don't recall a source says they were racial epithets (correct me if I'm wrong, and provide one by all means). I do recall sources that said he used the word "nigger" several time to black hecklers. This is the essence of the incident. If the reader wants more details, then they can see a very fair representation of both sides' point of view in the article. If we are to summarise, and give the reader the key facts, it seems to me that the key facts are:

In 2006 he was in the news after using the word "nigger" several times to refer to black hecklers. He publicly apologised for this.

That's what happened. That's what he did.

It is absolutely essential that this incident is in the lead. If it's not, then the lead doesn't summarise the article, so it is deficient. It is a significant event and it will always be mentioned in his biography. That's the way the news works, once something is in the cuttings library. And even if it is miraculously never mentioned again, we can't tell that right now, so let's deal with it when it happens.

There is a problem with the lead, because there needs to be more information there about the rest of his life and career. It is not an adequate summary at the moment. Once this is done, then the LFI will occupy proportionately a smaller part of it, so if you have concerns, then do something about that part of it.

Tyrenius 03:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good addition with the public apology portion of that sentence Tyrenius... that definitely needed mentioning (and I feel a bit sheepish about not including that detail myself previously). (→Netscott) 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I appreciate where you are coming from, but the fact remains that controversies such as LFI are not mentioned in the lead. I have cited other similar instances, notably where a celebrity has used the word "nigger" in similar derogatory fashion, where the event is not mentioned in the lead. Even for those rare instances where the controversy IS mentioned in the lead, the specific language is not mentioned. It's simply not our place to say, "Forget about the rest of Wikipedia, we're doing our own thing here". 03:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bulbous (talk • contribs).

I'm not saying the text I wrote should be the one used. I'm saying those are the essential facts that need to be covered. I haven't studied how it's been done elsewhere, and if you could give links to actual examples, that would be very helpful. Let's not overstate things: I didn't say "Forget about the rest of Wikipedia etc" - it hasn't arisen as an issue previously. I am very keen to institute procedures from the rest of Wikipedia. Tyrenius 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Again, please see the end of the "Rejection" sub-section above in which I have linked to several similar biographies of celebrities that had controversies of comparable nature. In particular, Marge Schott was alleged to have used the epithet "nigger" on more than one occasion, yet there was no mention of this in the lead para. The theory is the same: although controversies can loom large for a time, they usually do not measure up against an entire career/lifetime. Bulbous 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest: "At the Laugh Factory, in West Hollywood, California, an altercation broke out between Michael Richards and audience members, which was caught on cell phone camera, in which racial insults were hurled in both directions." "Nigger" is not necessary to summation of the Laugh Factory incident. It is infantile, inflammatory, and misleading. Bus stop 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again I have to take issue with the characterisation that is given here regarding possible use of the word nigger. It is not "infantile": it is following sources from a NPOV. It is not "inflammatory" more than the reality was and the sources are. It is certainly not misleading, as it is a fact. I am not saying that the word has to be included, but as yet I have not seen a better way of doing it. The lead section needs to be referenced. I'm not sure that there are sources which justify your suggested text. It seems to me to be an editorial interpretation, but please prove me wrong and give the sources, e.g. the source that defines the event as "an altercation broke out". As I recall, the emphasis in reports was very much on Richards' actions. We follow sources. We don't amend them. Tyrenius 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not balanced. Do we say, "At the Laugh Factory, in West Hollywood, California, Richards was caught on a cell phone camera being assailed by racial comments from Black audience members?" I'm sure sources can be found to support something to that effect. I do not endeavor to say anything of the sort. I take into account what I do not know. I do not make assertions that may be reckless. In the introductory paragraph I alert the reader that yes, indeed, they have come to the right place if they wanted to read about the racially charged verbal altercation that received widespread news coverage. All they have to do is scroll down if they want to read all the gory details. Bus stop 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that is because the sources aren't "balanced". The news was all about Richards. That is the key aspect. We don't have to find balance for the sake of it, if it's not there in the sources. We attribute the weight that the sources do. That's what NPOV is. Tyrenius 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, if anyone is interested, controversies such as the LFI are extremely rarely mentioned in the lead section of other Wikipedia articles. However, I have found one article that does mention it in the lead. I believe it falls into the same trap that the Richards article does. Namely, undue weight is being given to a current event. Either way, note that the subject of that article said "I hate gay people", however the opening para says he made "homophobic remarks". That article gives us precedence for using words to the effect of "racist remarks" as opposed to "nigger". Bulbous 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Should controversial incidents in all cases be included in lead paragraphs? Isn't it hard to achieve balance in condensed space? In the lead paragraph, aren't the concerns more about alerting the reader to the incident than to fleshing out the incident? Should language be held to the same standards concerning citing sources? I actually think not. I think paraphrasing, when done in good faith, can be preferable to citing sources verbatim. Bus stop 19:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The last few iterations of the 2nd sentence are ridiculous. The incident didn't receive "much press" because Richards and the audience "exchanged" racial epithets. Nor does the obfuscatory, euphemistic phrase "heated verbal exchange" give any hint as to why this was such a big deal. My feeling is the 2nd sentence of the lead should briefly summarize his post-Seinfeld forays, perhaps including the Michael Richards show and, of course, his racist outburst. The dishonesty of the version as it stands now makes my skin crawl.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this for the lead section:

"In November 2006, Richards called a pair of black hecklers hecklers "niggers" during one of his stand-up shows at the Laugh Factory comedy club. The incident receieved much press and Richards later apologised."

Thoughts?Hoponpop69 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but right now the majority opinion is that there should be no mention of the LFI in the lead. I think there's virtually zero chance that the word "nigger" will be endorsed. Bulbous 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no Bulbous, that is incorrect. Consensus is being established for what about the LF story will go into the lead. (→Netscott) 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite my agreeance with User:Tyrenius' version that includes the word "nigger" here is another proposal:

In late 2006 Richards was heavily in the news after cell phone video of him shouting racial remarks at black hecklers was released. He later public apologized for his outburst.

(→Netscott) 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who set up the Request for Comments section, in which the majority opinion indicates that no mention of the LFI is warranted in the lead. Are you now ignoring the responses because they didn't come out the way you wanted? In addition to the majority opinion, the overwhelming majority of similar biographical articles do not mention such passing scandals in the lead para. What about that would make you think that consensus for certain wording is being established? Bulbous 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What majority? What are you talking about? There is no majority one way or the other. There was virtually no response outside of those who've been editing here to my request for comment. Look just because other articles are wrong does not mean we have to be wrong on this one. Let editors on other articles make their editing decisions and let us make ours. (→Netscott) 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at the responses above. "No mention" is ahead 3-2. Bus Stop and Tyrenius didn't really specifically give an answer, but I think it's a fair assumption that they are on opposite sides of the fence. And I think it's completely unreasonable to assume that editors of other similar articles which have all come to the same conclusion are wrong. I'm starting to think that you have stopped trying to improve this article and are now attempting to push an agenda. Bulbous 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop has himself edited in a lead sentence.. if actions don't speak louder than words I don't know what does. Besides you're avoiding the guideline issue. You yourself pointed out the Tim Hardaway article as an example... I see no difference here. So tell me then since User:Tyrenius who has been fairly outside of these issues is supporting a version even more intense than my own, by suggesting that I have an agenda are your suggesting he has an agenda as well? (→Netscott) 03:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding the guideline issue. I am suggesting that the LFI is not "notable" in the context of an entire career. The subject acted in a sitcom for about nine years. A ten-minute meltdown hardly stacks up against that. If you want a controversy that does bear mentioning, see Fatty Arbuckle. Now that's a "notable" controversy. The Hardaway article is an exception that (I believe) strengthens my case. It's a current event, and it's only mentioned there because it is so "now". On the discussion page, the editors of that article indicate that, after the controversy dies down, some of the material may be cut. Bulbous 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is so unnoteable than why is it the first thing that come sup when you google Michael Richards name?Hoponpop69 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to any mention of the Laugh Factory incident in the first paragraph. It lasted all of 5 minutes. No one was hurt. It was just a verbal altercation. To the credit of all involved, there was never any intimation of taking the disagreement to the level of physical violence. The media and all the people with big mouths got it all wrong, and Wikipedia doesn't have to get it wrong also. The incident is covered in the body of the article. It need not be mentioned at all in the lead paragraph. If I am outnumbered and it is decided that it is to be mentioned in the lead paragraph, then I argue for brief, toned down language. But I think the article is better by simply mentioning Richards' theatrical accomplishments in the first paragraph. Bus stop 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, the reason that the Laugh Factory is mentioned in the first paragraph is because if you notice in the vast majority of Wiki articles, there is a quick summary of the article in the first paragraph describing the major issues of the article. You should restore that info to the first paragraph in order to maintain that consistency. Jtpaladin 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you will find that in the vast majority of Wiki bios, transitive controversies of this nature are not mentioned. See Janet Jackson, Paul Reubens, Sinead O'Connor, George Michael, Mel Gibson, Winona Ryder and Marge Schott for examples. Bulbous 17:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I actually meant articles in general. Plus, in Richards' case, his bio does not really stand out except for Seinfeld and the LFI. That might make that incident appropriate for the first paragraph. I don't care either way. Just a thought. Jtpaladin 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All of those pages are wrogn as well because people liek you don't follow wikipedia rules on them.Hoponpop69 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus elaboration

I agree with the consensus reached regarding the Laugh Factory incident but I don't see anything wrong with elaborating on something that is already mentioned in the article. The Late Night with David Letterman is mentioned in the article and I thought that discussing what happened on that show in greater detail would be appropriate. It's verifiable and truthful and this has to be the first article in Wikipedia that censors info from an article. Anyone interested on further discussing this subject? Jtpaladin 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it from the David Letterman show that you would like to bring into the article? Bus stop 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess Jtpaladin is referring to when Michael Richards apologized; unless there was something else on Late Night With David Letterman that Michael Richards did there that I missed. Acalamari 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking about Richards' apology on Letterman. I thought a little more elaboration on that would be appropriate. Thanks guys. Jtpaladin 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the apology portion of could use some editing. For one thing Richards never, "said he was trying to defuse heckling by being even more outrageous". What he actually does is affirm a suggestion from Letterman that that is what he might have been doing. It seems disingenuous to make it appear as though that wording was Richards' own. (→Netscott) 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Netscott, that was all I was trying to say. Jtpaladin 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Following the Tim Hardaway example

Ok, pretty much everyone here understands that due to WP:LEAD guidelines any "notable controversies" should be included in the lead. User:Bulbous mentioned that on that in the lead of the Tim Hardaway article there is mention of his recent homophobic comments (which Ann Coulter sarcastically made reference to-btw) but Bulbous also noted that some of the editors were expressing the view that as time goes by such details in the lead should be trimmed down. Well there's no reason we can't apply the same logic here. It is clear given the South Park episode With Apologies to Jesse Jackson that the event is still very notable. Hopefully everyone realizes that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't know if these details of his life will fade away or not. What we do know is that they are very pertinent to his biography right now. Given the size of the concerned section on this article about him it is perfectly logical right now that there is mention of these events in the lead. (→Netscott) 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ok, pretty much everyone here understands that due to WP:LEAD guidelines any "notable controversies" should be included in the lead." Words appear to be being placed in people's mouth here. I don't see anyone conceding to this. Cleo123 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it would be remiss of us to follow what is probably an anomaly. However, for the sake of discussion, let's say we do. If we use that article as a guideline, wouldn't the statement simply read thusly? "In November 2006, Richards caused controversy over a series of racial slurs. He has since apologized for the statements". Bulbous 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds well worded to me... I still prefer User:Tyrenius's "raw" version but I also see how such raw language can likely prejudice readers about who Richards is relative to his entire life/career. (→Netscott) 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not really a suggestion, rather an example very closely following the other article. I'd probably want to tweak the wording a bit. Perhaps something like, "In November 2006, Richards caused controversy over a racial outburst during a comedy routine. He has since apologized for the statements". Bulbous 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with this version. Tyrenius 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer this last version as it is more specific to what happened. You know you've been citing all of these other bio articles and while I understand your logic that for the most part of them there's little to no mention of the controversies they've been in but what I fail to see entirely is how that is particularly pertinent as the currency of the controversies related to those other bios are out of date. Is that not true? (→Netscott) 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to point out the same thing. The articles I cited are older, but at the time the incidents caused very big scandals (consider Sinead O'Connor's tearing up a picture of Pope John Paul II on Satudary Night Live). I believe that the passage of time helps put such transitive events in proper perspective. Bulbous 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be exploiting the missteps of Richards as so many others have been doing. The truth is perfectly well recounted in the body of the article. If a reader wants to indulge in immersion in self righteousness they can surf the web to other sources for that. Bus stop 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cut out the rhetoric and drama. We don't edit on an emotional basis, but on an analytical one. We don't originate material, or your argument might have merit, but we do have to reflect it once it's been originated elsewhere. Please AGF as to the motivations of your fellow editors, rather than accusing them of exploitation. If you don't like the NPOV policy, this is not the venue to address it. Tyrenius 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the neutral point of view extends to always including a controversial incident in a lead paragraph. And if a controversial incident is included in an introductory paragraph, I don't think Wikipedia necessarily has to reflect improper biases, even if doing so would reflect the approximate weight that the media have given to it. Wikipedia has a voice of its own. Adherence to rules that result in a bad article does not make sense. Bus stop 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop being such a baby about this and trying to sugarcode this whole thing. The inclusion of this sentence does not make it a bad article, and there are no biases in it. You are just trying to upstruct progress from being made, so that Michael Richards looks better. I'm sorry but the fact is this was a major story. Google Michael Richards and the laugh factory thing is the first thing that comes up.Hoponpop69 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. Please comment on edits, not editors. Tyrenius 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is an editorial judgement that the source is "an improper bias". That's a POV. Secondly, even if it is a bias, then we have to represent that if it has significant weight. It can be attributed to the source, but it can't just be ignored because we don't like it. I think it would be a bad article if this incident were not included. I think it would be a bad article if it were not also in the lead section, which is meant to be a concise version of the main article. I think you should argue your case over on the talk page for WP:LEAD and WP:ATT to change the policy. Other editors are adhering to it, and so am I. Tyrenius 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbous' lead sentence review

Here's is the line for the lead that User:Bulbous has formulated;

In November 2006, Richards caused controversy over a racial outburst during a comedy routine. He has since apologized for the statements

Does anyone have any issues with the wording? (→Netscott) 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only word I would change is "racial" to "racist'. Though in general I think this sentence is good.Hoponpop69 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We've been avoiding the word "racist" due to a desire to remain neutral point of view about the Laugh Factory story. The word "racist" definitely takes on a strong point of view. This wording makes it clear what happened given the "apology" portion of this line. (→Netscott) 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A "racist" outburst? Bus stop 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay how about "an outburst of racial epithets"? I also feel it should be mentioned that they were targeted to black hecklers, as many comedians use innapropriate racial humor, but the fact that Richards did it to these peoples faces is what made it shocking. My suggestion:

"In November 2006, during a comedy show, Richards caused controversy over an outburst of racial epithets he shouted at a pair of black hecklers. He has since apologized for the statements."

Hoponpop69 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good too... I like the fact that it sets up that there was some provocation = black hecklers. But either one is fine imho. (→Netscott) 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think indication of provocation is fair, and follows sources. How's about:
In November 2006, Richards caused controversy over racial epithets he shouted at black hecklers during a live comedy routine. He has since apologized on television for the statements.
We don't need to be specific about the number, and it might not be accurate to do so. Mentioning TV brings in the fact that it was a media-worthy event. It doesn't mention "niggers", so hopefully editors who were against that will be able to find a middle ground. Tyrenius 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I'd change is the word routine, as it makes it sound like it was part of an act. If you change it to live comedy show I think it works great:

In November 2006, Richards caused controversy over racial epithets he shouted at black hecklers during a live comedy show. He has since apologized on television for the statements.

Hoponpop69 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest: "In November 2006, controversy arose concerning racial epithets Richards shouted at black hecklers during a live comedy show. He has since apologized on television for the statements." Bus stop 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree.Tyrenius 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is fine but I prefer the one above for succintness. (→Netscott) 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Bustop's suggestion is fine. Can we put it up?Hoponpop69 03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back up, Folks!

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. I've been very busy and just haven't had the time to weigh in thoroughly on this. In reading the talk page, it seems that the majority of editors including : Bus stop, Ecostaz, Bulbous and myself have expressed the view that this controversy should not be included in the opening sentence. Likewise, The Fat Man Who Came Back seems to have expressed reservations about the treatment of the incident in the opening. I'm not sure that Bulbous' willingness to discuss proposed verbiage should be construed as an endorsement. It seems like editors are being strong armed into a false consensus. Although WP:LEAD, which is only a guideline, endorses inclusion of notable controversies, I believe that guideline is outweighed by WP:BLP which is a policy. Surely, a policy outweighs a guideline. Let's not miss the forest for the trees here.

WP:BLP is very clear in requiring editorial sensitivity regarding controversial material that could be damaging to an individual's career or reputation. As written, the current proposals seem to be defining Richards in an encyclopedic context as being notable for only two things : appearing on Seinfeld & shouting racial epithets. There is a serious weight issue here. Do the supporting editors sincerely believe that Richards' years of work on Seinfeld and his Emmys deserve the same weight as a ten minute name calling incident? "Defining" his career in this manner is defamation of character, in my opinion. These are the same editors, who have argued that Richards' "stand up" career is not notable and worthy of inclusion in the lead. Well, the incident, in question, is clearly part of Richards' "stand up" career. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

WP:BLP clearly states that:

"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

The Laugh Factory Incident is not what Richards is notable for. It is a tabloid style incident, which he is now notorious for. There is a big difference. Had he committed a crime of some sort that might be a notable controversy worthy of inclusion. As Bulbous has pointed out, similar "controversies" including criminal incidents have not been included in the lead paragraphs of other celebrity biographies. To treat Richards' biography differently, is to discriminate against him by exercising an editorial bias. The incident is adequately covered in the article. Including it in the lead gives it undue weight, which could be construed as defamatory. If editors sincerely feel that the lead should be a summary of the entire article - why hasn't information about the "Michael Richards Show" and other article highlights been added? The fact that they haven't leads me to suspect that a point of view is being pushed here, whether intentionally or not. As editors, we must exercise editorial sensitivity by not mentioning this incident in the lead which according to WP:BLP must present a nuetral and unbiased point of view. Cleo123 03:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine then I will add information on the Michael Richards Show and the rest of his career in the lead section so that it is unbias.Hoponpop69 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no Hoponpop69(Actually misread your comments Hoponpop69, that makes perfect sense... sorry), but still this BLP argument is a hollow one... Cleo123's citation cancels itself out. Look the, "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" concern is canceled out by the bolded areas. It has already been explained on this talk page by both User:Tyrenius and myself that the lead could use help relative to the rest of Richards' career and with such help this one instance would be balanced out. Cleo123, your argument is falling flat here. Can you just add more details to the lead to balance it out? (→Netscott) 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You are both missing my point. There are two issues which need to be addressed : undue weight & editorial bias. While adding other career accomplishments and article highlights might address the undue weight concerns, there is still a global editorial bias that would have to be addressed. Treating Richards' biography differently than those of other celebrities featured on Wikipedia is exercising an editorial bias against him. In order to remedy the situation, one would have to add similar "controversies" into the leading paragraphs of all of Wikipedia's celebrity biographies. I do not believe that you will be able to obtain the kind of global concensus required for such a vast departure from the editorial norms. Do you really think that the editors over on the Barbra Streisand page are going to stand still for her "shut the fuck up" incident being included in the lead paragraph? Her confrontation with an audience member is an incident of very similar size, scope and nature - yet I doubt those editors will stand still for it being placed in the opening. Why isn't Winona Ryder labelled as a convicted shoplifter and drug abuser in her biography's opening? The answer is simple: defamation of character issues. The spirit of editorial policy must over ride mere writing guidelines in this situation. Cleo123 04:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the two above suggestions for balancing the lead, but the way to balance out content that shouldn't be present is not by adding more content that perhaps should be. I realize the currently proposed edit is, to some degree, being attributed to myself. I want to make it clear that I don't endorse mention of the LFI in the lead. But, when you have an extremely emotional and vocal minority of editors, including an administrator, who are ignoring an expressed majority and also precedent in order to push an edit, you don't have to paint me a picture in order to see how things will come out. I'd rather ensure that a reasonable statement is added then some of the poorly worded edits attempted earlier.
The only case that is being made is very weak. WP:LEAD does not automatically mean that LFI should be included, as it is not a notable controversy in the larger sense. For guidance, all we need to do is look at similar examples. An emotional meltdown or a breast exposure on television do not qualify as "notable". A career-ending prosecution for rape and murder, child molestation prosecution and an felony arrest resulting in incarceration clearly do. Can we really not see the difference? Bulbous 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look and weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP_vs._WP:LEAD. I have seen this same argument played out a bazillion times. Let's get some frikkin' consensus going here! --Jaysweet 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what should be added to the article, perhaps to the introductory paragraph, is the media circus that has followed a 5 minute virtually meaningless incident. Perhaps it should be noted that the media has made a mountain out of a mole hill. Perhaps in the introductory paragraph it has to be noted that Richards has no history of racism, that in fact Richards has a history of working constructively and amicably with black people. Bus stop 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, and it would be even better if you do it. I presume there are sources. It should have been done a long time ago in that case. Tyrenius 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. I am not aware of sources to support the contentions. Or, it would at best be original research. I stand corrected. Bus stop 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict) I quite agree with Cleo123 that as things stand the inclusion of this incident would create an unbalanced lead, but, as I keep on saying, this is because the existing material is inadequate, and needs to be enlarged. WP:LEAD states that for an article of this length a guide is 1 - 2 paragraphs. At the moment it's barely one paragraph. The lead should contain salient points, and I disagree with the omission of such as his comic routines, though it has to be shown that these are not what he is most known for. In other ways I have to differ strongly from Cleo123. The argument that he may be "notorious" for something but not "notable" for it is nonsensical. Notoriety is notability. We present the truth and the facts not a varnished spin version. WP:LEAD is quite clear that:

The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article.

It is not too far off at the moment, and an augmentation of the existing material in the lead will make it right. The point is that it is not an option as to whether it is mentioned in the lead or not. It is obligatory. Otherwise the lead will not represent the article.

Afterword: I object to Bulbous' characterisation of an "emotional and vocal minority of editors, including an administrator". I have no emotional involvement with Michael Richards, I can assure you. I do have an emotional involvement in writing an article as it should be. If I've got it wrong, I'd like to know, but I haven't seen anything convincing yet. The revised wording of this incident for the lead is very restrained.

Tyrenius 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Tyrenius, you appear to be ignoring the majority opinion here. Are you acting as an administrator or as an editor? I, for one, am confused - I do not see where anyone is "required" to include controversies in leading paragraphs. WP:Lead would appear to be a guideline, not a rule. Is there something I'm missing here? Cleo123 05:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than the point not really.Hoponpop69 05:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been reading up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines [7]. It would appear that policies, such as WP:BLP are strictly enforced, whereas as guidelines such as WP:LEAD are loosely enforced and subject to interpretation, exceptions and the #1 policy of concensus. There is no concensus here. The majority of editors have expressed the view that the Laugh Factory Incident should not be included in the lead. Cleo123 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines are only arrived at after considerable debate to reach consensus. They are essentially the normal ways that policies are interpreted in different situations. They carry considerable weight, and are especially useful when there is a local difference to indicate how this is likely to be viewed in the wider community. Thus WP:LEAD states:
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies
Local consensus does not trump policy and normally does not trump a guideline, because the local dispute ends up in a wider forum, which has already given consensus approval to the guideline. If this situation is deadlocked, then it will have to go through the WP:DR process. A properly conducted WP:RFC would be a good start - the idea is not for existing editors to pile in! Admins don't have any special editing privileges, although they are expected to have a good grasp of policy (but they're certainly not infallible :) of course), so I'm here as an editor basically with some informal mediating role. I did promise myself never to return, but I seem to have done so, though for how long remains to be seen. I'm not sure I can say any more than I have already. Tyrenius 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius -- You've been an incalculably good force in shaping up this article. I hope you continue to provide input. Without an admin this article would still be way out of control. Now it is merely the intro paragraph we are arguing about. Bus stop 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is a consensus that the incident should not be included. Furthermore how does this violate WP:BLP? What about the statement that we have came to a consensus on is a POV? If you fell it is unfair to have 1/3 of the Richards lead section about the LFI, then that's no reaosn to not talk about the LFI, it's reason to expand the lead section so that it gives a fuller overview of him.Hoponpop69 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't we write, in the lead paragraph, that a minor incident occurred in November, 2006, that received widespread media coverage, in which Richards used racial slurs to address members of the audience? That would seem to me to be the most concise way we could address the Laugh Factory incident in the intro paragraph while still doing so with balance. By simply calling it minor we solve all our undue weight problems. Bus stop 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The concept of consensus in an article such as this seems to be a slippery slope because another editor is bound to come along and change wording. They will do so because they were not included in the decision making process, and the decision making process begins all over again. Bus stop 09:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if you had a source saying it was a minor incident that would be legit, but I don't think you'd find one.Hoponpop69 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. It would be "original research." Bus stop 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP vs. WP:LEAD

Please take a look and weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLP_vs._WP:LEAD. I have seen this same argument played out a bazillion times. Let's get some frikkin' consensus going here! --Jaysweet 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I want a ruling here. Time and time again, I have seen articles where a living person has a notable controversy surrounding them, and half the folks want to put the controversy in the lead (citing the guideline WP:LEAD's advice that any notable controversies should be included in the lead text), while half the folks want to push it down to the bottom of the article (citing that WP:BLP is a policy and therefore trumps WP:LEAD). Examples: Mel Gibson, Tim Hardaway, Michael Richards.

I frankly don't give a damn either way, I'm just sick of an argument that doesn't seem to have an answer. So my request is: Can someone with authority (I invoke the holy name of Jimbo! ;D ) please make a ruling on this, and make it explicit in WP:BLP as to whether current controversies regarding a living person belong in the lead text? I would really appreciate that.... --Jaysweet 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above posts from from Jaysweet are central to this discussion. They make it clear that this is a Wikipedia wide problem and we should not waste our breath here, but wait out a solution from the community. For me it seems clear that a policy (WP:BLP) should trump a lower level guideline (WP:LEAD), but some clearly think otherwise. We should take a step back and not edit the lead until a wikipedia wide solution is found. Ecostaz 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion is directly on point and should settle the current dispute quite nicely. Bulbous 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well the trivia section has just grown... with another mention of the Laugh Factory incident further illustrating the notability of this incident. Look it's nonsense to be delaying when we have a perfectly good example to follow. Keeping the lead free of mention of this inicident is just bowdlerizing the article which is obviously wrong particularly given the guidelines on this. (→Netscott) 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A good example? No, I believe this is a this a terrible example. The Tim Hardaway talk page does not seem to contain any discussion regarding inclusion of the controversy in the lead. I suspect because the minority of nuetral editors are having a difficult time "containing" the controversy which has dominated more than 50% of Hardaway's biography. Apparently, the article was tagged as part of the now deleted Homophobic People category. It seems that the article has been mobbed with editors who are hell bent on labeling Hardaway a homophobe and exacting some sort of "punishment" on him. (sound familiar?) Folks, we live in the USA, where there is freedom of speech and people are entitled to their personal opinions. Whether we think Tim Hardaway is a homophobe or Michael Richards is a racist - they are entitled to their personal views, which are not germaine to their chosen professions.
More importantly, the Hardaway article is an isolated example. The majority of celebrity bigraphies do not include "controversies" in the opening paragraph. In singling out Richards and Hardaway for special treatment an editorial bias is being exercised on a global scale. As editors, we cannot view bias solely through the prism of isolated articles, we must look at Wikipedia as a whole. If this application of "guidelines" is to hold water then all celebrity biographies must include mention of controversies in the lead. To do so, we would then essentially be defining living people by these controversies. This opens a very large can of worms. What's next? "Paris Hilton is an american socialite & porn star." Or perhaps, "Winona Ryder is an american actress. She's also a convicted shoplifter." Or better yet: "George Bush is the President of the USA and a recovered alcoholic." How about : "Laura Bush is our first lady, who also killed some one in a car accident." Where does it end??? If I inserted these examples into any one of these biographies, I'd probably be labeled a vandal. It would appear that I was trying to defame the character of these individuals, and rightfully so. I'm not sure this situation is very different.
Again, I wish to reiterate my point. Policies outweigh guidelines. Guidelines should be applied with common sense. The spirit of WP:BLP should be first and foremost in our minds. Negative or controversial material that could be damaging to the career or reputation of a living person must be treated with sensitivity. There is a serious flaw in the guideline, which really needs to be fleshed out and clarified. To apply it unilaterally, as written, could potentially open WIkipedia up to a flurry of lawsuits for defamation of character.
BTW, I'm going to go off and help out on the Tim Hardaway article. Anyone care to join me? Cleo123 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, "George Bush is the president of the United States and a recovering alcoholic." That's awesome.
Just kidding... really, though, I'm glad other people are coming to see that the crux of the matter is unspecific Wikipedia policy. There is nothing in WP:BLP that directly makes an exception to WP:LEAD, yet a lot of editors feel it implies an exception. If so, let's have it be explicit. Pretty please? --Jaysweet 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LEAD V BLP is false polarisation. The article should be written per BLP, i.e. negative material must be properly sourced and treated from NPOV. Then the lead should be a summary of the article, so that people can find out the basics without having to read the whole thing. The problem occurs when these procedures are not followed. There are two problems with this lead. One is that there is not enough material on his general career. The other is that there is resistance to a proper summary of the article. You cannot summarise an article by omitting all mention of a third of the content. Cleo123 should really tone down the rhetoric. It's not helpful. We work by analysis, not emotion. Tyrenius 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you seem to see my contribution as less than helpful. My argument is quite well thought out and my intention is certainly to be helpful. I believe I have made an excellent point here which is truly intended to inspire analysis. There is no "emotion" here. I'm not sure where your commentary is coming from. I have presented a very logical argument, which is intended to encourage a broader range of thought.
Tyrenius, if you truly believe that WP:LEAD is an iron clad rule, let's play it out to its logical conclusion. You have said that the "problem occurs when these procedures aren't followed." I suspect that the reverse may more likely be the case. Let's go through all of the celebrity biographies we can find on Wikipedia and include summaries of the controversies in the article leads using nuetral fact based language. It is not something I agree with, but it may be a very valuable experiment to illustrate the point that there is a flaw in the guideline. I suspect that our edits would be reverted very quickly. I would also be somewhat concerned that literal adherance to WP:LEAD would result in unjust blocking for vandalism. Tyrenius, would you support such an experiment? Cleo123 03:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleo123, what you are describing about going around changing articles is essentially what WP:POINT is all about. Tyrenius is right, appealing to emotion is a type of red herring logical fallacy. Stick to the verifiable and sourced information and apply it per guidelines and policies. (→Netscott) 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. You seem to be acknowleging the fact that inserting summaries of controversies into biographical article leads would cause disruption on Wikipedia. You, thereby, seems to be acknowleging the fact that there is a flaw in the guideline. If you believe, as you and Tyrenius have argued here, that this guideline is an iron clad rule you should be eager to apply your interpretation of the guideline throughout Wikipedia. (of course, using only verifiable and sourced information) (→Netscott). your rigid interpretation of the guideline seems to be limited to individuals who have made homophobic or racist remarks. Can you understand why other editors might feel that you are exercising some sort of editorial bias?
My argument is a logical one, not an emotional one. If my words inspire an emotional reaction in you, perhaps that is because I have cut to the core of the matter. Cleo123 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, just an observation. Both you and User:Bus stop have been making appeals to emotion. Tyrenius is right in calling a spade a spade here. (→Netscott) 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleo123, your innuendos about Netscott are going into personal attack territory. Please desist and address the matter at hand, not speculation about an editor in this way. Tyrenius 04:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not see how my remark above could be considered a personal attack. It certainly is not meant to be. I have addressed the matter at hand, which is discretionary application of the policy. Richards' biography is being treated differently than other celebrity biographies, which constitutes a form of editorial bias from a global perspective. I am defending WP:BLP, discussing the editor's position as he has expressed it on this page. I have not commented on the editor, I have commented on his contributions. There is no innuendo or speculation, I have stated facts. Netscott has very clearly expressed his position.
I understand that you, personally, do not agree with my editorial position. However, to imply that my comment above constitutes a personal attack strikes me as improper considering your position. "Accusing others of making personal attacks should not be done lightly, particularly if you are involved in a dispute." Please, explain how my comment is in "personal attack territory" because I truly do not see how it is. Cleo123 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The comment "your rigid interpretation of the guideline seems to be limited to individuals who have made homophobic or racist remarks" is clearly an implication that the editor is prejudiced, i.e. an attack on him personally. It is always advisable to steer clear of anything that could be seen as a comment on the editor or it can end up very messy. Just some friendly advice. Tyrenius 06:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not! In no way, shape or form was I "implying" anything of the kind. I was referring very specifically to Netscott's edits to the Michael Richards article, the Tim Hardaway article and his remarks on this page regarding what would appear to be a selective enforcement of WP:Lead's inclusion of controversies, as is being discussed at length on this page. I have made a valid, fact based comment regarding his contributions. In no way was I "implying" anything about Netscott, personally! You are reading something between the lines, that just isn't there. Indeed, what you are saying makes little sense. Netscott's edits clearly condemn racism. Why would myself or anyone else accuse him of being prejudiced? Thanks for the friendly advice. An assumption of good faith would be appreciated. Cleo123 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you I was AGF, just concerned you might not have realised how the remarks could be taken. Tyrenius 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have already suggested that the emotion is on the other side of the fence. The pro-lead camp has indulged in edit wars and personal attacks. Arguing against someone who is emotionally invested in their edit can be a losing battle. For my part, I went out and conducted research on similar articles in an appeal to logic. When I observed that leads of other articles didn't mention petty controversies, the response from the pro-lead camp boiled down to: "Those articles are all wrong". Bulbous 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say, unemotionally, that there is a trend among many to take the self righteous road. It is always to condemn racism to the umteenth degree. It is always to condemn antisemitism to the umteenth degree. It is always to condemn homophobia to the umteenth degree. It is not the maintaining of a neutral point of view, as we are supposed to be about. The very existence of a separate Mel Gibson article just to heap shame upon him for his antisemitic utterances when stopped for drunk driving is the same sort of thing. I can assume all the good faith I want, but the same editors are in all instances advocating to condemn the subjects of articles for stepping out of the bounds of political correctness. They do not practice this condemnation within bounds of balance. I'm sorry, but they try to go as far as they can go. They seem to think that they should use Wikipedia as a tool to condemn people who have made missteps in certain areas that they apparently are highly sensitized to. The Michael Richards article is well balanced, now. But, before Tyrenius got here, it's state of being is the clearest evidence for what I'm trying to say here. All one has to do is look back on the Michael Richards article before Tyrenius got here to see the over the top condemnation that prevailed. I can now see that the Laugh Factory incident has to be mentioned in the intro paragraph. But I also remember the argument over whether or not the intro paragraph could mention Richards' stand up work. I guess all's well that ends in the well. Bus stop 05:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I just want to say how much I absolutely agree with you about this problem. I've withheld my POV here, but honestly, I don't think the Laugh Factory incident was meant by Richards to be racist at all.. I think he was just using the most offensive word he could think of, and the fact that it had racial connotations was incidental to him at the time. (Of course, that's a horribly insensitive thing to do, but I don't think he intended to evoke that level of hurt)
But yeah, that's pretty much the first thing people think of when they think of Michael Richards right now, so it's hard to justify leaving it out of the intro.
Mel Gibson is stickier. On one hand, I suspect that, drunk or no, he at least partially meant some of the things he said. On the other hand, Gibson's career is much more expansive than Richards', and I can't honestly say the first thing I think of when I hear of Mel Gibson is anti-Semitism....
Meh, just a few musings here. This is a tough thing, and there are some editors who seem to want to expunge all controversies from leads, and some who want to, as you say, heap shame on anyone who has ever been accused of intolerance on any level. That's why I was hoping for some explicit text in WP:BLP, but it sounds like we'll just have to rely on folks like Tyrenius and the other serious contributors in this thread to reach consensus. --Jaysweet 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaysweet -- I just don't think there should be two Mel Gibson articles. He is not such an important or multifaceted person to require two articles. Whatever happened when he got stopped for drunk driving can be put in one single article on Mel Gibson. And doing so requires the editorial decisions that really should be thought about. Quite frankly, the Mel Gibson DUI incident is editorial diarrhea mouth. It's totally improper to devote a separate article to a negative and minor incident in a relatively minor person's life. Bus stop 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laugh Factory incident


If you wish to change or add to the article or lead section text on the Laugh Factory Incident, please first read the long discussion about the main text which reached a consensus and can be found at Talk:Michael_Richards/Archive_2, as well as the debate on the lead section which can be found above. Change to the current text should only be made after establishing a consensus to do so.

Tyrenius 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting there

I think the lead is now doing a good job and has achieved the balance that is necessary. The main text now demands expansion and I think a good way to do this would be a separate section on Seinfeld, as it's covered very briefly at the moment. 9 years must have produced a significant amount of material worth including — catch phrases, memorable scenes or episodes, news stories, crises, ratings history, interviews etc. Tyrenius 06:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, both of the trivia items are related to the Laugh Factory incident. D'oh... --Jaysweet 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam veteran

It would seem the correct term is "Vietnam era veteran". Tyrenius 07:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. If not then the full explanation, "Vietnam Veteran stationed in Germany" for the intro. (→Netscott) 08:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
"Vietnam era Veteran (stationed in Germany)" is the fact. Tyrenius 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use the talk page

Please don't just keep reverting edits in the article. Use the talk page to discuss them and come to an agreement. Tyrenius 09:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies and Explanation of my Edits

First off, I want to apologize sincerely if I have stepped on any toes by making edits without first seeking consensus. I felt that the changes were significant enough to warrant immediate attention but slight enough that having a group discussion would perhaps be trivial or at the very least time better spent on other issues.

The article, before my edit, had a trivia section at the bottom, reposted here:

[edit] Trivia

The first bit of trivia struck me as very off. It was directly a response to the section regarding the incident, yet was written and put in in a place where it seemed just matter of fact. I do find it interesting, perhaps even relevant to mention his previous work with African-Americans, but did not approve of the misleading, "I'll just slip this in to get the last word" nature of its placement in the article. Then I saw that the next two bits of "trivia" were also directly related to the incident. If the intention of protecting this article is to maintain impartiality to the event, than placing trivia that is directly related to the event or is intended to expand on background information to the event somewhere else in the article is not impartial. It creates a back door for biases and also puts those facts in a place where they lose real context. Trivia should be reserved for more universal facts such as the last bullet regarding Norm MacDonald or perhaps what Richards' favorite flavor ice cream is. Anything stemming from such a controversial event, an event that is so defining that it could be considered its own subject for a separate article, should be kept with that section. I hope the editors protecting this article agree with me and see how the placement of these details at the bottom of the article is both unfair to Mr. Richards and to the intensity of the event as well as to anyone researching either subject. If there is dispute over my edit, however, by all means revert the article back and look forward to me arguing this point further to reach a consensus.

As far as the changes I've made: of the 3 bullets, two of them were related to parody, so I created a sub-section similar to those found on other articles for such media reactions. The bullet regarding his work with African-Americans in the past seemed inappropriate in the trivia section but biased in the section related to the event. I considered the option of deleting outright, but it is a verifiable fact and does seem, to me at least, to be relevant enough that deleting it now that it's been part of the article would be just as biased as putting it in the article to begin with. I finally decided on the subject heading I went with to give it a context I felt appropriate and least biased, as other editors can now enter other facts, either positive or negative, regarding Richards' previous work with African-Americans.

Thank you

--Crazytonyi 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Material about the Michael Richards show belongs with other information on the show. To set up a section on his work with African Americans is to instigate an editorial argument. Otherwise it needs to be shown that this is an argument which is merited by coverage in secondary sources. Likewise to say the other two mentions are a reaction to the LFI is an editorial interpretation of these incidents. We should just present the facts neutrally and let readers make their own interpretation. The heading that they are references to the LFI also emphasises that section, which is already quite large enough. Cultural references can include any other references to him, not necessarily related to the LFI. Tyrenius 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe if we delete the whole section and ban any mention of it at all, we can hope that everyone will forget about it and it won't be a problem anymore. Here's my take: 1) If the only trivia/cultural references being mentioned in some separate section are related to the incident, they are not about Michael Richards, they are about the incident. 2) Those two media references were about the incident. We are not adding emphasis nor an editorial by listing pop culture parodies to the incident. By that same logic, any pop culture references to Martin Luther King's "I had a dream" speech should be kept in the main "Martin Luther King" article and never mentioned in the same context as the speech, lest we run the risk of an editorial. Those references ARE an editorial, and any references, positive or negative, to the incident should be kept in the context of that incident. Mentioning that he worked with African Americans on a show that bombed 7 years ago is just an obvious attempt to build up his character after the incident without seeming partial. But if we mention any FACTS about his previous work within the context of that incident, we are not creating an editorial, we are showing a full picture, one that, in the utopia that is supposed to be wikipedia, others could add to get any even more informed picture. But instead, out of an attempt to be politically correct in the name of impartiality, this page has become a mine field. You can't protect this page forever, it's not even worth it. It was a newsblip that upset people and possible ruined a man's career, but in the end, it was hardly the holocaust or the Taliban. I agree, the section IS getting too big and it's getting ridiculous to protect it or keep things in their "impartial" place. Honestly, the only reasonable solution is to move all relevant information related to the incident to its own article and have a two line summary and a like on his page. If people are that eager to vandalize it or show an impartial side, at least it would be on the proper page rather than protecting Michael Richards' entire life. I noticed that his military service wasn't brought up until after the incident, doesn't that suggest an editorial as well? Suddenly he's a great guy and a loyal American now that his image has been tarnished? This entire section needs its own page, and I think we'll quickly see how much people are interested in reading about his early life or his work on "The Michael Richards Show".

Crazytonyi 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To say it's about the incident and not the man is not correct, because they are inseparable. One cultural reference mentions his real name and the other his TV name, so he's named in both. Other items can be added to that section also in due course. The article does not say he's "a great guy and a loyal American". That is something you have read into it, which you are welcome to do. Of course his military service is a valid part of his life and should be included, and it is included neutrally. Re. your idea of a separate article on the LFI, this has already been done and deleted. If you want to take part in this article, please read the archived debates first, so we don't have to repeat the same arguments all over again. There's no proper comparison between this article and Martin Luther King. Tyrenius 04:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
We have a problem to tackle. It is, how to write the article about Michael Richards. All negatives and positives are to be contained in that article. It is not a very long article right now. Why should it be split into two articles? The problem is one of reasonableness. Reasonable people disagree. What else is new? Bus stop 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've said on more than one occasion that the necessity for this article is to expand the rest of it. This will automatically reduce the prominence of the LFI section. Indeed reasonable people disagree, but, being reasonable, manage to come to an accommodation through reasonable discussion. Tyrenius 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Crazytonyi! Welcome, to the Michael Richards Page! Let me be the first to warn you that this article is a veritable vortex of dissent and discord! Prudent editors generally high tail it out of here pretty quickly - but if you are anything like the rest of us (and based upon your moniker, you may be) you'll be sucked right in. Be prepared to argue the same points over and over again for many months to come! LOL! I'm kidding - sort of! LOL
Actually, I think you have brought up a very valid point. It's always interesting to see things through a fresh set of eyes! Your observation about the "Trivia" section becoming an extension of the Laugh Factory section is dead on. The trivia section was created very shortly after the Laugh Factory section was "locked down". Initially, it contained nothing but LF related items that painted Richards in a negative light. I'll admit, I am the editor who added the bullet regarding African American actors on the Michael Richards Show. In truth, I did it only to balance the slanted view that had been presented. I'll agree with Tyrenius that it is more properly placed in the new Michael Richards Show section. I don't think that "cultural references" is a good heading, however, because it's too limiting. The "Man In the Moon" bullet is now lost, as a result. Also, the South Park caricature also relates to the LF incident. I think the section should be called Trivia and we should find trivia that is unrelated to the Laugh Factory Incident.
As for the seperate article suggestion, I suggest that you go read the AFD discussion (or as I call it WWIII). If you go back and read the talk page archive, you'll get a much better idea of the many bridges we have already crossed here. FYI - Richards military service was included in the pre-Laugh Factory Incident article. Editors deleted it during the LF debate. It's only recently made it's way back into the article. In the end, I think Tyrenius has it right. We all need to focus on fleshing out the rest of the article. Cleo123 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged and the information, as much as possible, should be merged back into the main text. I didn't notice the separate trivia section, and have moved it to be with other material under the heading "representations", as they all have in common the representation of him, not just LFI references. Open to discussion. Tyrenius 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't notice that there was a seperate trivia section? With all due respect,Tyrenius, you've contributed to the section several times. [8] I had no idea that Trivia sections were frowned upon, thanks for letting us all know. I propose that the "representations" section be deleted entirely. Are there other articles that have "representations" sections? I've never seen any. Are we creating a new type of section category just for Michael Richards? Cleo123 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify an explanation. I had noticed, but I was in the middle of looking at different versions in the history, and then I overlooked it because it was in an unusual place on the page and also because there were two trivia sections in different places, which is also unusual. I hope that's OK. If you read through policies and guidelines, all this stuff is in there. Then you'll know as much as me, or maybe more. Try Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles. I have changed the title to the one that is normally used for this kind of information. Tyrenius 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks! Cleo123 06:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The fact that the MRS had black actors in the cast is not noteable!

There are black actors on almost every show! On Mel Gibsons page it doesn't say he worked with Jewish acotrs. This is absurd. (spouting off removed by Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Please stop your vandalism of the talk page. Bulbous 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Hoponpop69 should be blocked, not warned, for personal attacks and vulgarity. His talk page is full of "final warnings" and it looks like he's already been blocked five times for similar behavior.[9] His remarks above are very blatantly inflamatory. I think it is, perhaps, naive - to believe that a rational dialogue can be conducted with this individual at this juncture. Cleo123 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not primarily concerned with how you speak, but what you say. And more importantly what the article says. In the context of an article in which there is a barrage of criticism for being a "racist," it is appropriate to put in evidence, where such evidence legitimately exists, for a full picture on Richards vis-a-vis the racial angle on this man. Bus stop 18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we get a consensus on this instead of just YOUR opinion.Hoponpop69 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The Mel Gibson article has it's own problems, the biggest of which is the separate article devoted only to lampooning him as an antisemite. Richards is not as successful as Mel Gibson in the entertainment world. Correct me if I am wrong. Richards was one of the producers of the show in which the mentioned Black actors played a role. And I believe almost half of the actors on the show being cited were Black. In other words, in Richards' relatively short career, he has played a role in being responsible for proactively arranging for himself to be situated in constructive working relationship with several Black people. It is sourced. It is part of his career history. He was one of the producers of that show therefore he probably had a role in many aspects of putting together that show including choosing the talent. That may not jive with the simplistic notion of the racist that has no other sides to his personality. But it is perfectly legitimate information and relevant, very relevant to this article. If the trivia section lampoons Richards for the Laugh Factory Incident, why can't elsewhere in the article present a countervailing picture? I think you argue for a one dimensional presentation of the life portrayed here. He is obviously more complex than that, however inconvenient and difficult it may be to grasp a true picture. Bus stop 18:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh please, maybe in the 1950's having a few black castmembers on a show would be noteable, but today it is common place. If anywhere this should be mentioned in the LFI section as to support his claims that he is not racist.Hoponpop69 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be notable to be included. It just has to be factual. I am not saying that it should or shouldn't be included. Tyrenius 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the 1950's racism and discrimination were more prevalent. But calling Richards a racist, as I think you would have to admit some people do, places Richards in a category that is an anachronistic throwback to that point in time. I think that factor justifies inclusion of facts that counter that point of view. This is not to say that mention of those facts would necessarily be welcome in just any article. But in the context of an article in which a broad accusation of "1950's style" behavior concerning race relations is being leveled at the subject of the article, I think that countervailing evidence assumes enhanced importance. Bus stop 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a valid point to be made that mention of the actor's race is superfluous. But in this article it is not superfluous. The racial angle already exists in this article. It would be selective suppression of information to leave such information out. Race is the underlying issue in all of the items in the "References in popular culture" section. Bus stop 10:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do happen to think that the race of the actors mentioned is not relevant. No other named actor has his race mentioned in the main article. Although you may perceive that a racial angle to the article justifies this mention, the only references to race outside of the LFI appear as you mentioned in the "pop-culture" section, which really only reflects the LFI incident anyway. Absent those two sections and the article is racially neutral. Bulbous 13:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I take issue with one word: reflects. The "pop-culture" section doesn't exactly reflect the Laugh Factory Incident. What it does is relate to the LFI. It refers to the LFI. In fact, it is commentary on the LFI. So, my question is: If the commentary on the LFI is permissible in the pop-culture section, why shouldn't it be permissible in the "Television and film career" section? As long as it's sourced, what other requirement must it meet? Bus stop 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thought. I think I may have mis-spoken about the "pop-culture" section. I have re-read this section and I note that only one item appears to relate to the LFI. Also, the entire section is written without reference to race. So, the mention of the actor's race elsewhere in the article is still out of line. Bulbous 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The entry about Apologies to Jesse Jackson relates to the LFI, and it is about race. Basically, the whole article is swamped by racial issues. It is improper to selectively rule out mention of race. I concede that in another context mention of race would be out of place. It would imply that it were extraordinary. But in relation to someone who is considered to be racist, it takes on a different meaning. It no longer is about the race of the actors. It is about the relationship between the subject of the article and people of that race. I think that context determines meaning. Bus stop 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that mentioning the racial disposition of only two of the actors in the entire article is, in fact, "selectively ruling out mention of race". Bulbous 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards is characterized as being a White racist. He is accused of harboring negative feelings towards Black people. Why would it be pointed out that any of the actors are White? He is not accused of hating White people. There exists no need to demonstrate his convivial relationships with White people. Would you want the racial identity of the White actors mentioned also? Bus stop 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that those characterizations that you mentioned are present in this article, although they may be a popular opinion elsewhere. The LFI description is a fairly balanced and accurate depiction of a current event (though I disagree with parts of it), and I would not say those words paint him as a racist (even though they describe what could be considered a "racist" outburst). It seems that you're adding a little bit of POV into this article where there previously isn't much. Bulbous 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

His own words paint him as a racist. On the web site: http://celebs.electronicnewsnetwork.com/michael-richards/ there is a picture of the cast of the show. Why not just include that picture, adjacent to that section of the article? Bus stop 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that one stupid outburst paints him as a racist. But your idea of a picture is an excellent solution! Put it up, if it's public domain. Bulbous 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It has been done. Bus stop 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone else find the opening section overly long and detailed?

Currently, I find that the second paragraph repeats in excessive detail what can be found later in the article:

Richards began his career as a stand up comedian, first stepping into a national spotlight when he was featured on Billy Crystal's first cable TV special. He went on to become a series regular on ABC's Fridays. Prior to Seinfeld, he made numerous guest appearances on a variety of television shows including Cheers, Night Court, Miami Vice and St. Elsewhere. His film credits include So I Married an Axe Murderer, Problem Child, and UHF. After Seinfield, Richards starred in his own sitcom, The Michael Richards Show, which lasted one season. After his series was canceled, he returned to his roots in stand up comedy.

I think this could be reduced to 1 or 2 sentences, with a lot of the very specific references (Billy Crystal, Night Court, Problem Child, etc.) removed, as they can be found in the article body. To summarize an article in the lead is one thing; to essentially repeat it verbatim is quite another.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It is well written, well sourced, unquestionably true -- no I do not find the opening section overly long and detailed. Bus stop 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the pargaraph I cited is not sourced at all (and "well written" and "unquestionably true" are debatable), but that has little to do with my point, which is that the paragraph is extraordinarily redundant, since the exact content appears again a few pagraphs later.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was fine myself but I'm open to suggestions. What were you thinking TFMWNCB? (→Netscott) 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking making it shorter, less listy, more general, less detailed and eliminiate some of the specific references that are covered later.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, could you formulate and post here a version that better corresponds to what you are suggesting? (→Netscott) 17:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not much of a writer, but I would favor something along the lines of:
"Richards first worked as a stand-up comedian and later embarked on a television career, appearing as a guest in numerous talk shows and sitcoms. After co-starring in Seinfeld, Richards starred in his own sitcom, The Michael Richards Show, which lasted one season. He has appeared in several feature films."
I like to keep things simple.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a logical modification to me. Maybe a touch more expansion just to better counterbalance the whole LFI part of the intro. but other than that it looks good to me. (→Netscott) 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely opposed to a re-reduction in the opening paragraph. Redundancy is not a factor; Tyrenius took great pains to point out that the lead paragraph *should* reflect the later content. We all just took great pains to expand it; why would we consider reducing it again? Bulbous 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Reflect" is different from repeat in unnecessary detail. Do you find my my concise version does not summarize the information later expanded upon in the main section?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I, too, think that the paragraph is effective in its current form. My understanding is that according to WP:LEAD, the opening should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the entire article. As is, one can obtain all of the significant information in a consolidated form by reading only the lead. By highlighting Richards major credits, certain readers' would (or should) be enticed to "read on". I think the "credits" are effective in "jarring a reader's memory" as to how they "might know" Richards. Likewise, other readers, who only know him from Seinfeld or the Laugh Factory Incident might be struck by some other moment of recognition, which might inspire further reading.
I think the reason the paragraph may seem redundant is that we still need to flesh out the remainder of the article with more detail. I am very busy these days, but if I get a chance in the next couple of weeks - I will certainly try to add more to other sections of the article. I hope everyone will join me. It occurred to me that we may also want to "lift" some of the better written material from the Seinfeld and Michael Richards articles and merge/adapt it for our purposes in this article. Cleo123 07:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way... I do see logic in TFMWNCB's proposed version but I essentially am in equal agreeance with Cleo123 and Bulbous' logic. (→Netscott) 07:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Richards_05ef.html"