Talk:Michael Richards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revisiting Laugh Factory incident section[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

I undid the edit by 121.44.175.216 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)[reply]

As the article stands now (Feb. 2018) the incident takes up about a third of the article, not including the lede. This still might be too much but the article does, primarily, deal with his career in a proper fashion, inho.Browntable (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that so far his entertainment career has failed to reignite since this event it does warrant a respectable portion of the article about him but now that over a decade has passed it does make sense to revisit this section and perhaps thin it out to the most salient points about what happened (while absolutely avoiding any ridiculous attempts at whitewashing of it as some editors had wanted to do during the highly contentious period of the initial development of this section). 213.174.99.130 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Talman[edit]

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?

Here are the two links: People magazine, Los Angeles Times Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general issue has been raised repeatedly in various contexts; see for example [1]. 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michael Richards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a jew[edit]

Is the thing where he said he was a jew but wasn't noteworthy? It's not here now and I'm trying to decide if it's worth adding. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/11/28/michael-richards-clarifies-claim-about-being-jewish.html (There are other reports, but this is the first one that popped up.) CsikosLo (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Baz Richards[edit]

I do not see why it is unacceptable to mention in the article that Richards is the father of a son named Antonio Baz Richards. According to WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B." In this case, person A is Antonio Baz and person B is Michael Richards. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also have sources that confirm that Richards has a son: E! News published an article on Antonio Baz with pictures of him and the Los Angeles Times mentions him saying, "I have a 2-year-old son." Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are misinterpreting "notability" and the relationships associated with such - and the word "child" - and mistaking it for a "minor". "Child" in your example means a grown adult when mentioning by name. In this case, you can mention he has a child, but not include the child's name if he is a minor. It doesn't matter what outside sources say; this is Wikipedia. Maineartists (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you need WP backing: "Do not name or otherwise identify the person, even if good sources do publish the name, when a more general description will suffice."WP:MINORS Even in an Infobox it is customary to simply put a number for children: "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g., three), or list of names if notable. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable." Infobox Children. I'm removing the name of the minor, and correcting the grammar. Please gain consensus before putting it back in the article. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maineartists: On the contrary, thank you. I completely agree with the diff you've provided to me. I completely accept the fact that his son's name cannot be mentioned, just as long as the article mentions that he has a son in addition to his daughter, Sophia. That's all I was trying to do. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hitcher vs. Candyman You are perhaps the very epitome of what an example of a true model editor can be at WP. I'll stand in your corner any day. Happy editing to you. Maineartists (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically thanks to this discussion also this is just as public as the article itself. privacy schetckmagraphy... --181.166.162.36 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years active[edit]

Just what exactly is going on here? "1979–2000, 2007–2014, 2019" Did the BLP state publicly that he had retired from the industry (or his career entirely) and then started up again ... 3 times!? Only in 2009 did he state that he would retire from "Stand-up". Why do these dates keep changing? Unless he's dead, these dates are ridiculous at WP. Just because an actor doesn't have steady work, doesn't mean he's not "active". He's still in the industry. A film actor is "not-active" between pictures, and dates do not reflect those time periods. The date should simply be 1979-present: plain and simple. IMDB places him to present. Maineartists (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

Since it is already mentioned that Richards is a member of Freemasonry would it be inappropriate to include his home lodge? I mean its pretty much public knowledge but as a Freemason myself I can understand that the Master and members of that lodge may not want to have fans flocking and hanging outside of the Masonic Temple waiting for Richards to show up, I mean that actually could be a deterrant for him and the other brothers of the lodge to show up but I thought I'd ask anyway. YborCityJohn (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War service[edit]

Although Richards served in the Army during the Vietnam War era, there are no reliable sources found as of yet state that he was in a war zone during the war. More specifically, the sources do not establish defining role in the Vietnam War. Accordingly, "Category:United States army personnel of the Vietnam War" was removed until a defining role is established. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Richards&oldid=1194081582"