Talk:Michael Richards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Television / Seinfeld (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Seinfeld task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Comedy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Revisiting Laugh Factory incident section[edit]

For sure, the main focus of Michael Richards Wiki entry should be the Laugh Factory incident. Where he grew up, Seinfeld, other acting work is all secondary in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.29.7 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

-- Why in the world should his article be mainly about something that happened one night vs. his role on a series which lasted many years which had a huge impact on popular culture. The laugh factory incident should definitely be mentioned but to make it larger than the rest of the article? Something that happened several years after his career was already dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.24 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The section on the 2006 incident was three times longer than the section on his two television series. Classic WP:UNDUE. It had a lot of bloated language and unnecessary detail. Now that this has had time to be put in better perspective, I have trimmed it while retaining the consensus-based meaning per WP:BRD. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


For anyone confused, I think it's safe to say that 85.71.29.7's comments above are pretty obviously sarcastic in nature.

I agree with discussion in archive 4 that the Laugh Factory incident continues to receive undue weight, and might be better suited in its own article rather than a biography.

As a separate matter of style/presentation, I don't know if the incident is necessary to include in the lead paragraph (of a biography article). Even if consensus deems it significant enough, those paragraphs need only to concisely refer to the incident section below. Currently, it is referred to in the 3rd lead paragraph with excessive detail (for a lead paragraph). I propose instead:

When Seinfeld ended, Richards returned to stand-up comedy. In late 2006, he made headlines from an incident at a comedy-club[1], and subsequently announced his retirement from stand-up in 2007.

Please note that this is not an attempt to whitewash information--all the relevant information can still remain in the section below (or in it's own article if such is warranted). However, the lead paragraph should be succinct and focus on the career milestones of the individual; it therefore needs not go into the same explicit detail as the article section. 108.202.199.29 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence to this section characterizes the audience members as "hecklers" and links to that article. This directly contradicts the passage that follows giving one of the audience member's accounts--he says they were possibly being a little loud ordering drinks, which is not heckling. Also the cited sources use language like, "noise that Richards interpreted as heckling". So unless there is some source stating clearly that there was heckling, I propose this ambiguity should be conveyed in the article.Snarfblaat (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)