|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Richards article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
Revisiting Laugh Factory incident section
For sure, the main focus of Michael Richards Wiki entry should be the Laugh Factory incident. Where he grew up, Seinfeld, other acting work is all secondary in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Why in the world should his article be mainly about something that happened one night vs. his role on a series which lasted many years which had a huge impact on popular culture. The laugh factory incident should definitely be mentioned but to make it larger than the rest of the article? Something that happened several years after his career was already dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The section on the 2006 incident was three times longer than the section on his two television series. Classic WP:UNDUE. It had a lot of bloated language and unnecessary detail. Now that this has had time to be put in better perspective, I have trimmed it while retaining the consensus-based meaning per WP:BRD. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
For anyone confused, I think it's safe to say that 126.96.36.199's comments above are pretty obviously sarcastic in nature.
I agree with discussion in archive 4 that the Laugh Factory incident continues to receive undue weight, and might be better suited in its own article rather than a biography.
As a separate matter of style/presentation, I don't know if the incident is necessary to include in the lead paragraph (of a biography article). Even if consensus deems it significant enough, those paragraphs need only to concisely refer to the incident section below. Currently, it is referred to in the 3rd lead paragraph with excessive detail (for a lead paragraph). I propose instead:
When Seinfeld ended, Richards returned to stand-up comedy. In late 2006, he made headlines from an incident at a comedy-club, and subsequently announced his retirement from stand-up in 2007.
Please note that this is not an attempt to whitewash information--all the relevant information can still remain in the section below (or in it's own article if such is warranted). However, the lead paragraph should be succinct and focus on the career milestones of the individual; it therefore needs not go into the same explicit detail as the article section. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence to this section characterizes the audience members as "hecklers" and links to that article. This directly contradicts the passage that follows giving one of the audience member's accounts--he says they were possibly being a little loud ordering drinks, which is not heckling. Also the cited sources use language like, "noise that Richards interpreted as heckling". So unless there is some source stating clearly that there was heckling, I propose this ambiguity should be conveyed in the article.Snarfblaat (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I undid the edit by 184.108.40.206 removing the mention of the audience incident from the lede. There has been a lot of discussion in the archives on the due weight; omitting it entirely and unilaterally isn't the solution. The lede doesn't even read properly as edited, since it still contained references to the "laugh factory incident" after the description of the incident was wiped away.Snarfblaat (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the two links, respectively from People magazine and the Los Angeles Times, it is said that Richards was in a relationship with a third woman by the name of Ann Talman? Would this info be suitable to mention on the "Personal life" section?
- The general issue has been raised repeatedly in various contexts; see for example . As Jimbo Wales said in that discussion, we do not "chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances". I have done a lot of BLP cleanup, and removal of content like this has been, more than 95% of the time, noncontroversial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)