Talk:Michael Richards

World Trade Center?

Is this the same person who was killed in the World Trade Center attacks? If so, it should be noted. If not, we need a disambig page.

Paul, in Saudi

No. Michael Richards (AKA Kramer) has been in the news of late (re: the Seinfeld DVD) and is very much alive and quipping. [1] chocolateboy 19:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ive heard they are keeping him 'alive' with hooks, showbusiness is amazing. unfortuately i cant find my source.Jesus On Wheels 10:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Freemason magazine

Where's that "Freemason" magazine picture from?--213.238.212.98 21:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad Picture

That's a really bad picture, all blury, someone should get a new one...User:Bronks September 12 2005

Misconception?

The character of Kramer is Jewish. I myself was under the impression that Kramer is a strictly Jewish surname (may well be true in real life but not necessarily in the world of make believe). However, in the episode where he arranges the shindig for Jewish singles he explicitly states that he is not Jewish.

Removed this here: "Altough he is famous for playing a Jewish character on Seinfeld, Richards is a Roman Catholic." What's Jewish about Kramer? Is so, why would the reader find this notable? --Wetman 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Kramer is just a German occupation name for a peddler. It's easy to Google non-Jewish Kramers. --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholic/Freemason/Shriner?

It's unlikely that he is both Catholic and a Freemason (or a Shriner). Wayback, freemasonry was forbidden by the Catholic Church. Not that it would be ruled out today, but it seems far-fetched.

Actually, freemasonry is still fobidden by the Catholic Church. Its not viewed as a mortal sin or anything but you're still not supposed to join. - Schrandit 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than that. If you join the Freemasons, you are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. 129.22.53.246 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Masonry, despite the stigma placed upon it by the catholic church administration every few years or so, still attracts many catholic members - there are men of most every faith in masonry, and catholics are not excluded from that count - from parishioners to priests and bishops, masonry and freethinking catholicism are not disparate. CigarBandit 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

yes it is true the catholic church looks down at freemasons. but the freemasons dont. and you can still join freemasons if your catholic or any other religion. freemasons only want you to believe in a higher power it can be anything you wish. parents, gods, aliens, etc.a few priests in my city are also freemasons, or vice versa.

Look, if you are a Catholic you're not supposed to join the masons - if you want to talk about that you can do it here - Schrandit 23:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Early Life section it claims that "Richards was raised in the Catholic religion". This is referenced by an article from a Jewish journal, which says that Richards was a Catholic, according to "sources familiar with Richards". Shouldn't we get a better source than this in order to claim that he is Catholic? Atreyu81 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of references about celebrities usually say something like "sources familiar with X". It could mean his agent, or people who have worked with him, etc. Mad Jack 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Chicago Defender article quoting his publicist (November 22 - "Richards wants to apologize directly to Black community"): "He is Jewish," Rubenstein said. "I don't know about what other reports have said. I am his spokesman and I am telling you he is Jewish. You got that directly from me." Unless his publicist is deliberately making up a lie, or Richards converted to Judaism in later life, we can scrap the "Catholic" label.172.142.252.2 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My friends, if you wish to go back to Papel History. Pope Innocent I do believe, abolished the Freemason thinking for to it's Prodistundt back tones in it's ritual. But as a Catholic who talked to his priest and arch bishop before joining, I'll let you know that it's looked down on, only because they would prefer Catholic men to join the Knights of Columbus, but there's no ex communication or reamnifacations anymore. CHAMP

What diocese are you in? cause last month the Bishop of Wilmington had ever parish priest remind the faithful how inexcusable it was to join a Masonic group. Not disputing your story but I’d really like to know which Bishop it was that said this. - Schrandit 07:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"The law now in force [214] pronounces excommunication upon "those who enter Masonic or Carbonarian or other sects of the same kind, which, openly or secretly, plot against the Church or lawful authority and those who in any way favour these sects or do not denounce their leaders and principal members." - a quote taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Simply put, you can join freemasonry and you can call yourself a Catholic, but just know that you are not a Catholic just because you call yourself one. I can call myself a Doctor but it doesn't mean I am one because I do not practice it. It's the same as a person who believes in abortion who calls themself a Catholic, they are not by any means a real Catholic they are simply heretics. Michael Richards is not Catholic just because he claims to be.71.112.224.112 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers appearance

I was watching Cheers the other day and he popped up in a minor role as a friend of Sam...

Unfortunately I didn't write down the episode title, does anyone have any ideas where I can get hold of it?

Cheers appearance again...

Sorry to repeat post but tv.com has a note here:

http://www.tv.com/cheers/bar-bet/episode/14134/summary.html

(Notice Michael Richards in the cast list as "Eddie Gordan")

Does anyone think that this is worthwhile including?

Vietnam war veteran

I've removed the sentence about him being a vietnam war veteran, and also the category. He was drafted during the war, but according to the article he didn't serve there, meaning that he isn't a vietnam war veteran! Bjelleklang - talk 13:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

What Richards actually says is that "50 years ago you would be hung upside down with a fork up your ass", which is just weird and gross, and not necessarily having any racist connotation that I know of (though the rest of the tirade certainly is). The video from CNN with the "Offended Audience Member" being interviewed is really innaccurate compared to the TMZ.com video of the incident itself.

---

Someone keeps adding "he hates black people" at the end of the first sentence among other things. This article should be locked.

-- NickyBatts 20 Nov 2006 (UTC) The article now just says "Michael Richards is a racist" this page should be locked.

Lock it. Richards screwed up recently, but it's only going to lead to vandalism. -Betaeleven 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to add that one of Richards's comments was a possible reference to lynchings of black people: "Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f------ fork up your a--." From http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=242527&GT1=7703 I hope someone adds this info. I don't have time or attention right now to wait until the article is unlocked to add the info above.

I will add a full transcript of the video of the event. I believe this is important due to confusion about the full circumstances, and the extent of abusive terms. 3dom 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another consideration is that, odd and offensive as it may be, it doesn't seem as though Richards actually "believed" what he said. For example, after saying it, he continued onstage that it was "shocking" and referred to "what lays beneath" regarding the infamous word. --AWF

3dom, I have to disagree on the insertion of the full transcript. It takes up an excessive amount of space (almost as much as all the writing on his career), and while this incident may certainly have huge implications on his career, the full transcript comes out as fluff. A few quotes are good and I definitely think it needs to be illustrated, but a link and a a quote or two are enough. caz | speak 01:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree you could probably trim a bit of the repetitive content, I think it is important to document the incident in full, particularly in this case as there is debate as to the sincerity of the comments. I believe the transcript serves to show as evidence Richards' was not merely trying to be witty or sarcastic, but had become quite irate and abusive. 3dom 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You should add this incident in full including a link to the video of how racist and offensive he got. He tried to change it into a more comedic performance but then went into a rage and that is when he used the "N Word". Before, he had made racist comments about the treatment of Black people fifty years ago. After his apparent calming down and twisting it into a joke, he went back into a rage and started using the "N Word". This incident should be included in full. With every racist remark documented.

what kind of retarded comment is this "record what he said", is he under some kind of trial? I thought there was freedom of speech in this country. And I know you have your opinion, but this incident has nothing to do with this article, do you judge the persons charachter with one action? no you don't.

The Laugh Factory

Should this article be protected because of his racist remarks at The Laugh Factory? There has already been vandalism.--TheBooRadley 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC) What I don't like is the white-washing (no pun intended) of his remarks by simply referring to them as "racially insensitive." Saying something racially insensitive would be accidentally or unintentionally letting something slip; Richards let loose a tirade of what is arguably one of the most insensitive racist terms currently in use towards black people, inferring that an audience member ought to be murdered in the fashion one might have killed a slave 50 years ago. That's not "racially insensitive", it's violent hate speech. Midnightguinea 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: There were no slaves 50 years ago...more like 150 years ago.

Lynching of blacks didn't stop with the emancipation of the slaves. Lynchings were common as recently as the 1960's and I would not be surprised if a small handful have been carried out even more recently. — NRen2k5 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this is an encyclopedia. We're not here to make judgements. If people want to do that, they can watch the video clip or read one of the various news stories. I just put in a request for semi-protection for the vandalism. —B33R ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And as an encyclopedia the facts should be stated not sanitized. Allow the reader to make their own judgment from the facts. User Brown Hornet

I think this page should at least get a little admin oversight for the next few days - as per the facts, keep the phrasing the way it stands and link to the online video of the act so people can judge that for themselves? - Schrandit 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know we had slaves 50 years ago. 66.189.116.168 17:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that anybody even implied "we" had slaves 50 years ago. — NRen2k5 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards' outburst wasn't exactly racist. Calling a black person a "nigger" isn't racist, it's a slur. Racism would be to say that the black man is somehow inferior or should be treated differently. And in my opinion Richards didn't quite do that, either. He went on about "fifty years ago…" and not "we should…". (Sorry if my use of the term "black" hits any nerves here. I feel it is more correct than "African American" because of the number of black people of African heritage living outside of America and the number of people of other races who identify themselves as African.) — NRen2k5 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A few of us have made a sourced beachhead on the page, but I could see this requiring semi-protection for at least a few days. --Bobak 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up something, Richards didn't "infur" that the guy SHOULD be killed, but said that's what would have happened 50 years ago. Doesn't make it right, but let's not get mixed up and make what he did even worse.

I'll give it to you that stating he inferred such a thing on the actual article would be unacceptable, but let's be real here: the very definition of "infer" is to say something without actually saying it, and we all know what he was inferring. Midnightguinea 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's actually "implying." Inferring is drawing a conclusion. J21 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J21 is right. Just a tip: Speakers imply, listeners infer. Jyroberson 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that this event is encyclopedic enough to deserve a section all its own yet. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be something that we all run straight to for the latest gossip every time a celebrity does something goofy. It remains to be seen if this is something that will ultimately be notable in the big scheme of things in his career. This isn't quite a Mel Gibson meltdown - yet. wikipediatrix 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. That paragraph has generally been attracting more unwanted attention from vandals too, hopefully that's stopped for now though as the article hasn't been vandalised in a whole 20 minutes! At this time though, I'm more inclined to leave it there, as it is well written and will hopefully stop vandals from thinking "it's not mentioned - I've gotta add it", and then doing a far worse writeup. Still waiting on semi-protection too. —B33R ^{Talk • Contribs} 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You can disregard most of my previous comment. Now that the page is semi-protected, I think it should be removed. If the news sources I've seen are correct and he went back on stage the next night, then it certainly doesn't appear to be career changing or particularly worthy of inclusion at this time. —B33R ^{Talk • Contribs} 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Add the section about the laugh factory back in. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when you start calling someone a nigger and saying black people should have been killed 50 years ago it will have an effect on your career. And don't confuse gossip with current events. This is not gossip. 141.211.4.27 19:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it deserves at least a sentence and a link - while its not huge news in the long term this is the most publicity he has gotten in a long time and it may have an impact on his career - Schrandit 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It deserves more than a sentence because it is a current event. As time passes it can be widdled down to the appropiate size. 141.211.4.27 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy rationale for what you're saying? The simple act of being a current event does not automatically imbue notability, especially on a living person's article as per WP:BLP. wikipediatrix 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no policy. But something like this is clearly noteable and deserves to be mentioned in this article. When has someone calling a black persion a nigger not had an affect on their life or career? Don't leave this out of spite for people who add gossip, this isn't gossip. This deserves at least a sentence, preferably that section that was in there originally because it was well written and informative. 141.211.4.27 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong disagree. The article (and video) about Kramer's "racial meltdown" are featured on the front page at the top of the first several popular "news" sites I went to: MSNBC, CNN, Drudge, ABCNews, etc. I'm not pointing to these as encyclopedic sources; I'm simply asserting notability. I also think we're very close to swinging the pendulum to the other direction: we're now so worried about libel that we're asserting that a very offensive tirade such as this that's getting top-of-the-fold attention by virtually every news outlet is not notable. I encourage everyone to actually re-read WP:BLP. It warns against reprinting things from gossip magazines or inserting unsourced or NPOV descriptions of events. Given that this is not gossip and that there are many sources available (including AP), it seems clear that we should have a sourced, NPOV description of the event (no more than a few sentences). See the Kanye West article for an example of how a similar outburst was handled (when West protested the loss of an award on live television). The solution is not to wait 6 months and see if it blows over before adding it to the article, and I think time is of the essence here. Strom 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Disagree -- as per Strom. This was very, very questionable of the editors that removed it. I agree with the point made by anon-141.211.4.27 above: we can always whittle it down. WHat was there was sourced and IMO neutral. --Bobak 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia: We protect funny celebrities from themselves!" I'd like to think not. --Bobak 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. This isn't something "goofy." This is the most news he'll make for the rest of his career, in all likelihood. I'm really surprised that this was surpressed. Sylvain1972 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

By gossip I don't mean hearsay, I simply mean "lurid news". This incident is probably just a blip on the radar of Richards' total life, and yet it was given a huge section all to itself taking up 10-20 percent of the article. That's what's known as "undue weight". wikipediatrix 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I completely disagree with you about it being a blip - how can you say its not on the level of Gibson when his statements were far more offensive?

Regardless, Wikipedia's not a crystal ball and its not our job to access the future. The fact is that every major news outlet is reporting this, including international releases by the Associated Press and CNN. So, its certainly notable. It you believe that editors were giving undue weight then the solution is {{sofixit}} and rewrite, not revert entire good faith edits as if they were vandalism.  Glen  20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I never treated it like vandalism. I haven't reverted it again since more editors have come in and chimed in on the matter. Nevertheless, I still feel very strongly that Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and we aren't obligated to take every daily news story and amplify it into larger-than-life status on their article. As for the difference with Gibson, Gibson committed a crime - drunken driving. That's notable. Being a jerk onstage isn't, necessarily. wikipediatrix 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So if Gibson had just been pulled over for speeding instead, and started bitching about jews it wouldn't be noteworthy? There is a big difference between being a jerk and being a racist or saying racist things. Calling people niggers is not being a jerk. He was not telling a joke, he was not doing an edgey comedy routine. He was using racial slurs. And yes, wikipedia isn't wikinews but that doesn't mean wikipedia can't have current events in it. 141.211.4.27 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Im sorry but in all the stories of the Gibson incident I never saw one that focused on the drunk driving aspect as being the scandal, how can you possibly claim that that's what made it notable? I'd argue that if Gibson had said the same thing in any situation it would have resulted in the same result from the public. And if you cant see the difference between this and "any news story" then I guess thats where we disagree.  Glen  21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know this is just a blip? Furthermore a blip can be a big part of someones life. Star Wars kid has had a few minutes of his turn into a big article on him. Should it be wittled down to reflect the actual percentage of his life it has taken up? It is current event so it will be expanded on a lot. People read a news article on him, come here to read about his life and work and add the sutff they read. Once this stops making news it can be wittled down to an appropiate size. By refusing to make any mention of this incident at all you are doing a diservice to wikipedia and everyone who comes here to read about current events. 141.211.4.27 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this being a notable event for reasons stated above: It's showing up in multiple news sources and its verified that it happened -- a video of it exists and Richard's publicist (or whomever handled the PR for this incident) acknowledged it. So, let's see -- verified video from the horse's mouth on multiple international news agencies = not notable? That's news to me. Frankly I think at this point anybody removing this event from the article should be given a warning or an RfC for repeat vandalism. Professor Ninja 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read our vandalism policy. Good faith edits are never vandalism as much as you or I disagree with them  Glen  21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, perhaps condescendingly assuming I'm not familiar with "your" vandalism policy would be considered a bad faith edit? Or condescendingly assuming a bad-faith contribution on my part instead of the good faith assumption that what I meant was that any edit that so violates the notability policies repeatedly should be considered ex post facto bad faith? Would that be bad faith, Glen? Professor Ninja 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say "my", he said "our". That would include all editors. Even you. He also didn't say anything about bad faith on your part, condescendingly or otherwise. I think you're confused. wikipediatrix 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm what?! Perhaps you should read the policy before commenting again Professor? I quote:

“ Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. ”

Are you claiming wikipediatrix does not have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart?  Glen  23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how this current revision helps anyone? The controversy section is now nearly the same size as his entire Seinfeld and pre-Seinfeld TV career. This is just ludicrous, there is absolutely no reason to have virtually an entire transcript on there. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, there's already links to the video, why is anything other than a basic encyclopedic outline needed? —B33R ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is ridiculous, tabloidish, unencyclopedic, and completely unfair to a living person. If the problem hasn't cleared up very soon, I'm going to reduce it to a single paragraph and if anyone wants to complain about it, they can take it to the WP:BLPN. (Edits made in the name of WP:BLP, incidentally, are exempt from the three-revert rule.) wikipediatrix 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have to limit a section based on the size of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.4.32 (talk • contribs)

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Guess you've never heard of "Undue weight". wikipediatrix 22:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the other sections are underdeveloped. This is a current event so it is easy for this section to grow with lots of information, useful and useless (feel free to edit the useless stuff like uneeded quotes, etc). I see no need why we need to limit ourselves because the rest of the article is small. 141.211.4.32 23:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Y'know you cry "undue weight" but have you actually even read the poilcy? The first sentence: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." On the Prominence of the incident, not how big the rest of the entry is. And most of the section deals with viewpoints, not informational context about an incident. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!}} 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not going to argue about it. Take it to WP:BLPN if you think I am in error. wikipediatrix 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel there should be some differentiation made regarding the apology. There was a second performance which he was allowed because he said he would make an apology, but no apology occurred. See the history @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&oldid=89121491 Erik.hensarling 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there really a need to have The Laugh Factory's statement? I mean, who really cares what their opinion is... -Betaeleven 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This artical, is bias to say the least. It is put in a way that only reflects a Jerry Springer like tone. It needs to be written in a more constructive manor to show a two sided, but yet sceptic view on what happened. CHAMP

On a different note: Why is "Freemason" in the opening line?

Its hardly so notable as to deserve placement right next to Emmy Award winner and producer! And, looking at Category:American Freemasons (his category) I can't see from going down the list of other members one other article that even has this in the opening paragraph. Was this consensus from a prior discussion?  Glen  21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved it down now. It was wrongly placed (and lacked a following comma too, so it read "Freemason writer"). Bwithh 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What's a Freemason writer??? Writing has nothing to with his Freemason title. He's a Freemason. It should be above his accomplishments in acting if anything. I think the artical reads well. Leave it alone, dudes. CHAMP

Controversy censorship

Uh, what's with the censorship of the controversy section (apart from one loaded ethnic slur which apparently doesn't qualify)? (WP:NOT#CENSORED) Bwithh 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The censorship has been removed (see also WP:Profanity: "words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols"). Strom 22:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Category:Racism

I am opposed to tagging this article with the Racism category. If you look at other articles in this category, it's not a list of racist people, it's meant to include articles on the topic of racism. This article is not about racism. It's about a celebrity. There is no precedent for the Racism category to be used on every person in Wikipedia who has ever been documented making racist statements. We also must consider that this article is a biography about a living person (see WP:BLP). While it is prudent to mention the event, this only adds to the needless controversy surrounding the article. Strom 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

--Agree. I added the thing below before I saw this. --Macarion 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, the category isn't Category:Racist people, it's Category:Racism, big difference. The racism category concerns articles that are notably related to the concept. There are plenty of individuals in the category see: Jackie Mason, Mark Fuhrman, John Tyler Morgan, Johnny Rebel (singer), Joice Heth, and Jack van Tongeren. There's more where that came from. (→Netscott) 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

When you think about an encyclopedia and its coverage of history, do you really think that it's prudent to declare Michael Richards a notable figure in the history of racism? To say the very least, it's way too early to tell. As you can see above, I was a big proponent of covering this event (earlier, editors had totally removed the section and protected the article). However, that category is clearly underdeveloped, given that Hitler and Martin Luther King, Jr. aren't in it. I just don't think that haphazardly putting an underused category tag that smacks of a libel lawsuit is the right thing to do (again, given WP:BLP). If there was an actively-managed "Race-related current events" category, this article would be a great candidate. Strom 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear the category is not designed for general use as you intend. Also, if you read those articles, you'll see that those people have their central occupations based around the subject. An actor who makes racist comments for 30 minutes one evening definitely doesnt qualify (no matter how bad the comments were)  Glen  00:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

30 minutes? more like 3 minutes. And by Wikipedia's own definition of Racism, Michael Richards' outburst was not racist. Rather, what he said was just plain old hateful and laced with racial slurs. — NRen2k5 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that, a racist comedian!!! What's this world coming to. I, for one, am not threatened by Mr. Richards comments, but note that it has NOTHING to do with this artical at ALL!

Racism category.

No, he wasn't actually suggesting that the man be lynched. We don't even know if this incident will be remembered at all a few months from now. His remarks weren't any new thing that someone would study if they were studying the history of racism. --Macarion 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lynching in the United States

Adding text to the article about his line, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass" relating to lynching in the United States does not in fact need a source due to the explicit nature of the statement. Wikipedia:No original research specifically allows for inclusion of text that is obvious in nature as this is. (→Netscott) 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It may not need a source, but it's not necessary. The way the sentence read was to this effect: "Michael Richards was caught on video talking about lynching ... " That's not the appropriate characterization of what he was caught doing. He was caught making a ton of horribly racist comments, one of which was about lynching. I just thought that it mischaracterized it, not as being too racist, but as being primarily about lynching. It was primarily about screaming racial slurs and having an on-stage anti-black meltdown. If you can find a better way to word that (i.e. not at the very beginning), I think that would be alright. I played with putting (see lynching) after the quote, but thought it broke up the sentence too much. Strom 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that his statement is an obvious reference to lynching I did a quick perusal of news sources and there is decent support for that addition. I'd rather you in good faith restore the lynching text yourself if you'd not mind. (→Netscott) 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, my real problem is not about sourcing, it's about mischaracterizing the topic of his comments. Feel free to re-add it in a way that doesn't cast his entire tirade as being about lynching, because that's just not quite accurate. Strom 01:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards was probably attempting insult comedy, of which Don Rickles is probably the most famous historically, and most recently Lisa Lampanelli, who lampoons her own relationships with African American men. Howard Stern also got a lot of laughs as a shock jock insulting people of all types, while Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog raised the ire of Quebec, Canada for insulting them during a segment of the Conan O'Brien show. As the article on Don Rickles states, Rickles would usually insult hecklers and audience members as part of his routine. Chris Rock also uses the n-word in his routine (but of course, Rock can get away with it for obvious reasons). If a comic is over-the-top-offensive, it's because the comic is trying to get a laugh, even from the person who is the target of the "tirade" (see roast (comedy)). The Comedy Central roast of William Shatner actually roasted everybody on the dais, from Farrah Fawcett to George Takei to Nichelle Nichols.

Numbchuckles 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbchuckles, you're probably relying upon your own original research as you add this above talk. Cite what you are saying and source it. I'm citing and sourcing what I'm adding... it's all about notable and verifiable reliable sources. (→Netscott) 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I put this information on this discussion page merely as a well documented historical background for people who might be unfamiliar with the concept of "insult comedy"; they only need to follow the Wikipedia links to Don Rickles, Lisa Lampanelli, and the other Wikipedia articles I mentioned to see that Richards' schtick isn't a new phenomenon. The situation really needs to be seen in the context of where it happened (during a stand-up comic's performance) and to whom (hecklers in the audience) before people start immediately acting upon the suggestion that Richards be categorized on a list of racists or take his words literally or twist his words or feel compelled to vandalize the page. As no mention of "insult comedy" existed on this page hitherto, it seemed like an appropriate time to bring up the topic. (The wikipedia article "hecklers" also has some information on how comics in the past have handled their hecklers, usually with insults.)

Numbchuckles 01:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you really going to try and contort what was clearly a meltdown of racial epithets into some sort of purposeful form of comedy? Did you bother to even watch the tape? Did Don Rickles ever walk off and have the announcer come on an apologize afterwards?

Nobody cares that Michaels responded to hecklers — that's perfectly fine, par for the course. The problem was the racist meltdown — targeting the hecklers not just as hecklers, but as African-Americans.

There wasn't anything funny about the bit. The audience clearly saw this. Richards himself clearly saw that he had lost control. It is a sad thing to watch. I don't know that it necessarily means that Richards is a racist at the core, but the comments were clearly racist. And I think we can judge from the audience reaction (the "Oh my god", the sudden silence, the getting-up-and-leaving) that Richard's use of the n-word was clearly not done in a comedic context, and clearly took things in a very ugly direction.

This ain't a Don Rickles act. And if you can't claim to see the difference between how Chris Rock uses the N-word and how it is used when it is shouted in genuine rage by a white man, then you're either an idiot or a liar. --24.147.86.187 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He was just trying to be shocking and showing the power words have over people. Comedians do this all the time. Watch Mind of Mencia one of these days. Skits like "Kanye West is a Crazy Nigga" are lined up right next to skits like "Ask Whitey". Richards really got the last laughs over all America, especially all yall who are up in arms editing this article. A washed up ex-actor speaks a taboo word and makes it to the front pages and yall buy it hook-line-sinker. He's a modern day Lenny Bruce but tweaking the PC liberals this time around while simultaneously exposing their hypocrisy. Imagine Chris Rock making a joke about cracker hecklers and being called a negro in return. Would this make the PC grave injustice of the day websites? Eviltwinster 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. His original comment could be construed that way, but then to shout to the audience that "he's a nigger" repeatedly, and then turn the slurs on another audience member who took offence is not "shock comedy." Onikage725

That's why it's called "insult comedy", not "shock comedy". Nobody said stand-up comedy was easy (note I said he was "attempting" insult comedy), and Jay Leno has talked about nights where he (Leno) was on the road and bombed. On the Richards' tape, you can hear other people in the audience who "get it", as they laugh when Richards' starts his "tirade". When he states "All right, you see? This shocks you. It shocks you to see what's buried beneath you", clearly he's going the Lenny Bruce route like Eviltwinster suggests; check out the film Lenny that stars Dustin Hoffman, I seem to remember a particular scene in the film where the Lenny Bruce character says almost the same thing while doing his routine:

Lenny Bruce character: Are there any niggers here tonight? Can you turn on the house lights, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving for a second? And turn off the spot. Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" There's one nigger here. I see him back there working. Let's see. There's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike. That's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic, right? Hm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop. There's a Polack. And then, oh, a couple of greaseballs. There's three lace-curtain Irish Micks. And there's one hip, thick, hunky, funky boogie. Boogie, boogie. Mm-mm. I got three kikes. Do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes. Do I hear six spics? Six spics. Do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American! I'll pass with seven niggers, six spics, five Micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop. You almost punched me out, didn't ya? I was trying to make a point, that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig. If President Kennedy would just go on television and say I'd like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet. And if he'd just say nigger, nigger to every nigger he saw, Boogie, boogie, boogie, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, till it didn't mean anything any more! Then you'd never be able to make a black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger in school.I am of Semitic background. I'm Jewish.

The movie Lenny was released in 1974; Lenny Bruce himself died in 1966. If some of you (such as poster 24.147.86.187) have the time, you might be interested to check out the movie from a library (or rent it, or whatever).

Numbchuckles 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not remotely the same. Your quote shows Lenny Bruce was working on a point about the power of words and trying to change/subvert that power. Richards wasn't making some kind of commentary on racial idioms in American culture. Granted that one statement about "the things that come out" could be interpreted as meaning he was pretending to be a raving racist for effect, but for him to have calculated it that well seems unlikely. He also wasn't doing insult humor either as that's usually about the personality or looks or assumed intelligence of the heckler. It's not about threatening someone with violence or referring to violence done in past times. I don't see how your points are relevant IOW.--T. Anthony 14:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

T. Anthony, you have the benefit of the fact that I included the entire snippet of the Lenny Bruce monologue, from the insulting part to the conclusion (more dramatic when you see it on film, and you have no idea where the Lenny Bruce character is going.) If I had not included the conclusion, and cut off the excerpt at "Ya almost punched me out", you might have had different thoughts on the matter.

Likewise, Michael Richards' response was improvisational (unplanned) and he got cut off in the middle of his thoughts during that response; whether he conciously remembers seeing the movie or not, you can tell that he was heading in the same direction, especially when Richards says "You see? You see, there's still those words, those words, those words". When Richards says "They are going to arrest me for calling a black man a n-----?", it looks like he was referring to the fact that Lenny Bruce had gotten arrested on obsenity charges by local police back in the early 1960's solely for vocalizing certain "forbidden words" in his act (as explained in the film).

But in this case, because the whole incident was completely impromptu and unexpected, Richards got a bit disoriented doing the improvisation, unlike the polished performance in the film, and he was unable to take what he started to its conclusion. What was Richards thinking -- Should I go back to my preplanned monologue, what was I saying before I got interrupted, what's a snappy comeback, now people are leaving, maybe I did take it too far trying to get a laugh, ok, say something!

My point? People should watch the Lenny film to gain perspective on the incident, especially before considering editing Wikipedia regarding this incident. Lest anybody accuse me of being a shill for the film, borrow it from the library if they have it. Likewise, get some Sam Kinison footage to see that yelling style, throw in some Don Rickles and Lisa Lampanelli, and you perhaps understand why you hear people in the audience laughing. They get it, in other words it's not to be taken literally or seriously as a threat.

(I should also hasten to point out that I've been careful to say the "Lenny Bruce character", as I don't know if the monologues in the film are taken exactly verbatim from Lenny Bruce's real life acts, and how much "artistic license" the screenwriter had taken to embellish or enhance them. Remember when you're seeing the film that an Academy Award winning actor is doing the portrayal -- of somebody who had died almost a decade prior -- and that the scenes were probably rehearsed and refilmed many times before the director was satisified with the results. )

Numbchuckles 03:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't part of his act, or "insult comedy" - it was an angry tirade. He was on the Letterman show last night saying that he was "full of rage", or something like that. - JScott06 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If it was purposeful and not spontaneous rage, it apparently didn't work too well. Lenny Bruce's approach was calculated and not filled with racial hatred; it was the opposite, it ridiculed racism. I don't see any ridiculing of racism in Richards' comments. They betray this old idea that "things were better before y'all got civil rights." Wahkeenah 14:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. He didn't go on Letterman saying he was trying to make a point and it went the wrong way. He said he lost it, he was filled with rage, and he was sorry. One could theorize all day and night about what could have been going through the man's head at the time, but his official word on the matter = angry tirade, not planned comic routine. Onikage725 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Recentism

I've already made a number of reverts on this article and so I won't be reverting anymore today but unfortunately this article is suffering from recentism. There's no need for an entire transcript of what transpired the other night on this article (in fact the inclusion of the text is likely a copyright violation). I would advise fellow editors to trim this (currently entitled) "Racism controversy" section down again. Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong agree (I'm in the same position with regard to number of reverts). There is no reason for the full transcript to be included in this article. Also see WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:TE##Undue_weight for discussions on this. A good example of well-written coverage of a celebrity's controversial outburst at a videotaped event is this: Kanye West#2006. Note that the issue is summarized in a few sentences with links to articles that contain the entire transcript and videos (or links to videos). There is no need to include all of this detail within the wikipedia article. Strom 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Including the entire transcript

I added this section obviously as the one above was added... great minds think alike :)

C'mon guys this

1. adds nothing to the article that a synopsis could not and
2. Looks ridiculous as it dominates the entire article
3. takes advantage of this discussion - editors here who believe this shouldnt be included at all - it seems they have allowed a compromise, but this new section abuses that allowance

I am placing this here to see if there is strong objection, otherwise this addition should be reversed  Glen  01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Strong agree that the transcript should be outed. A few quotes & a link suffice, and as it is now it completely dominates the article and add nothing that the quotes and link wouldn't. caz | speak 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave the entire script on the talk page until a consensus. I typed it up from the video as close as I could get. It is better than some of the other transcripts. --Kalmia 01:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, better it be taken down than left up. As caz pointed out, it really "dominates the article" and doesn't really add anything. Anyway, if we decide to put it back in it should be trivial to dig it up from the diffs. — NRen2k5 16:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikisource it if you can't agree to put it in the article.--Kalmia 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Where the transcript starts

seems to infer that it was richards who initiated it, which is not true. WillC 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That is where the recording started. If you have anything prior to that that you know of, please add it. --Kalmia 01:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Richards: "Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass."

[Some audience laughter]

"You can talk, you can talk, you can talk; you're brave now motherfucker! Throw his ass out, he's a nigger. He's a nigger! He's a nigger!"

A female audience member: "Oh my God."

Richards: "A nigger! Look, there's a nigger!"

"Oooh! Ooh!"

(Moderates tone) "Alright, you see? This shocks you. It shocks you to see what's buried beneath you stupid motherfuckers."

A male audience member: "That was uncalled for!"

Richards: "What wasn't called for?"

"It's uncalled for you to interrupt my ass, you cheap motherfucker!"

A female audience member: "Oh my goodness."

Richards: "You guys have been talkin' and talkin' and talkin'."

"I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."

A female audience member: "This guy's going nuts."

[audience members begin leaving]

Richards: "What's the matter? Is this too much for you people to handle?"

[tape cut]

Richards: "They are going to arrest me for calling a black man a nigger?"

"Wait a minute; where's he going?"

A male audience member: "That was uncalled for you fucking cracker-ass motherfucker"

Richards: "Cracker-ass? You calling me cracker-ass, nigga?

A male audience member: "Fucking White boy."

Richards: "Are you threatening me?"

A male audience member: "We'll see what's up."

Richards: "Oh, it's a big threat. That's how you get back at the man."

A male audience member: That was real uncalled for."

Richards: "Wait a minute. He's not going is he?"

A male audience member: "It's not funny. That's why you're a reject—never had no shows, never had no movies. Seinfeld, that's it."

Richards: "Oh, I guess you got me there. You're absolutely right. I'm just a wash up. Gotta stand on the stage."

[Richards mumbles]

A male audience member: "That's it. We've had it. We've had it."

A male audience member: "That's un-fucking called for. That ain't necessary."

Richards: "Well, you interrupted me, pal. That's what happens when you interrupt the white man; don't you know?"

A male audience member: "Uncalled for. That was uncalled for."

Richards: "You see? You see, there's still those words, those words, those words."

[Richards leaves stage]

[A man in suit takes the stage]

Man in suit: "Don't know what to say guys, uh—Sorry about that."

---

Is this so blatantly racist? Can we at least include the "Alright, you see? This shocks you. It shocks you to see what's buried beneath you stupid motherfuckers." part, where he suddenly moderated his tone? This smells like its being taken way out of context, it's just really unfortunate. -- Jarno V. 09:41 CET, 21 November 2006

I quite agree. There is NO documentation of the context surrounding his comments. The video was subtitled by the audience member extremely quickly that night and immediately put on the web - hatchet job? There have been many suggestions that this tirade was part of a confrontational segment about what shocks people, which puts an entirely different slant on it. He obviously suffered extremely poor judgement and went about it the wrong way, but it's a mistake, rather than evidence of glaring racism. Sle 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This transcript needs to seen to show racism in ALL of it's forms. There's White racism and Black racism in this transcript, and it's insulting that only one part is being harped upon. When can racism be one sided? Racism is bad no matter what color/ethnic group is stating it. Richards is wrong to be using the n-word. Those in the audience calling another a c-word is just as bad. Maybe folks should get back to Earth and read the transcript for what it's worth, and look at ALL of the racism being bandied about, not yet another star being outted for being human (for we're all racists to some degree, and it's hypocritical to see others climbing over each other claiming they're not). FResearcher 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I got the video here where he does stand up and goes on a racist rant, calling some people in the crowd using the "N" word.... http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=1095

no FResearcher were not all racists to some degree. racists just like to think that because it makes them feel less guilty for being racist. yes i agree with you that racism is bad in any form and the other man yelling at richards obviously was racist too. but when you say "Racism is bad no matter what color/ethnic group is stating it" (and this is true) but then you say "for we're all racists to some degree" those two points kinda conflict with each other. i think youre just a bit of a hypocrite and you should think about your points a little more (especially the last one).

Keep to discussing the subject not the person, this is not a debate forum. This entry is to talk about the transcript and reasons for it's inclusion or not. Also unsigned statements have little to no weight, especially with such controversial subjects (i.e., trolling). FResearcher 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good grief! I just read this transcript for the first time after hearing about it. The trouble is that the media feel it necessary to sugar-coat it, and then it doesn't sound so bad. Richards must have been off his medication or something. I can't believe he went on this tirade. It maybe says more about the state of his career than anything. The cardinal rule of seasoned standups is to never let the crowd get to you, "never let 'em see you sweat." Either he let it get to him, as appears likely, or this was calculated, which I doubt. Notice, of course, how much ink it's getting. But I can't imagine this kind of publicity can be a career boost. For him to say, "I'm not a racist..." Sorry, but non-racists don't have the N-word in their vocabulary. Wahkeenah 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would paraphrase what you said by saying that the cardinal rule of seasoned standups is not to go into wild, unconrolled racist tirades using some of the most hideous words and imagery in the English language. This whole incidently makes me feel really sad, because prior to this I was a big Michael Richards fan, and consider Seinfeld to be one of my favorite shows ever - in part because of his performances. I also agree that this isn't a career boost. Only a maniac would try and boost his career this way, unless he was attempting to go for the KKK audience.HowardW Nov 22, 2006

Article is continuing to heat up

It looks like Michael Richards is appearing via satellite on Letterman, where Seinfeld is scheduled to appear: Michael Richards Apology Tour To Begin On Tonight's Letterman Show. The importance of keeping this article's balance will continue to be critical. We may not always agree on wording or even our interpretation of his comments, but it's good to see so many experienced editors taking an interest. Thanks to everyone for their work! Strom 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources of the day from TMZ.com, if people need them handy:

• Seinfeld on "Kramer" Tirade: "I Am Sick"
• Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word
• This one has a clip of The Late Show appearence: Richards -- "I'm Really Busted Up" (interesting, as apparently his response was as strange as his tirade) --Bobak 02:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Letterman appearance

There should be a mentioning of referring to African-Americans as quote "Afro" Americans...its only right to fathom the situation.

I think there should be some reference to Richards' appearance on David Letterman's show. At times, it appeared somewhat incoherent (some in the audience thought it was a joke at first, with some awkward pauses in Richards' on-camera address, and his use of the obsolete term "Afro-Americans" at one instance), with references to Hurricane Katrina, "black/white tension" and other observations about society.

Jerry Seinfeld (who arranged Richards' appearance) noted Richards' actions at the comedy club were inexcusable but that "[Richards] deserved an opportunity to apologize." By the end of Richards' address, he sounded more coherent, and contrite, and drew applause from the Letterman crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.40.194 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 November 2006

First, was Jerry Seinfeld actually scheduled to appear on the Letterman show way in advance of the Richards incident or was this a hastily arranged appearance to prevent any long term effect to the sale of Jerry Seinfeld's DVD sales?

Second, consider that if Richards didn't get Hollywood helping him to get out of this mess, a lot of people stand to lose a lot of money if some Black leader like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or the NAACP decide to boycott Richards and anything to which he is associated. I believe a new season of Seinfeld has just been released on DVD and with the Holiday season upon us, this would be the worst time for something like this to happen. Enter: The Damage Control Spin Doctors!!

Third, what Richards said, and his pathetic apology that included referring to African-Americans as "Afro-Americans" (Does this guy even know what century we are in?) and recalling "Hurricaine Katrina", was a thousand times worse than the couple of drunken stupid comments made by Mel Gibson. Yet, Hollywood is rallying to Richards defense while it horrifically attacked Mel Gibson in an effort that appeared to be designed to destroy him. Why the difference in the two responses from Hollywood? There's more than one reason but the main reason appears to be money. Jtpaladin 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Though Seinfeld was already scheduled to appear on Letterman, this and other points you bring up have nothing to do with making this article better. This discussion page is for improving the article, not discussing Richards or the motivations behind the subsequent events. If a published source makes the above speculation/comments and you have a citation, we can discuss including them. Jokestress 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this discussion and the points I made are all relevant to the article on Michael Richards. This incident will be a major issue in his life so discussing the relevant details are pertinent. I think we need to explore if and how Richards is able to avoid having his career ruined if in fact Hollywood insiders are pulling strings to keep him from ruining the "Seinfeld revenue stream". Also, can you please post a source that shows that Jerry Seinfeld was scheduled in advance of Richards outburst to appear on the Letterman show? It seems quite coincidental that Jerry appears at the exact moment that he's needed to intervene in this matter to prevent revenue losses. Jtpaladin 20:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is coincidental - Seinfeld was on Letterman to promote the 7th season of Seinfeld, which was being released the very next day. --LeCorrector 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm Jtpaladin, i don't see where your comming from saying the richrard's career is somehow not being ruined. I beleive you have to have a career in the first place to ruin. this man hasn't had a steady job in 6 years, and this doesn't appear to be helping. As for the mel gibson controversy, michael richrards was being refered to as "the guy who played kramer" in news headlines. he's hardly at the level of influence or stature that gibson has had for the last deacade or so. --Duhon 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I added this to the last sentence of the Letterman paragraph. I think it was quite notable; otherwise, it sounds as if Richards made his outburst, left the stage, and didn't issue any sort of apology until days later on Letterman.

Richards also stated that he returned to the stage to apologize but, by that time, most of the audience had already left. Cale 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned?

While the recent edits say he was permanently, many other articles state things like: "Richards did appear at the club Saturday, without incident, but that was because he had told the club he intended to apologize, according to a Laugh Factory statement Monday." This to me would indicate he's allowed to perform on there on the condition that he apologize, which he has. Given that these two articles seem contradictory, I think any info. on his banning should be removed until it's cleared up if it really is in effect. caz | speak 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, but Laugh Factory issued a statement on their site that says "We have made it clear that Mr. Richards is no longer welcomed here." [2] Jokestress 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh... how is information about The Laugh Factory from a press release from The Laugh Factory unreliable? --Savethemooses 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's clearly a temporary blurb on their site that will be removed in time and won't be verifiable. See this. I'm sure it will be quoted in a reliable source soon. Jokestress 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course a press release is verifiable. Why wouldn't be? Because it's going to be deleted after some time from the internet? Wikipedia cites all sorts of things on the internet that get deleted, that's one of the main reasons that we use cite.php and link to archive.org. Just about every single news article on the web will be deleted at some point or another. To take your logic to its extreme conclusion, books shouldn't be cited because they go out of print eventually. Wikipedia guidelines are clear: cite online sources, prefereably with cite.php. If the link is dead, look for an archived version. If you can't find it archived, make note of when it was pulled offline. --Descendall 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing about being banned is just a rumour. Laugh Factory is just rolling with it to deflect any negative press they think they might receive, because, you know, people are stupid enough to want to attack THEM for what Michael Richards said. Sad but that's the state of things. — NRen2k5 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A comedian's job is to make people laugh. Do that, and you'll be invited back. Richards wound up getting barred from the club. Doesn't sound like a career-enhancing move to me. When you're on stage being heckled, you've got the microphone and you are the professional and if you respond well then you score heavily. If you lose your cool, you stand to lose even more. Kramer simply messed up. --Uncle Ed 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wake up people, he's not banned from the club. Give the guy a break. Wow.

Kaufman joke

Someone should add a link to incident's description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kaufman#The_Fridays_incident -- 22 November 2006

Source for in on Kaufman joke?

I knew the story about his blowup at Kaufman. I had heard that someone said Michael Richards was in on the joke. Does anyone remember the source for this? Was it Zmuda? Another member of the Fridays cast?

At first I thought the current controversy was some Kaufman-esque joke. Plant some hecklers, call them niggers, that's pretty edgy comedy. However after seeing his 'apology' on Letterman it's clear that there is no Kaufman behind this and just a sick sad and broken man. I just wanted to make sure Michael Richards wasn't the only one that said he was in on the joke with Andy because that would be easy for him to do to save face after Andy was dead, but I have a hard time believing it now. Kfort 06:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source for the Fridays bit and follow-up. [3] Jokestress 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that it happened, I want to know the source that Michael Richards was in on the joke. Kfort 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

'in on the joke' means that Andy told him about it beforehand Kfort 07:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"No one, as a matter of fact, knew about it, except Jack Burns, myself, Andy, and one of the other producers, John Moffet. The cast did not know." [4] Jokestress 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the only source we have that Michael Richards knew about it beforehand is Michael Richards. I really wish someone could track down Jack Burns or John Moffet and ask them if they knew Michael Richards was in on it. Kfort 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording to reflect the source, I hope this is acceptable Kfort 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. Here's John Moffitt with his version of events. [5] Also LA Weekly. [6] Jokestress 07:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just in light of the recent events it makes me wonder if either 1) Andy told Michael about it because he knew Michael was a great actor with a good sense of humor, or 2) Andy picked a skit with Michael to break character because he knew he had a short fuse. Unless a second source (such as John or Jack) can claim they knew that Michael was in on it (not just that they were in on it) I would prefer that we identify the source of this bit of info since it reflects character.

Michael Richards was lying when he said that he was in on the joke. In fact, I saw that episode of Friday's live that night and it was obvious that Richards was not in on the joke. The guy is not only a liar but he's also a racist. What he said on stage about African-Americans came from his core beliefs as he pretty much made clear during his on-stage rant. This guy needs a long vacation and a lot of therapy, as he alluded to during his "apology". Jtpaladin 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please limit your comments to issues involving improving the article. If you are angry about this incident, as many are, there are many online venues for expressing your frustration. If you have a published source stating Richards was not in on the Fridays joke, please provide it and we'll include it. Jokestress 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely responding to the topic of this discussion which involves racist remarks made by the subject of this article. If you are not aware of his racist behavior, please watch the video of his remarks. Also, watch the video concerning his "apology" on the Letterman show. He refers to African-Americans as "Afro-Americans", an obsolete term much like the word "Negro", and partially blames society and a hurricaine for his outburst. These are all pertinent to the article since it is a major occurence in his life. Jtpaladin 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you have a quotation in a published source you'd like to discuss regarding any of the above, please provide it, and we can consider it for inclusion. 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, I knew that the term "Afro-American" has largely been supplanted by "African American", but are you sure it's actually considered offensive? The African American Wikipedia article (which, granted, ain't scripture) lists it as a synonym for African-American, and seems to indicate it is acceptable if somewhat dated.24.11.177.133 05:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Italian-American?

Does anyone have a WP:RS that he's of Italian descent? His mother's maiden name is Nardozzi, and if this is his family tree, it appears his maternal grandparents were Italian. But Rootsweb doesn't really pass WP:RS... Mad Jack 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack, haha, were u the one deleting the croatian people's names from my list of Croatian Sportspeople, haha.

Yeah he's probably part Italian with that name, but on that link it says his mother's name is Minni and on the article it says Phyllis

Oh wait actually it says Filomena, she probably englicized her name to Phyllis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold water (talk • contribs)

Comments by others

I moved these here for discussion:

Kenny Kramer commented that Richards "had a tantrum. Michael is not racist; he is just not a very streetwise performer". Comedian George Lopez said he believed the reason for the outburst was Richards' inexperience in stand-up comedy. "...you have an actor who is trying to be a comedian who doesn't know what to do when an audience is disruptive.... He's an actor whose show has been off the air, he shouldn't ever be on a stand-up gig." Hollywood publicist Michael Levine, commenting that comics often deal with hecklers without becoming unglued, added, "I've never seen anything like this in my life.... I think it's a career ruiner for him. ... It's going to be a long road back for him, if at all."

It may not be very long at all, if the notion of "any publicity is good" holds. Some people I have talked to believe that agents put fading stars up to do outrageous things just to keep their faces in front of the public eye and ear.MWS 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

These don't really add much to an encyclopedic article. A comment from Jerry Seinfeld might be more relevant, since the Letterman coverage happened during his segment, or perhaps from community leaders, but the quotations above seem to be recentism. Thoughts? Jokestress 11:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They should probably stay in -- I think we can avoid accusations of recentism if we accept that the incident is a major one in the life / career of Michael Richards and should therefore have a major presence in his article. Jackie Mason had a similar career event, although in his case we have the luxury of being able to think and write about it years later, and decide how much type to give it. (Obviously it'll take a while for the true effect on Richards' career.) Secondly, all the persons quoted are professional opinions, (with the exception of the "real" Kramer) and therefore interesting to consider. Pablosecca 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is a tautology. If we just arbitrarily "accept" that the incident deserves a "major presence" here, we're helping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy and making it into a bigger deal than it is. While Richards' rant was awful, it's not even close to deserving an essay-length section. wikipediatrix 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not essay-length, but I don't think there's a rationale for cutting out the above. As to how big the incident is or isn't, I guess we have to decide that by consensus. Pablosecca 05:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Laugh Factory Banning

Why is the paragraph about Richards being banned from the Laugh Factory with a supporting link keep getting removed?? Can someone please explain! I am getting really annoyed that pertinent information is being removed. Misterrick 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because, as you just said yourself: it's a paragraph. It doesn't take an entire paragraph to state that he's banned. Reduce it to a simple sentence and I would support its inclusion. Some editors here are very concerned about the undue weight this incident is being given. wikipediatrix 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Richards was banned becaue he didn't apologize during his preformance the following night. The source given for that absolutely does no confirm that he was banned after the second night. When wikipedia is presented with two contradictory sources, the correct thing to do is to mention both of them. I'm going to edit the article to do that. --Descendall 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why people are pissed

The fork up the ass would not have caused such ruckus, the word nigger is what made this a story. It is much more important than the lynching joke. -Lapinmies 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion, but I watched the video and have another perspective. I think people left primarily because he kept raging at the heckler(s) even after they apparently began leaving.

The audience comes to laugh, not to watch a tantrum. Richards should have made a joke out of the heckling - preferable with prepared "anti-heckler" material - and gotten the audience laughing. Or just ignored the whole thing.

If he became too flustered to go on, he could mutter thanks and walk off - then he'd just be embarassed instead of getting banned by the club. And he'd have a whole day to ask more experienced comedians for tips on handling hecklers.

But he's a physical comedian: an actor who can look funny, not a stand-up comic. --Uncle Ed 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with editing the article? This isn't a chat room. wikipediatrix 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a discussion board and we're discussing!Walrusbeatle 1:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a discussion board; article talk pages are intended to discuss editing changes. Splintercellguy 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you blind! The tab at the top of the web page is labelled "discussion"! Jees! And what we discuss here will improve the article!Walrusbeatle 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also counterproductive to be a mother hen. The various discussion can lead to useful changes in an article, even if they start out looking like blogs. And if they don't, you can always push the "Archive" button. Wahkeenah 12:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the audience was actually laughing at the beginning of his rant.

Incorrect Monk Info

Monk didn't move from ABC to USA. It was always a USA show, they just aired repeats on ABC in season one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil sausage (talk • contribs)

Monk was developed at ABC and moved to USA. See Battaglio, Stephen (August 16, 2002). 'Monk': ABC loss was cable's gain. New York Daily News Jokestress 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Michael Richards Jewish?

I think it would be notable. And I had thought that he was, but maybe I'm just clumping him in with Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Answers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.205.113 (talk • contribs)

No, he's Roman Catholic. caz | speak 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't appear to have a source that he's Catholic, but regardless, he is not Jewish. It seems to be a mistake perpetuated by people who think every caucasian actor who isn't Mel Gibson is Jewish.... Mad Jack 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I assume this is a joke I think Richards being in Seinfeld is why people might think he's Jewish. It might be silly but Seinfeld was seen as "A Jewish show" in much of the US and many just assume actors from it were Jewish unless they have compelling reason not to. (And in fairness it looks like most of the main cast was Jewish after all)--T. Anthony 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack, first of all, that "Jewish Journal" webpage you linked to is not a valid source because that page's primary source is this Wikipedia article (and this article doesn't have fully reliable sources definitely stating Richards' religion/ethnicity) -- it also ridiculously cites an unnamed "television director who has known Richards for years" (as if that is definitive). That is a second rate source by all estimation, and not official in any capacity. Michael Richards IS in fact Jewish, CNN announced today. Plus, he works in show-business (a Jewish dominated industry), and is best known for a role on THE quintessential Jewish TV-show, and is commonly touted as a "Jewish stand-up comic." It is VERY common for Jews to be Catholics, particularly if they are of Mediterranean, Iberian, and/or North African descent -- just because they have converted to another religion doesn't change the fact that they remain ethnic/racial Jews, because being a Jew is BOTH an ethnicity AND a religion -- people simply do not understand this, particularly Americans. Catholicism is a common religion for Jews to convert to, all the while remaining Jews ethnically by marrying 'real' Jews and/or other Jews that have converted to Catholicism. In the USA and elsewhere, there may actually be hundreds of thousands of "Catholics" that remain ethnically Jewish while still professing an alternate faith. For instance, there are plenty of Jewish atheists, Buddhists, Taoists, Christians (Protestants or Catholics), etc. -- however, even though they have converted to another RELIGION, that doesn't change their ETHNIC status, i.e. they remain Jews ethnically, but not religiously. --Pseudothyrum 01:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

nicely put Pseudothyrum.

Ignoring the lecture on this above by Pseudothyrum, which cites no reliable sources for Richards being Jewish, it appears that now Richards' publicist is claiming that Richards is Jewish.[7] The Jewish Journal has said that Richards is not Jewish,[8] and this is almost certainly the case. I don't want to get into a revert war with Pseudothyrum, but I think the "Jewish American actors" category should be removed, because it appears to be disputed by a reliable sources while endorsed by another. Especially because of WP:BLP, which seems to command that disputed categories not be included. Mad Jack 01:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources? Sorry, but I think you seem to have this a bit backwards. This actor's Publicist and legitimate representative with the media is the ONLY reliable source I see. The publicist saying he's jewish is as good as Richards himself identifying his religion. Regardless, the publicist's statement is being run on the wire - no other media organization seems to be running with the Jewish Journal's story - probably because it is so poorly sourced. I think you should read the whole article in the Jewish Journal. This is clearly a rag, that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for legitimate sources. For goodness sake, the writer cites Wikipedia as one of his sources for the article! I'm sorry, but any legitimate journalist using THIS article as a source is NOT to be relied on! Cleo123 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, stating that he is NOT Jewish when his public statement is that he is could be considered defamatory. You are essentially saying that he has lied about his religion. It is not for Pseudothyrum to prove that Richards IS Jewish. It is for you to find RELIABLE SOURCES that prove he is not. Cleo123 04:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't seem to see what the Wiki article said. It didn't say he wasn't Jewish, it said The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles said he wasn't Jewish. If there are two sides to a story, we should represent both. In this case, we should say the publicist said he is Jewish, and the Jewish Journal said he is not. That's exactly what the article said before you reverted it. We aren't picking one side as right and another as wrong, we are simply stating both sides. As for the LA Jewish Journal as a source, they are certainly reliable and even have a wiki article on them (and according to that article, "In 2005 it received more Southern California Journalism Awards from the Los Angeles Press Club than any other newspaper in its category (under 100,000 circulation)." - making them definitely a reliable source). They don't cite Wikipedia as a source for him being Jewish or not being Jewish; in fact, they explicitly said Wikipedia contained no mention of his religion. Mad Jack 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source that says he is Jewish: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/ap_en_ce/michael_richards

It's the same soure as already cited, more or less. The AP story where his publicist says he is Jewish (and that's already included in the article). Remember, reporting both sides (as is now done in the article) if there is a conflict of information is the proper way to remain WP:NPOV. Mad Jack 05:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I DO see what the wiki article said, and I disagree with your POV. Clearly, the Jewish Journal is NOT a reliable source and we can only present 2 sides of the story if BOTH come from legitimate sources. I didn't say that the JJ cited Wikipedia as their source for his religion, but they do cite Wikipedia for other data in the article. I'm questioning the notion that ANY credible newspaper writer would use Wikipedia and THIS article IN PARTICULAR as a source for an article at all! It makes all statements made by the writer dubious & circumspect. As for his sources, he cites unnamed aquaintances and an unnamed director. (That's credible?) If this article had any credible sources behind it - other journalists would be picking up the story. So far all media outlets are going with only the publicist's statement. That should tell you something. Cleo123 05:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. Check the article on it. It says "In 2005 it received more Southern California Journalism Awards from the Los Angeles Press Club than any other newspaper in its category (under 100,000 circulation)." It passes WP:RS. If you consider it a non-reliable source, that is your right, but what is stated in the Wiki article right now is that it the LA Jewish Journal said Richards is not Jewish. Is that a fact? Yes, that's a fact, the LA Jewish Journal DID say that Richards is not Jewish, and based on the awards for Journalism they have received, they are a reliable source and worth noting. One could easily make the argument that a publicist for an actor, who is supposed to protect the actor's interests and provide a positive image for an actor, would in fact not be a reliable source. It's obvious there's a conflict of information here, and the only neutral thing to do is list both sources and list what they said, which is what has been done. Mad Jack 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, plenty of reliable media sources uses Wikipedia as a source. That's beginning to be a problem, in fact. What goes towards the Jewish Journal's credibility here, is that unlike some of these sources, they acknowledged that they used Wikipedia, while others frequently just assume the info is true and take it without saying where it came from. Mad Jack 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal article denying Richards' Jewish ethnicity looks like something thrown together very quickly for "damage control," since tensions between the Jewish-American and African-American community are generally quite high these days, and Richards' tirade obviously isn't improving the situation. They'll probably take the article down in a day or two, but someone needs to inform the JJ staff that their article is entirely mistaken. Their article is a horrible piece of journalism if there ever was one; they really shouldn't have rushed to put up the incorrect information regarding Richards' ethnicity before all of the facts were in, and they DEFINITELY shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source if they consider themself "serious journalism." --Pseudothyrum 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudothyrum: your observation as further evidence that Michael Richards is Jewish because "he works in show-business (a Jewish dominated industry), and is best known for a role on THE quintessential Jewish TV-show" is irrelevant and inappropriate. Moreover, may I suggest you consider refraining from capitalizing words for emphasis as it is a distraction. But I find your and Cleo123's principal point that Richards' publicist's statement, reported by the Associated Press and printed in The Washington Post and elsewhere, answers the question--until there is credible evidence to the contrary. Jack O'Lantern (Mad Jack): I've read the Jewish Journal piece and your opinions about it and frankly I find both the citing of it--and your reasoning in support--flimsy. The piece, which reads like an opinion column rather than a serious article, as observed by Pseudothyrum and Cleo123 cites this Wikipedia article which has already changed. This is lousy reporting at best. And to refer to it is circular. None of the wires or serious print agencies cite Wikipedia as source for substantive stories and I would challenge you to specifically cite otherwise. That the Jewish Journal may have received one or several municipal awards does not diminish the sloppiness of a piece which is already incorrect--by virtue of its citing this Wikipedia article--whether or not Michael Richards is Jewish. In fact, it may be that Michael Richards' publicist is incorrect or that the AP was in reporting it, but until other credible and refuting evidence, the AP article should be the lone source. The Jewish Journal piece is not credible and its citation should be removed entirely. Washington DC 4.249.111.161 10:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from today's USAToday.com article [9] in which it talks about Richards having hired a P.R. specialist and having seemingly gone on an anti-semitic tirade earlier this year: "As for reports that Richards shouted out anti-Semitic remarks during another standup comedy routine in April, Rubenstein confirmed his client did, but that he was only role-playing. "He's Jewish. He's not anti-Semitic at all. He was role-playing, he was playing a part. He did use inappropriate language, but he doesn't have any anti-Semitic feelings whatsoever," Rubenstein said." Wahkeenah 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of you understand what a publicist is and what they are suppose to do, especially when their client is on the brink of being accused of anti-Semitism as well as racism. This is precisely why it's non-NPOV to chose what a publicist says over what a newspaper that did its own research says. A publicist can say anything they want to make their client look good (or rather, not as bad). Quite obviously, Richards was raised Catholic and his mother is clearly of Italian Catholic background. I suppose it's possible his father was Jewish, though this seems a little unlikely, or that Richards is a convert to Judaism, though this also seems a little unlikely. Anyway, I'm sure we're going to get more about this in the next few days, since obviously something's up. Mad Jack 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Damage control, yes. You'll notice I didn't post that in the article. Meanwhile, I'm sure that saying he's Jewish if he's not Jewish will go a long way toward winning points with the public and with the Jewish and African-American communities. Maybe he'll announce that Richards has an Ethiopian in his family tree, also. Wahkeenah 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Martin Lewis over at the Huffington Post seems to consider the Jewish Journal a reliable source and takes it over what his publicist said.[10] Again, the Jewish Journal's claim should obviously be re-added to the article, though I'm unable to do so myself because I'd break 3RR. Mad Jack 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not going to add it, either, because the publicist has actually (presumably) talked to Richards about it. Has the Jewish Journal asked him anything, or are they reaching their own conclusions and claiming it to be true? Maybe they have their own reasons for wanting to deny his being Jewish. (If he is, which I don't know). Wahkeenah 16:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Talking with Richards about it doesn't necessarily mean it's true; when it comes to details of personal lives, in some cases people themsleves aren't the most reliable sources. As for the Jewish Journal, it cites a television director who's known Richards for years and a few other sources "close" to him; of course, that's vague, but not necessarily unreliable, and Martin Lewis even referred to their article as "well-referenced"! Again, this is obviously a case where we should just print both claims and leave it at that. What the editors above have done is decide that one claim is definitely correct and the other is not, which violates WP:NPOV. Mad Jack 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Patience, grasshopper. The truth shall become known sometime soon. Maybe. Wahkeenah 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Journal column of Nov 21, 2006, on Michael Richards: reiteration and additional discussion

Um, the only reference for this statement seems to be a local newspaper article[11] which relies entirely on quotes from anonymous sources for this claim. That plus the fact that this is an article which also leans heavily on Wikipedia as a source for the most of their bio profile of Kramer suggests that isn't a source we should be using as a reference for such a big claim. Bwithh 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the claim and the reference, as per WP:BLP - I couldn't find any reliable sources on this claim - just a lot of breathless gossipmongering on blogs based on the one local newspaper article; modifying to reflect official statements by PR spokesman. Bwithh 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, we're supposed to present both points of view per WP:NPOV. Martin Lewis at The Huffington Post says the Jewish Journal's article is "well referenced", which trumps any claim by Wikipedia editors that it's not reliable.[12] Anyway, the bottom line, I can't see any version of this article that doesn't cite the Jewish Journal's article. If you disagree, please get a request for comment or something of that line in here, I'm certainly not backing down. Remember, a publicist is a public relations person who is supposed to do damage control. Publishing their POV when it's challenged is not NPOV. Wikipedia isn't a fairground for Richards' publicist to say whatever he wants. Mad Jack 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that Huffington Post blog comment - "well referenced" means "anonymous sources plus Wikipedia" to Martin Lewis apparently. This is frankly, laughable. And yes, I know a public relations spokesman is. WP:NPOV shouldn't apply to obscure rumours - there's nothing to back this claim up reliably - read WP:BLP. And furthermore, I deliberately rewrote the line to emphasize that the PR guy was claiming this. I'll add the Jewish Journal comment as an unconfirmed rumour for now, but it's not acceptable to simply assume that the PR guy is lying and that the local newspaper gossipmongers have got the facts at this point - particularly as noone in the mainstream media has picked this up so far (as of time of writing, there are 3 hits on google news for "michael richards" and "not jewish" - 1 hit for the jewish journal article, 1 hit for a slightly reworded reprint of the jewish journal article in an aussie jewish online news site, and 1 hit for the huffington post. Bwithh 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, btw, I posted about this a few days ago over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. But of course, no one reponded, because no one cares about this except people who want to make the point that Richards is Jewish and people who want to make the point that he is not, I guess. Mad Jack 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear that a good source says that Richards is not Jewish, and it violates WP:NOR to guess how reliable its sorces are. Further, Richards' agent is not an unbiased or impartial source. He has a clear axe to grind. We must balance the sources appropriately.--Runcorn 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how the Jewish journal is a reliable source, especially when its astounding claim hasn't been picked up by mainstream media sources. Bwithh 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I attempted to write a compromise solution that presented both sides most clearly, but since it was rejected out of hand, I'm now tagging the article as having an NPOV problem for excessive reliance on an unreliable source. Assessing the source as unreliable is NOT original research, please see WP:BLP Bwithh 23:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: the Jewish Journal claim was published on the 21st. As of this time of writing, it is now coming to the end of the 24th, and despite much blog gossipmongering, NOONE in the mainstream media has reported this huge claim[13], ][14] Bwithh 23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like we have no solid evidence at present regarding Richards' religion. A statement by a publicist and an article in a Jewish newspaper are not enough to go on. The best we can do is treat them equally for the time being. Note that going back to the Seinfeld days, there are plenty of sources regarding the Jewishness of the other cast members, but nothing on Richards--JJay 00:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the article presenting both claims as claims (and stating the source of the claims in the main body of the text), without suggesting either is false Bwithh 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the way it should be handled for the time being. --JJay 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note - the publicist thing was an AP story that was shipped to 300 newspapers across the country, as AP stories are. Every single Google match is a copy of that story. Also see our very own Wikipedia article on The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, which states this paper won the most journalistic awards for a certain sub-group (under 100,000 circulation). It would certainly pass WP:RS. Martin Lewis is a respected journalist, and if he chose to endorse the Jewish Journal's claim over that of the publicist, then obviously that is a POV that needs to be represented in dissent to what the publicist said. As for represneting both points of view equally, that was my original idea. Here is the text as I inserted it two days ago (and we don't need to include anything in early life). If everyone is ok with the below, I'll restore it: "On November 22, 2006, reports surfaced that Richards had made Anti-Semitic comments during a stand-up routine earlier in 2006. Richards' publicist, Howard Rubenstein, confirmed the report, but added that the remarks were made as part of the act, and that Richards himself is Jewish.[20] The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, citing sources familiar with Richards as well as a television director who has worked with Richards for several years, has noted that Richards is not Jewish.[2]" Mad Jack 07:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree totally with your wording, which doesnt mention that the Journal's sources are anonymous and states its claim as fact. I don't see what the AP news story has to do with the lack of google news hits for Michael Richards not being Jewish (I mean, how to explain this? Mainstream reporters don't read blogs? No, it points to a lack of confidence in the Jewish Journal's unsourced claim. In comparison, the AP news story IS sourced journalism from a major agency ) Reputable sources do not guarantee all articles from them are reliable. Also, Martin Lewis's article says he is primarily a humourist, music journalist, and marketing consultant - and Huffingtonpost is a blog without proper factchecking procedures. Bwithh 08:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this, I think at the moment it should be culled off from early life and placed entirely under the "Anti-semitic incident section". The only info here related to early life is that he was raised Catholic, and since that seems to be in dispute as well it should go from that section entirely. (The publicist's claim is that Richards "IS Jewish", not that he was raised Jewish or his parents were or anything that would be part of early life). I don't mind if my bit reads "citing ANNONYMOUS sources familiar...". However, I don't see what "claim as fact" would do. Isn't every claim "claim as fact"? I.e. the publicist's claim. What do you mean by Google hits for "Martin Richards not being Jewish"? How often do you see Google hits for someone NOT being something as opposed to being it? And what do you mean by Google? In terms of articles published before November 20, none mention his background. The Journal published their article on the 21st. The publicist made his claim on the 22nd and this claim was repeated in the AP story that passed around through 300 or so newspapers across the country. Nothing points to a "lack of confidence" in the Jewish Journal's claim because no one has commented on it! A newspaper publishing an AP story isn't going to verify if the information in that AP story has been disputed and then write a whole article as to what's going on there. Being Jewish or not Jewish is not a huge claim by any means. The only source that comments on the Jewish Journal - Lewis - takes the Journal's word over the publicist's. As for "anonymous sources", btw - a lot of sources for a lot of newspapers are anonymous, so what? Anyway, going back to what I was saying before, are you OK with removing all bits of religion/ethnicity from early life, and putting in the version I wrote above (with "anonymous" added in if you think it adds something) Mad Jack 08:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The following part of the article "In November 2006, a claim based on anonymous sources was made by the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles that Richards is "not Jewish" and was raised as a Catholic" is complete nonsense and should immidiately be removed, its source is proven to be unreliable and false. Even the wording is ridiculous, someones ethnic origin is not something, you claim based on anonymous sources, its fact and the religion has nothing to do with it. It has to do with your parents ethnicity and its irrelevant if you were raised, atheist, catholit, muslim whatever. Also the article has nothing to do with his early life, november 2006 was not his early life, last time i checked. Geza 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree the whole bit doesn't belong in early life, however it certainly should not be removed from the article. Especially since it seems Richards' parents, or at least mother's, ethnicity, as you said, is not Jewish. As for "anonymous sources", one is a director who has known Richards, and who I would take to be more reliable than a publicist who has just been hired to defend Richards against claims of Anti-Semitism and racism. I don't know what "its source is proven to be unreliable and false" is supposed to mean, but Martin Lewis disagrees with you, and that's good enough for me. Mad Jack 09:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've cut it out of early life .... let's see if the version under the controversy section pleases anyone.... Mad Jack 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Since you asked, it means, that the quoted article in the Journal contains: "A biography of him on the Wikipedia web site lists no religion, but does say Richards is very involved in the Masons." You simply cannot use a source, which uses wikipedia as a source, its circular. Based on that quite alone i think the JJ is disqualified as a reliable source as per wikipedia policy. More so being catholic or raised as a catholic has nothing to do with this matter, whereas the article clearly treats it as if the question was about judaism, only religion, and being raised catholic excludes the possibility of jewish origin. Geza 09:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're talking about. You'd be surprised that a large amount of media sources use Wikipedia as a source. Unlike those sources, this one 1. explicitly mentions that it does, which some of these others don't and 2. explicitly says that the Wikipedia profile listed no religion! So the information taken from Wikipedia in this case has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever. The information we're taking is that he is not Jewish and that he was raised Catholic, and they explicitly do not cite Wikipedia for that. Mad Jack 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it laughable that some people are citing a comment made by Richard's recently hired (In the wake of this crisis) publicist Rubenstein as "proof" that Richards is Jewish! Rubenstein was only hired days ago, and he clearly did not know that Richards is NOT Jewish. It is not even clear that Rubenstein has even met Richards in person yet. He is hardly a reliable source, and clearly just assumed that Richards is Jewish.

Uh what? a PR person is going to communicate with their client, especially in an emergency. Bwithh 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• No more laughable than citing that Jewish Journal article which cites wikipedia as a source! Wahkeenah 13:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See above. What they cite Wikipedia for has nothing to do with this discussion. They explicitly mention that Wikipedia listed no religion, so obviously they didn't get the information from us! How simple! Mad Jack 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe over the next few weeks we'll actually get an answer from the horse's mouth, as it were. Wahkeenah 17:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Martin Lewis has quietly changed his blog entry at Huffington Post; perhaps due to concerns raised by readers in his blog comments or perhaps due to editorial intervention - in any case, Lewis no longer states the "Michael Richards is not Jewish" assertion as fact. See this google cache of the original version compared with the current version. The title has gone from "Michael Richards is NOT Jewish" to "Michael Richards is not Jewish... or is he?". A key line has also changed from "But - as the Jewish Journal has pointed out in a well-referenced article - Michael Richards is NOT Jewish. He was neither born Jewish - nor raised Jewish." to "However the Jewish Journal has claimed in a well-referenced article - that Michael Richards is NOT Jewish. According to the article he was neither born Jewish - nor raised Jewish." Bwithh 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

More CYA backtracking: Lewis replaces "But if Howard Rubenstein is to represent his client well - he should at least be accurate about his client's religion." with "But given the many conflicting stories currently abounding on the internet - it would be good to get clarity about what faith Michael Richards was raised in." Bwithh 05:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Then our version currently reflects the confusion over the issue, since it is evident such confusion is present and needs to be reflected in the article, if we're getting into the issue at all. Mad Jack 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno if he's a reliable source, but comedian Paul Mooney also said Richards isn't Jewish... [15] Mad Jack 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since that paper was using wikipedia as a source, maybe they are backtracking due to the "confusion" here. That amounts to a vicious cycle. Wahkeenah 06:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, can we can the whole "using Wikipedia as a source thing" here? I'm sure I don't have to tell you for the fifth time that the Journal did not use Wikipedia as a source for A. Richards not being Jewish or B. Richards being raised Catholic, and these are the only pieces of information we are using the Journal for. What they did use Wikipedia for were the bio details that we still have up and that have nothing to do with this discussion. But, again, you already know that, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. I agree that "Using Wikipedia as a source" is an absolutely terrific argument, but I'm sure you realize as well as I do that the information they were using Wikipedia for is not the information we're discussing right now. Mad Jack 06:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You're taking on faith that they reported their source utilization correctly. In any case, it would be better for this site to not be at the forefront of ongoing news stories, since wikipedia is not supposed to be an "original" source. Wahkeenah 06:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we know for a fact that, unlike other sources, they admitted that they took information for Wikipedia, and they did. They said that they took the information we are discussing from a director who has known Richards and from other sources close to Richards. If they were honest about their Wikipedia info-taking, why would you think they wouldn't be honest about their other sources? And, if you answer that question, we're getting into the area of original research and analyzing and nitpicking where sources may or may not have gotten info from. The LA Jewish Journal passes WP:RS as a peer-edited newspaper (not to mention it's gotten the most journalistic awards for a certain category), and besides, we're not even reporting what they said as fact, but simply that they said it, which IS fact. As for ongoing news stories, we certainly can't stop sources from using Wikipedia as an information news resource. However, it's nice when they admit they do, like the Journal, and not so nice when they do but don't admit it, like a few others I have seen (unrelated to this case). Mad Jack 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even more emphatic statement by his publicist which was reported in the Chicago Defender: "He is Jewish," Rubenstein said. "I don't know about what other reports have said. I am his spokesman and I am telling you he is Jewish. You got that directly from me." http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=7668

NOT RELIABLE: The sourced article is from a JEWISH NEWS WEBSITE. It's already NPOV enough, given that the site itself is out there to attack people who 'slandarize' Judaism. On top of that, their 'sources' are anonymous. They can't cite a single actual source that anybody can check and confirm. --Captain Cornflake 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Meh, using the same argument, his publicist also has a POV and therefore isn't reliable. So, we're either putting both in or we're not putting either one. Enough already. Mad Jack 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So why bother having it at all, then? We can just put "It it unconfirmed if Richards himself is Jewish or not" until we hear from a more reliable source. --Captain Cornflake 22:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what we have right now, in so many words? "It is unconfirmed" is kind of original research. Saying one source says yes and the other says no basically amounts to that anyway, doesn't it? Mad Jack 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many words. Maybe just 'it is disputed' with the [1] and [2] afterwards linking to the sources. --Captain Cornflake 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean something like - first mentioning the anti-Semitic incident - and then stating "It is disputed whether Richards himself is Jewish"? Sure, I guess you should put that in if you want to, I won't object. Don't know about anyone else, but I guess it's worth a shot. Mad Jack 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it will be interesting to see how many news articles elsewhere start saying "it is disputed whether Richards himself is Jewish." Then, at least, we might get an answer. Wahkeenah 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Term Racist

I think the use of the word racist in the links section in regards to Richards' comments biases any potential reader. We can not know Richards' intention when he made the comments and addressing the marks as such seems to skew judgement on them for their own merit, and on his later apology. The references should be changed to Laughing Stock comments, in line with the section in the article. caz | speak 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is debatable to say that Richards is racist. Wikipedia should be objective and not claim he is racist, only give examples of his remarks in the context he gave them. Readers should decide for themselves if "HE's A RACIST!! HE"S A RACIST!!" What Lies Buried 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. It takes the kind of "dull mind" Emerson spoke of to not understand that sometimes, in order to properly hurt someone that we want to hurt, one often has to escalate to saying meta-horrible things. We have no idea whether Richards is a racist or not, but we DO know he said some extremely racist things. wikipediatrix 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removal of YouTube and Blog links

As a standard practice, many editors automatically revert external links to blogs, youtube, and so forth per WP:EL & WP:SPAM. Remember, Wikipedia is not a link farm. Given the attention this article has received, I didn't want to make any changes without discussion. Both of these links are under External Links.

• Re the YouTube link, note that the link to TMZ.com source (currently reference #12) has a link to the video and TMZ.com is the original source of the release.
• The tvguide.com link is A Blog About Michael Richard's Racist Rant -- there's no reason to link to every blog (or any blogs) regarding the incident. They are not encyclopedic sources and, as said above, WP is not a link farm.

What do others think? --Strom 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL is quite clear about this. Remove 'em. wikipediatrix 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chop, chop... I've just added some links about the lynching angle... I suppose those could be trimmed to two or three as well (to say just the USA Today, MSNBC, and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation links). (→Netscott) 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. TMZ footage is linked in the notes. Leave IMDb external link (and maybe Yahoo Movies). Jokestress 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the actual incident caught on film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNlrOx6GCFA (WARNING! LANGUAGE!).. Would that be worthy of being linked to at the bottom? Karozoa 12:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The article and discussion page is somehow changing to the title 'Racist Cracker' from Michael Richards when you click discussion and also the link to Michael Richards's Yahoo! page is titled 'Racist Cracker' instead of Michael Richards at the Yahoo! site. This is inserted into the formatting in some way and needs to be deleted so it stops doing this. - Russell

WP:EL is not clear on this at all. There is no proscription on YouTube with good reason given that CBS, NBC and numerous other major media companies are hosting material with YouTube through partnership agreements. I've restored the link to an excerpt of the Richards apology that was released by CBS. --JJay 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Black v. African-American

I've seen no source saying the hecklers were from Africa. Black people is a more appropriate link. BabuBhatt 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

An African-American doesn't have to be from Africa to be that. They have to have African roots and be American. Black implies African roots as well. Black would only be approporate since we don't know if they are from America. Mick65 01:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I do understand why editors would use African American vs. black, the fact is for those outside of the U.S. who are less than familiar with the African American term, they will likely picture an African immigrant newly arrived in the U.S. when this is almost assuredly not the case in this instance. (→Netscott) 01:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mick, i disagree with you, but besides that point Wikipedia should only include sourced material and the source says Heckle Man is black. BabuBhatt 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mick has it right. It's more PC to refer to someone as Black. We don't actually know if the man is American. Sad moments like these can been seen when people refer to Blacks in the UK as African Americans. Yanksox 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How does that make Mick "right"? He was pulling for African-American. BabuBhatt 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mick was saying that we don't know if the men heckling Richards were American or not. (→Netscott) 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "African-American" is presumptuous and unclear in that it implies an immigrant from Africa to America, as opposed to a native American or immigrant from another country. Removing it.

I was the original editor who substitiuted African American for Black. I did this because the term African American is the politically correct term for negroids in the United States. Because this is already a racially charged incident, I saw no reason to describe the heckler as "black". This adjective is sometimes seen as objectionable in the USA because it describes skin color, not ethnic identity. For this reason, I saw the use of the adjective black - as a bit inflamatory in the context of the article. Cleo123 05:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the word "black" is only seen as objectionable when it's used as a noun, similar to the word "gay". In any case, using the obsolete anthropological term "negroid" is almost certainly politically incorrect (and possibly inflammatory).24.11.177.133 06:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

During the last few decades, the shifting sands of what the politically-correct label is for dark-skinned African-ancestored Americans has become a subject of both exasperation and ridicule by light-skinned European-ancestored Americans. Wahkeenah 16:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The only difference between a black person and an African American is nothing. Anyone who tries to make a difference is ignorrant. Why don't we focus on the fact that the guys in the Laugh factory were just insulted by the comments.

So sure of yourself you can't even sign your mistaken comment, eh? The difference between the two terms is one indicates the person is an American whose family is from Africa. Not all black people are Americans. BabuBhatt 18:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout you just use American of African descent. It sums up the two main points: the person in question is an American (by their nationality), and they have African blood (West African if I know my history).

Banning

Nothing more need be said than:

The Laugh Factory has since stated Richards is no longer welcome at the venue.

Anyone disagree?  Glen  05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it was changed next edit. However, you are making assumptions - and inserting words into their mouths. - read the statement - no mention of a promise merely an "intention"  Glen  05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lynching Reference

There has been a lot of mis-quoting of the statement "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass." I made an edit to remove the word "hanging" that was inserted between "...you [hanging] upside-down..."

Currently the article has this following that quote:

"(an apparent lynching reference [8][9] [10] [11] [12])" I think this is conjecture and editorial and should be removed. There really is no basis for it that isn't speculative. Qwerty2020 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All of those sources say it is a lynching reference. While I don't think we need all of them, it's not speculation to say that many media outlets are saying that's a lynching reference. They may be speculating, but we certainly are not by reporting their statements. Jokestress 10:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What else would he be talking about when he starts out with "50 years ago"... that is pathetically obvious and I dare say the sources aren't even needed based upon Wikipedia:No original research allowing for text that the average adult would understand without interpretation. (→Netscott) 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's pathetically obvious, then I say we remove the parenthetical entirely. It doesn't seem necessary, in my opinion. Jokestress 11:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Does your suggestion really make sense given that the object there is to inform the reader about lynching (particularly lynching in the United States) to which he makes reference? (→Netscott) 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of instances in wikipedia where things that are "pathetically obvious" to you and me might not be so to someone who lacks knowledge about a subject, and thus citations are included for educational purposes. If that one user thinks that specifically citing lynching is "speculative", then alternatively one could cite an article that goes into the entire megillah about mistreatment of minorities in this country. Somehow I suspect that would be overkill (pardon the ironic metaphor) but it would cover the allegation of being "speculative", since it's not speculative that he's referring to some type of mistreatment of black people that was considered relatively common 50 years ago or so. Now, what could that be? Maybe not lynchings. Maybe separate drinking fountains? Wahkeenah 13:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When you're talking about "we" you're talking about a lynch mob and when you're talking about having a black man, "upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass" you're talking about behavior that corresponds to this, this and this. I'll admit that his reference is a bit subtle...but it certainly is obvious for anyone who knows anything about the history of lynching in the United States (which granted Wikipedia users outside of the United States might not be so familiar with). (→Netscott) 13:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And I'm just saying that needs to be explained to the uneducated, and examples need to be cited, not omitted on the grounds of "speculation". It is not "speculation" that he was referring to extreme violent physical abuse of blacks by whites, which included beating, lynching and also castration and the like, which may be another violence he's referring to, with the "fork" comments. Wahkeenah 14:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While the sources may speculate that it's a reference to lynching, I'd have to point out that I've never heard of one being done with a fork before. I think that particular crime actually involved rope, not flatware. I've also heard some interviews where someone 'repeated' a 'quote' that included the word "hang". Interesting since Richard's never said that particular word while he was onstage that night. Are we going to cite that interview as well? As for the use of the word "apparent," my first interpretation of Richard's diatribe was that a bouncer would toss him out on his ass (upside-down) and stick a fork in him, he's done, as the saying goes. There's no hanging in that. And bouncing isn't a crime since they can toss whomever they see as disruptive. So, no, he did not make an "apparent" reference to lynching as far as I could tell.Mangler 00:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately unless a given detail is inherently obvious to the average adult, what we as editors can tell is immaterial. Wikipedia's policies require that a detail like this be verifiably and reliably sourced. There were originally 5 reliable sources cited for the "lynching" aspect of Richards' tirade but in the interest of slimming down the article this was trimmed down to three. So, while your interpretation of the event may make sense to you, adding it to the article without it being reliably sourced would be an example of original research which Wikipedia does not allow. (→Netscott) 00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the less convinced I am that he was talking about lynching, as such. The part about the fork suggests "done" in modern slang, but what's the deal with "50 years ago"? As code word for "before civil rights laws"? That suggests some kind of white-dominant abuse, but maybe not lynching. So maybe it would be better to just cite what transpired and let the reader put his own spin on it, if any. Wahkeenah 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"50 years ago" would be referring to the prevalence in the United States during the 1950s of lynching. See this section of lynching in the United States that specically mentions the case of Emmett Till who was murdered in a lynching in 1955. (→Netscott) 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That leaves the question of the fork. Maybe he's talking partly about lynching and partly about the ability to eject people of color from white establishments, and the license, as it were, to physically abuse them. I'm not saying lynching shouldn't be cited. It's just that, believe it or not, that might be only part of the attitude he copped onstage. White guys often say they are not racists, or not anti-semitic, or whatever, after going into such a diatribe. But it has to come from someplace. If the N-word is not in one's vocabulary, then one will not likely use it. The question in my mind, which only Michael himself can answer, is What was he thinking??? What was going on with this guy? Was he off his medication? Is he suffering from post-hit-TV-show traumatic stress disorder? The specific words he used and the allusions he made are maybe less interesting than the answer to my question... which might be hard to learn, although maybe he'll write a book sometime soon. Turn lemons into lemonade, ya know? Wahkeenah 01:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

50 years ago = second class citizen (at best). Fork up your ass? Aggressive for sure, but doesn't even suggest lynching. If reputable sources speculate, then report them, but leave it at that - don't give their speculation credence just because they're reputable. What a toole - he should stick to clowning.--80.6.163.58 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of what I'm saying is that too much attention is being focused on the words, and not enough on the bigger picture. Is his career in the tank? Was this a "cry for help"? Can we expect to see him on Dr. Phil sometime soon, along with his hecklers, having a hug-fest? Wahkeenah 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The citations in the article are valid relative to the lynching aspect of Richards' "performance". I would tend to agree with the anon save for the fact that second class citizens weren't subject to being forceably made to turn "upside down". (→Netscott) 02:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Apparent Lynching reference' is ludicrous and has to be deleted. The complete sentence is quoted already, the readers can decide for themselves if its apparent to them or not, or what it refers to the words are already there. Quoting three sources speculating about its meaning is utterly pointless, when the sentence is already there. Delete.

Laugh Factory section needs to be cut down

The coverage of this incident is disproportionate compared to everything else in the article. And do we really need half a dozen references saying the same thing?Djedi 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the coverage of this event has not died down (see CNN's video section) and being that he had to go on national television to apologize about his behavior, I don't think the current size of this section of the article on him is disproportionate. There were other editors who previously were adding an entire transcript from the event to the article and in those cases I totally agreed with what you are saying here. (→Netscott) 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have five links talking about what Richards said? The fact that is said it is not disputed - there is no need for it. Djedi 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just cut down the lynching refs. There were five there originally due to the fact that other editors were disputing the lynching aspect of what he said. (→Netscott) 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Wikipedia shouldn't become a tittle tattle gossip column. The incident at the comedy club should be no more than 3 sentences. It is spurious nonsense about an infinitely tiny event. Cut it back by 90%.Iamlondon 18:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. Needs to be covered extensively in the article or possibly spun out to a new article. This is the biggest thing Richards has done since Seinfeld. It has been covered worldwide. Our job is to report that to the fullest extent possible. --JJay 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with JJay. "Recentism" isn't a bad thing. It just means our coverage of that which is not recent needs to be expanded, not vice versa. There's no problem with having one section be long enough for FA status, except that the rest of the article needs to be brought up to that level Mad Jack 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Disabled to edits

Why does the page say what it says at the top and yet this clearly newly registered user had his way with the article? BabuBhatt 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that the User:Curtisaallen account was registered some time ago but never utilized till today. When such accounts are layed away for nefarious purposes they are usually known as sleeper account on Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It really took me awhile to find this out but a look at the creation log shows he registered 22:23, 13 November 2006.--John Lake 09:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What would it require for the program to be changed so that users with no edits so far would be treated as if they were brand-new? Wahkeenah 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not a bad idea. My recommendation is to post it to: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). (→Netscott) 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a quick answer, and I expect he's right: "I'm not entirely certain that the change would be that helpful. Vandals who use sleeper accounts have already shown some degree of sophistication. All it'd mean is that they'd have to make a single superfluous edit before laying the account to rest for a while." User:GeeJo 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Wahkeenah 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another user added the idea of requiring a minimum number of edits, maybe 100, before he would no longer be considered a "new" user. At least he'd have to work a bit for the "right" to vandalize. Wahkeenah 21:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a no-go. I was told that, "There's no way to get an editcount directly within MediaWiki, as the number of edits is not recorded anywhere in the database (that means, there is no editcount table, or editcount field in the user database table). It can be derived through a separate expensive query, like it is done in the Toolserver, but it would be IMO too expensive to make the same query until a certain number of edits are made to the site, and the user gets the autoconfirmed flag." Wahkeenah 02:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible the person made the account to start articles on subjects that were deleted. Contributions to deleted articles aren't included in the list. --WikiSlasher 14:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The real question is

What did the HECKLER said that made Michael Richards so mad. Nobody is asking that question.

• Unless he directly threatened Richards in some way, it's not relevant. Heckling is an occupational hazard for standups, and as professionals they have to find a way to deal with it. Wahkeenah 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• That's not to say it wouldn't be interesting to know what set him off. But unless it was some kind of personal threat, Richards can't use it to excuse his response. Wahkeenah 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the editing of the article? wikipediatrix 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit/conflict, From following news reports about the controversy what I've heard is that two men were talking disruptively with one of them telling the other that Richards, "wasn't funny"... and that Richards interrogated them and one of them explained to Richards that his friend was saying that he [Richards] wasn't funny. (→Netscott) 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wahkeenah and User:Wikipediatrix that this aspect of the event is essentially immaterial. (→Netscott) 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It does have to do with editing the article, in that it would be helpful to present some information of what set him off. Neither his reaction nor anything else that happened suggest he was being physically threatened, but merely being ridiculed, which is the chance you take when doing standup. But there should probably be something there, so that readers will be less likely to say, "Maybe he was 'justified' in what he said," as the user at the top of this section seems to be saying. Wahkeenah 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is no reference in the article to the fact, that all stand up comedians deal with hecklers in a brutal fashion, often using harsh curse words, calling audience members cunt etc. I think its worth a mention, that ANY standup comedian would have mercilessly insulted the hecklers, perhaps not to the extent of the actual insults. Most readers have no awareness of the nature of stand up and heckling and that any person who goes into a comedy club heckling, should expect to be called horrible names, its the nature of the business.

Current event tag removed

the laugh factory incident is no longer a current event. Pacman 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as this is still being reported in the news and seeing how actively this article is currently being edited it is premature to remove the tag. I will not revert though. (→Netscott) 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Never mind, I will not revert. Although, It does seem to heavy of an issue not to be called a current event.

Evilgohan2 19:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The phrase in the article, "...even though many African American comedians use the "N" word all the time," is a monumental example of weasel words. I don't have an account here, but I request that this phrase be deleted. The incident was so far beyond mere use of the word "nigger." 50 years ago we'd have you upside down with a fork up your ass? That's what happens when you interrupt the white man? Black people use the term "nigga" in an endearing way. Trying to equate that use with Richards' tantrum is nonsensical. The phrase I quoted above is unbecoming of Wikipedia and I request that someone delete it. 204.52.215.116 19:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heckler Comments

Added the hecklers own racist comments. Obviously the hecklers comments were prompted by Richards own racist comments but it's a sin of omission to ignore the back and forth of the racist exchange. Vegasjon 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the inclusion. It's not something that has been included really at all in other mainstream outlets. --AWF

Thank you. Wikipedia is suppose to be as unbiased as possible, not an inquistion by the mob, for the mob. FResearcher 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It was determined, and aired on the Today show by Matt Lauer, that the comments heard in response to Richards DID NOT come from the two young men that heckled him. Those comments came from another set of patrons on the other side of the club. The 'sin' in this entire incident is committed by those attempting to shift the responsibility of the incident onto the victims, and is racism personified. User:Rousedabout, 18:20 24 November 2006 MT

Watch the video, the comments came from a heckler, who interrupted the act several times, its irrelevant if the the two people who want to dig some money out of this, said it or not, a heckler said it, who distrupted the act to the point where there was no act, only a dialogue with the heckler. November 25 2006

No one is trying to shift blame. Currently, the article makes it clear that Richards initiated the exchange. The blame lies solely with him. I don't think a reasonable person is going to read this article and come away from it feeling that Richards is a victim of the hecklers.

Richards was called Racist names. That is not disputed. Although I'd say it's unlikely that anyone would take the same offense to "cracker" as to the N-word, the racist intent is still there. Anyway, the inclusion is important because this controversy centers largely around the idea that "no matter how mad you are it's not ok to start throwing out racist slurs". I don't see why this shouldn't apply to those in the audience.

Vegasjon 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The history as written is no factual. The fact that you can't agree that the history as written is factually untrue is the clearest sign that of the prevalence and deniability of racism. <Richards responded to a black heckler[7] with racially charged comments, yelling, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass" (an apparent lynching reference [7][8][9]), and repeatedly shouting "He's a nigger!" The heckler responded with his own racially charged comments, and by repeatedly saying "That was uncalled for!" before calling Richards a "fucking cracker-ass motherfucker" and "fucking white boy."> User:Rousedabout, 07:32 27 November 2006 MT

Creation of a separate page for Laugh Factory Incident

With the growing size of the incident page (and it will probably only grow larger), casting a disproportionate light against the rest of the article, it may be wise to create a separate article for it. Especially with the hecklers threatening to sue Richards. Trilemma 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very sensible. That would correspond to what was done on the Mel Gibson article with the creation of the Mel Gibson DUI incident article. (→Netscott) 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If it "could be dropped separately" after the "furor has gone away" then it doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article in the first place. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The thing about wikipedia is that it's a "living" encyclopedia, i.e. its content changes with the news, as opposed to Britannica, which is a captured-in-stone book. Wahkeenah 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Appearance in Blackface

A video has recently appeared of a much younger Richards appearing in a short film in blackface as a blind man with a dog. It was shown on Extra! on November 23, 2006. Wikifried 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

From the 1986 film Whoops Apocalypse. Richards' character Lacrobat pretends to be a blind black man named Conway Nitz III. [16] Jokestress 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't edit

What's with this page? I tried to add to a section, it took me somewhere else! And when I pressed Edit Page, the section was gone! But I saw it, its there! --66.218.19.101 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm guessing this caused your problem:

Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Please request unprotection, or create an account.

BabuBhatt 06:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Insult comedy"?

I certainly fail to see why Richards' remarks would qualify in any way as comedy. Even if there is something like "insult comedy", which I doubt, because comedians habitually attack their public, an equally blatant and stupid insult can never be comedy. If, in fact, Richards' remarks would have been comedy, I guess no one would have complained about them. --82.135.74.252 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in no position to determine what is comedy, including "insult comedy". It would be best to just write that Richards "responded" and then describe what he said. We shouldn't speculate about what his intentions or state of mind were during the incident. Rhobite 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides which, it's evident from Richards' later apologetic statements (once he had taken his medication, or whatever) that this wasn't "insult comedy", he simply lost his professional cool and blew his stack. That doesn't preclude the possibility that, in the moment, he thought he was being "funny". Wahkeenah 05:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been removing that original research as best I can... and I encourage fellow editors to do so too if it reappears. The editor who last introduced this original research into the article has been blocked stemming from his edits in this regard. (→Netscott) 05:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Italian American category

An earlier version of this page lists his mother's maiden name as Nardozzi, that's a very Italian name. Well, then, why can't I list this page in the Italian American category?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&oldid=89564371

Andrew Parodi 11:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:NOR. Only information that's been stated in reliable sources can be put it in, no assumptions, even very good ones. Mad Jack 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Richards is also considered an Irish surname. It would obviously be ludicrous if someone comes here and add an Irish-American category to this page just because he assumes Michael Richards father must be Irish, similarly one cannot place him in an Italian-American category just because one infers his mother must be Italian. Not to mention as noted it's against of WP:V and WP:NOR. If there's a legitimate, trustworthy source (and wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source; nor are the many pages out there that actually got their info from wikipedia in the first place) stating his ancestry, then there would probably be less objections. 69.115.183.11 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

unacceptable verbiage

in the text of the recent controversy, we see a paragraph beginning with: "according to the two niggers who were targeted by the outburst."" Sorry, but this is ridiculous and needs to be changed. I'm going to make an edit, and if someone feels the need to disabuse me of my rationale, or if they need further clarification of why this is prima facie unacceptable, I'd be delighted to go into more detail....

Quigonpaj 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

More juvenile verbage:

The last paragraph includes: "Fellow comedian Tom Green defended Michael Richards' racial outburst as unfortunate but not indicative of an underlying racial bias, and I think this is much to Tom Green's credit."

It must be exhausting to be an editor on Wikipedia.

I have to disagree. e.g. the fact that Green may or may not know Richards well at this point is likewise just your own original research, and even if verifiable it'd nevertheless be irrelevant. This article should only be based on facts, not about presenting both sides of an argument as _there should be no argument_ on anything since facts are inarguable. Introducing opinions (which in itself is biased as one can selectively choose to present which sources) risks the integrity of the article. As we can see from the actions of editors like Kazahpol, there's already to much bias/using this article as a soapbox. Tendancer 20:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Green response

I moved this here for discussion along with earlier comedian comments.

"Fellow comedian Tom Green defended Michael Richards' racial outburst as unfortunate but not indicative of an underlying racial bias." [17]

If this gets turned into a separate page as discussed above, there might be room for this, but this article needs to keep this controversy in proportion to the article, which means not having these on the main Michael Richards page. Jokestress 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the overwhelming response to the Richards incident is negative. It should be noted that the prevailing atmosphere is not unlike that egging on a lynch mob, with Michael Richards as their target. Responsible writing calls for balance. That is why I tried to include a reference to an article in the New York Post by fellow comedian Tom Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Green) which is a sort of defense of the underlying character of Michael Richards. My post was taken down. Here is a link to the New York Post article in which Tom Green comes, in a nuanced way, to the defense of Michael Richards: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11242006/gossip/pagesix/race_rant_comic_defended_pagesix_.htm

I hope someone else can find at least a way to interweave that reference into the coverage of the Michael Richards incident, to provide some shading of meaning into what is a stark picture stacked entirely against one character.

Bus stop 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop 09:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Bus stop 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fellow comedian Tom Green defended Michael Richards' racial outburst as unfortunate but not indicative of an underlying racial bias, and I think this is much to Tom Green's credit. See the following: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11242006/gossip/pagesix/race_rant_comic_defended_pagesix_.htm"

this is obviously inappropriate. don't edit wiki articles and write "i think this is good" within the text, please. notably, the whole "laugh factory incident" section reads poorly, and is distractingly long. - no-account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.230.115 (talk • contribs)

Kenny Kramer

I am going to add the comment by Kenny Kramer, in defense of Michael Richards in saying that he wasn't a racist. I think it is important, considering Richards is most famous for his portrayal of Kramer. Stevo D 09:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• You should avoid "testimonials", as indicated in the previous section. They are somebody's personal opinion, and add little or no value to the article. Wahkeenah 13:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Jews section

I fail to see why this merits an entire section in the article, or even mention.

It's in the news (please sign your comments in the future). --JJay 02:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is only in the news now (7 months after the fact?) because of the later incident at the Laugh Factory. On it's own, this incident is not noteworthy in the least (a comic insulting a heckler in a comedy club? Gasp! That happens so rarely, we MUST document each and every occurance of it!), and really does not deserve mention in this article. I fear it's inclusion will only serve to manipulate the reader's opinion of Michael for the negative. At the very least, I suggest a "neutrality" tag be slapped on this article (or at least the section).Djedi 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's mildly newsworthy, but I do agree it may warrant a neutrality tag as the tone and wording of this section seems biased (and I suspect intentionally so, because after I've reworded it for clarity it was reverted by the original person who introduced it, with only comments rvv + maliciously adding a test1 to my talk page [for now I'm in no mood for childish edit wars and have given him a 3RR warning]): e.g. "The publicist Richards hired after fallout from his comments, Howard Rubenstein, confirmed the report." Howard Rubenstein is the publicist Richards hired after the Laugh Factory incident, but this whole paragraph phrased it in such a way as if Richards hired this obviously Jewish publicist after the Jewish incident. We do not have to side with/against Richards one way or another--and personally I do suspect him to be a prejudiced human being--but it appears in the heat of the moment many folks are forgetting about WP:NPOV and that this is an encyclopedia. Tendancer 07:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's where his manager confirmed that he is indeed Jewish: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201988_2.html

As for reports that Richards shouted out anti-Semitic remarks during another standup comedy routine in April, Rubenstein confirmed his client did, but that he was only role-playing. "He's Jewish. He's not anti-Semitic at all. He was role-playing, he was playing a part. He did use inappropriate language, but he doesn't have any anti-Semitic feelings whatsoever," Rubenstein said.

Everyone Is Piling On to Condemn Michael Richards, and Why Shouldn't Wikipedia Go Along?

The inclusion of a supposed "Jewish" incident is entirely irrelevant, as is the discussion of whether or not he is Jewish, in relation to the significance of the present incident under discussion. Does it go with the territory that when one is painting someone as a racist, that is, anti-Black, that they are also subject to scrutiny in their relations to other groups of people? Would it be considered relevant to this entry on Michael Richards if I were to find references to his work in kindness to animals or endeavors to protect the environment? The implication is that Michael Richards is thoroughly a bigot, and that is further seen in the shaky conclusion reached in the article that Michael Richards is not Jewish, when in point of fact no one has the foggiest idea whether Michael Richards is Jewish or not. I'm sorry, but this is an unbalanced article. It reflects the most often enunciated opinions on the incident, and nothing more. There is no attempt in the accounting of the incident to introduce any shade of nuance. On the contrary there is only the tendency to pile on. It is merely rumor that Michael Richards said anything of a genuinely hateful nature about Jews. This angle on the incident is irrelevant. Bus stop 08:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop 08:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Some editors do push the Jewish angle, and especially the Referenced article in the Jewish Journal, which cites this very wikipedia article, clearly intrested only in religion, not his origins, and should never be treated as a reliable source. Inculsion of this article is of poor taste in my opinion. Richards clearly stated thru his publicist, that he considers himself jewish. Until there is PROOF to the contrary, we should not include rumors, hearsay, and anonimous directors who 'stayed in touch' with him. Even the Journal's contains the following "article Paul Rodriquez held a press conference at the Laugh Factory, saying that Richards should know better, because the Hollywood community defended Jews against actor Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirades.The implication was that Richards, a Jew, should not be launching racist attacks." clearly one guy thinks hes jewish, another thinks hes not jewish and someone puts one of them into the article but not the other. And yes, this whole paragraph is borderline irrelevant, about rumors of an april incident? Geza 09:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Richards#Jewish_Journal_column_of_Nov_21.2C_2006.2C_on_Michael_Richards:__reiteration_and_additional_discussion

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Richards#Is_Michael_Richards_Jewish.3F Bwithh 15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a bit that Joy Behar once did. She's Italian and Catholic by upbringing, but has that New York City accent that "sounds" Jewish (unlike Richards, a Californian with no discernible accent). She's on the phone arguing with someone: "I'm not Jewish. I'm NOT Jewish. I keep telling you, Ma, I'm NOT JEWISH!"

---

If he truely were anti-semetic, I don't see how Jerry Seinfeld could be friends with him. It seems to me that Richards was mocking racists and bigots more than he was Jewish people. Me, I think it's really funny when someone blames all Jews for killing Jesus, since it is such an ignorant thing to say. It has become the comedian's cliché for portraying anti-semetists.

Michael Richards was frustrated by the heckling. So he tried to make a joke out of himself being the frustrated one by expressing a 'in the ol' days you'd all be hanging from trees' kind of attitude. It seems to me that if the audience would have laughed after Michael Richards had called the heckler nigger, everyone would have been in on the joke. But they didn't. So he wanted to save face and took the whole thing a few steps further. But the audience just wasn't in on the joke. Too bad, because it exploded in his face and now people won't shut up about it.

(Hel-ter, nov 26)

Hel-ter that's actually irrelevant here. The merit of your opinion is not in question, but it's the fact that you feel compelled to discuss it here--the camp that's contra to your opinion is even more fervent, endlessly modifying the article without discussion to introduce their opinion/biases into the article, even if subtlely, and that's what degrading the article and causing all this discussion. At this point I vote for all references to Richard's "Jewish-ness" or lack thereof be deleted unless something came from the horse's mouth so it'll end all this editing nonsense. It's obviously at least 50% of the editors are treating the article not as an encyclopedia, but a soapbox for their own opinions concerning the incident. Tendancer 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Or as a weblog. That's one major flaw with this site, which undermines its credibility. Wahkeenah 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you mentioning the merit of my opinion, but you can both respectfully kiss my irrelevant ass. Everything you have posted here are opinions. Maybe that's why they call it a discussion, no? And that's why I didn't just edit the article, but went here. We need to reach a consensus on this, before there can be any talk of some sort of encyclopedic knowledge, don't we? I guess I may come across as someone who wants to have the last word in a discussion by posting this, but frankly, you've really offended me. Wiki is created by everyone.

(Hel-ter, nov 27)

Pandering to the Most Vocal Elements of a Crowd

The accounting of the incident at the Laugh Factory is laughably unbalanced. The long time authors at Wikipedia want to to be squeaky politically correct. They deem worthy of inclusion only those references that serve to condemn Michael Richards as a bigot. They scrupulously avoid any information that might serve to mitigate that view of him. Because there is indication that he might have said something that might be capable of being construed as being anti-Jewish -- that is seen as being worthy of inclusion in the article. Yet when I inserted a link to Tom Green, a fellow comedian, who commented publicly to the effect that he knows Michael Richards not to be a racist -- that was taken out of the article, by the long time editors of Wikipedia. And the opinion clearly reached by the unbalanced article is that Michael Richards is not Jewish. That only serves to bolster the argument that he is an anti-Semite. Rather than present an objective accounting of only what is known, which is pretty much confined to the cell phone video that we've all seen, the long time editors of Wikipedia are piling on to condemn Michael Richards for all the mileage they can get out of it. "Don't bite the newcomers" is a joke. I am a newcomer, and the reality is my suggestions have been overrode in every instance, concerning this incident, in this article. This accounting of the incident at the Laugh Factory is pandering to the most vocal elements of a crowd. That is all it is. Bus stop 19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop 19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

www.wikitruth.info -- what else do you have to know? anyway, it is certainly funny those two black guys are asking for money now. typical.

Sockpuppet vandals

Tendancer, Geza, and Bus stop are most likely the same person. Thus far both Bus stop and Tendancer have engaged in vandalism on this page. I would suggest watching their edits closely so as to revert their vandalism ASAP. KazakhPol 19:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is an easy enough way to find out- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I agree their comments on the talk page are not particularly constructive. --JJay 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we have a perfect example of one of the "fervent" (to put it very euphemistically) editors. From his history it's obvious he has strong bias with regard to jewish issues, and every edit he has made to the Michael Richards page has been replete with bias--e.g. saying Richard's publicist "erroneously" (where is the proof, has he read WP:V, WP:NOR?) said Richard is a Jew, then furthermore phrased the sentence in such a way to imply Richards hired Rubenstein after the Jewish incident. After dozens of folks edited his biased version (and didn't even delete it as it probably should've been), he reverted it with comments "Do not remove again". Evidently he also thinks (or just want to falsely accuse) anyone who does not think his missive is pertinent to this article is a vandal/same person.

KazakhPol: I've already engaged you in dialogue on your talk page. To which you've ignored and continued to make reverts back your biased opinions, while making false vandalism accusations at WP contributors and vandalizing my talk page. I once again recommend you reread WP:V, WP:NOR, and especially WP:NPOV. WP:3RR may also be useful as you are on the brink of a block. Tendancer 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. You are getting reported. Tendancer 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Vandals? No, it is just me -- no-one else.

No, actually I am me, the only one. I am in cahoots with no-one else. Is it now vandalism for me to point out that the accounting of the incident at the Laugh Factory, in the Michael Richards article is biased and unbalanced? I am only pointing this out on this talk page. Isn't that what this talk page is for? Here, by the way, is the link to the reference that I tried to add to the article about 24 hours ago. If the "Jewish" speculation has a place in the article, then inclusion of a link such as this does not seem to be too far afield.

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/11/25/tom_green_defends_michael_richards

Bus stop 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Out On The Limb Of Popular Opinion

There is no "neutral point of view" when one is spouting unsubstantiated claims about someone being an anti-Semite. Comedians are always "pushing the envelope." What we have on the cell phone video at the Laugh Factory of Michael Richards is all that really merits consideration. But what we have here is Wikipedia going along with the crowd, and reporting shaky, unsubstantiated rumor about a previous incident supposedly targeting Jews with hate speech, and that is simply going too far. Wikipedia has lost it's neutrality, in going along for that ride. There are ludicrous comments made in that paragraph. It ends by pointing out that he was "raised Catholic." Is that relevant to ANYTHING? Could he not be Jewish and still be raised Catholic? Wikipedia should stick to what is known, and to not go out on the limb of popular opinion. What is known is almost completely confined to what is captured on the well known cell phone video. Wikipedia should not be including ANY speculation about a supposed previous anti-Semitic incident, much less offering opinions on what his religious identity might be, and worst of all -- what religion he was raised under! That is pretty far afield from the specific video imagery that should be the central core of explaining what took place in the incident at the Laugh Factory. Bus stop 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Bus StopBus stop

His hair

How come Mr. Richards is now bald, basically? He had hair up so high, it was like that guy of Kid and Play. I like to know what happened. -Amit

Michael Richards on Jesse Jackson's radio show

Michael Richards went on Jesse Jackson's radio show to try to "face the music" I think. I'm not sure how I think it went for him, but maybe in the interest of NPOV a link to http://www.keephopealiveradio.com/ where they have archived the audio would be useful to add to this page.BHFeller 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards is not Jewish

His publicist fessed up. He "adheres to Jewish philosophy" (ok) but is not Jewish and did not convert to Judaism. [18] I'll change the article accordingly Mad Jack 23:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Adheres to Jewish philosophy?" Weasels-R-Us! Wahkeenah 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

He "adheres to Jewish philosophy"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is he wearing a Red Kaballah Thread (TM)? Does he practice Gematria with peoples' phone numbers? When people say he's wearing a nice-looking suit, does he mumble, "Kein ayin horah!" and spit "peh! peh! peh!"? Some of the editors in the above threads so much wanted the "Jewish Journal" to be wrong and for this racist idiot with an Italian-surnamed mother to be Jewish, even though his earlier anti-Jewish rant included that typical old medieval Catholic schoolyard slur about Jews "killing Christ." Well, now it looks like he's not only not Jewish, he also lied to his publicist. It is to laugh.

• And in a clip I saw today, with Jesse Jackson standing right there, he said that when he was growing up, a lot of his best friends were African-Americans. Gevalt! (There, I just adhered to Jewish philosophy myself.) Well, so far Richards has maligned Jews and blacks. He also happened to be the guy that stomped on a Cuban flag in Seinfeld, although presumably he was just doing what the script called for. Which ethnic group will be next on his Kook's Tour? Wahkeenah 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't change the fact of his (probable) ethnicity, which is what these categorization issues are usually about -- just as someone else may be a Russian-American, or Japanese-American, it's still more than likely that Richards is a Jewish-American, at least partially; if one or both of his parents have Jewish roots (particularly his mother), then he is still technically classified as a Jew -- in all honesty, his religion and/or "philosophy" really doesn't matter, given that 'Jewishness' is as much about ethnicity/race/family-roots as it is about religion. In fact, being Jewish is becoming more and more about ethnicity these days as many secular Western Jews have long since abandoned their ancestral religion...however, the Hebrew DNA of course remains. --Pseudothyrum 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What??? What's to stop me or anyone else from claiming that George W Bush and Dick Cheney are ethnically Jewish? Using this argument you could claim anyone on the planet you wanted to is ethnically Jewish. In this case, the publicist clearly said Richards has no Jewish blood/ancestry. That's the whole point. Mad Jack 04:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that this matters...

I know this isnt a forum but if you search KKKramer it redirects you here H.E. Pennypacker 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)H.E. Pennypacker

Thanks for the heads up... I've tagged that redirect for deletion. (→Netscott) 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the redirect, as it was clearly vandalism and NPOV, but now we're left with an ugly blank page. Still, the main problem is gone. --Captain Cornflake 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)