Talk:Michael Richards/Archive 2

Laugh Factory incident & WP:BLP

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This one incident in the subject's life is given disproportionate space, which effectively turns the page into an attack article. It has almost as much space as the section devoted to his whole career, which does not go into anywhere near the amount of detail that the LFI section does. This results in a bad article that is not in line with policy, particularly as regards living people. It is important not to let contemporary events assume an undue importance in relation to the whole. It is important not to appear to be gratuitously maligning the subject. Per WP:BLP "Biographies of living people should be written ... conservatively." This means giving the facts but not enlarging unecessarily. This is a biography of Michael Richards. It is about him and what he has done. This section should do that. The hecklers' subsequent actions and opinions are gratuitous, and appear to be there only to malign the subject &mdash; similarly with dwelling over other details in a way that is not done in other sections of the biography. I have therefore revised the section in line with WP:BLP. Unsourced derogatory material cannot be used, but just because something is sourced does not mean it can be used either if it gives undue weight in a derogatory way. That is bad editing. Please note: "badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted." I have not checked out the references themselves, as I presume the 100 previous editors have certified them. Tyrenius 01:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent revision, Tyrenius! Bus stop 01:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent excellent excellent. Bus stop 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been appalled from the day I set eyes on this grotesque article. So much vulgarity, so much hatred, so much desire for retribution, so much denial. I am glad to see that Tyrenius has introduced a note of sanity. Bus stop 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly! I applaud Tyrenius for being bold, and seeing the forest for the trees! I think the current version is EXCELLENT! Cleo123 01:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the current revision of Tyrenius, nice work. CloneGuard 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Extra quote
Copied from User talk:Tyrenius:
 * Hello Tyrenius, thanks for joining the editing on this contentious article. I 100% agree with your editing save for one small bit and that is a version that covered what happened just prior what is seen on the video of this event. The targets of the tirade were interviewed on CNN and they explained that Richards began by insulting their party with a line he said about "... stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there ...". I think that this piece of info is essential in putting the whole event in context. Does that make sense? 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried this out with some minor tweaks also:


 * During a November 17, 2006 performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, Richards retorted loudly to hecklers, who later stated he shouted, "stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there".[REFERENCE][1]. [When the heckling increased], a cell phone video captures him then continuing, "Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass!" (a reference to lynching),[8], and, several times, "He's a nigger!"

The art of doing this is to get just the right quotes to convey the offensive language without pedantically including everything. There seems to be something missing now, which I have conjectured as [When the heckling increased] or maybe it is [When the heckling didn't stop]. Presumably it didn't stop or he wouldn't have had a problem, so if his actions are going to make sense, the context has to be there too. Are there sources for this at all? Slightly worrying also is that there is no indication of the degree of provocation that was there for him. This is important as it reflects considerably on his response, i.e. whether it was completely disproportionate or not. What were the hecklers saying/shouting? If they were making rascist comments in the first place, for example, (I'm not suggesting they were, because I don't know) then it gives a different slant on things. I suggest we leave the above revised paragraph on this page for now, do some more research on the lines I've suggested and see how things shape up then.

Tyrenius 01:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely... that the hecklers stated this was covered on CNN's The Situation Room. I think such detail goes far in establishing the context of what happened. 01:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No it does not,. The only thing that establishes anything is the cell phone video. We are not playing "He said," "She said." The cell phone video provides damning evidence for the wrongdoing of Michael Richards. We do not have to conjecture about what we do not know. Bus stop 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone has said something and it is reported in a reliable source, then that does allow us to say that someone has said what they said (but not to use their statement as factual in itself necessarily). However, I think there are other, namely editorial, considerations that must be brought to bear. Tyrenius 03:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hecklers' viewpoint
Copied from User talk:Tyrenius:
 * Considering all of the detail from the point of view of the targets has now been removed by yourself I think a simple description of what they said as follows would not fall under the undue weight clause of NPOV:

"According to Kyle Doss (one of the targets of the tirade) the incident began when his group of about twenty people entered into the Laugh Factory after Richards' performance had started and proceeded to order beverages. He stated, '[...] I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.''"
 * as found here. Even this can be slimmed down. 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This brings up more questions than answers. If we take Doss's words as true, then they weren't heckling at all, and to describe them as that is inaccurate. Presumably sources do describe them as that, or is that just Richards' description of them? Is there any other detail on the degree of provocation or is this the only source for it? If we use this, then it leads on to Richards's equivalent being something like, "I guess I was a bit insulting". I have no objection to using the above quote by Doss and not using Richards' actual words, but summarising them maybe as:
 * During a November 17, 2006 performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, Richards retorted loudly to black hecklers[1] using insulting and extreme racist language.

Tyrenius 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They've been called hecklers by reliable sources... which is the primary reason the article has read like that. For NPOV the word "racist" has been avoided and we've let Richards' own words speak for themselves. If you're serious about trying to help improve this article (and you haven't already done so) then I would strongly advise you to read as much of the previous talk here about this as you can. 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no one quote that has to be included or has to be excluded. The article best expresses the truth (and the beauty) of the incident by presenting a version that is more "digested" than is the norm. We are dealing with volatile issues. Truth is attained by insulating the wires carrying the hot messages. All of the quotes have sucked. They (the quotes) have not served to write an article that says that Richards "lost it" on stage and attacked people with racial epithets. That is all that needs to be said. The article only needs to point out the core Richards' wrongdoing, and leave it at that. At this point we do not even know if there will be a lawsuit; we should not even speculate about that unknown. Bus stop 02:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Review
Tyrenius, I see that you are an administrator and I surely hope that you can help the group of us resolve this ongoing dispute. Please, take the time to read this talk page discussion, beginning with the section titled "Time To Reduce the Text." 's insistence on including this quote in the article has caused considerable disruption and some edit warring on this article. He seems to be pushing the point of view that the hecklers were justified in their heckling. Other editors have repeatedly asked him for unbiased sources, which he hasn't been able to provide. At one juncture, he created his own seperate article in what appeared to be a form of retaliation against the other editors' working on this article, who disagreed with him. His stand alone article was deleted and now he appears to again be trying to reinsert this information. Would you mind reveiewing this? Cleo123 02:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please clarify - which quote are you referring to? Tyrenius 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * She's referring to this ".. Stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there .. " quote. I don't think CNN would be a biased source relative to this quote. 03:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * CNN is not the source of that statement, Kyle Doss is. Of course he is the source of the bias you talk about, not CNN. This is not the first time you try to falsly represent one heckler's statements as if they were coming from CNN. This is the same as saying CNN TMZ and all newspapers are reliable unbiased sources for calling Kyle Doss a nigger. So stop your stupid tactics of mentioning CNN every three seconds when it has nothing to do with anything. CloneGuard 03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So far my experience on this page has been of disagreement conducted in a reasonable way. Yours is the first abuse and is a violation of WP:CIVIL. If you talk in this provocative way again I will block you immediately. Tyrenius 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

-- We are editors of this article. The inclusion of quotes has repeatedly led to an escalation in our differences. Why don't we try leaving out quotes? There is no rule that says literalness is the ideal. It is quite possible to convey the truth by talking around what we know transpired. We can say that a disagreement broke out between Michael Richards and a part of the audience. We can say that Michael Richards called attention to their minority status, in particular employing the "n-word" and employing racial epithets in a futile attempt to belittle them. We can say that he apologized afterwards, in various public venues, even meeting with representatives of the Black community, in particular Al Sharpton and Reverend Jessie Jackson. We can say that, needless to say, some raw nerves were hit, especially caused by the near constant replaying of the cell phone video in all the news resources. I think that is the sort of way in which we should treat this controversial passage in the biography of Michael Richards. Going into detail doesn't help. It doesn't help to tell the truth. The truth is conveyed by lightly touching upon the relevant points, not by chiseling them out in sharp detail. Bus stop 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * CloneGuard, is correct. CNN was merely showing a clip from an interview with the hecklers' regarding their intention to sue Richards. Doss, is quite obviously not an unbiased nuetral source. His agenda should be fairly obvious. It is misleading to attribute this information to CNN.


 * I agree with Bus stop, no quotes should be included. All the conflicts between editors seem to stem from the inclusion or exclusion of various quotes, and attempts to balance the the various points of view. Tyrenius has provided a fresh nuetral perspective and I believe he has improved the article dramatically. I say, we leave Tyrenius's version as is. Once we start putting quotes from the various parties, the same old Pandora's Box we've been struggling with will be opened a new. Cleo123 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:CloneGuard is a now an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:Mactabbed User:Kgeza67 (as established by CheckUser). 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Laugh Factory Incident draft revisions
''There was a big edit conflict! (Now another one!) Here is what I had written before I read the above posts. It was meant to be inserted in sections above, but it's got too complicated now. If Netscott agrees with leaving out quotes then I would be quite happy with that.''

My interest is purely in applying WP:BLP as this issue is a very sensitive one on wikipedia and for the Foundation. Michael Richards means nothing to me personally. I've just read through the article again, and the way this section is written still sticks out as an anomaly, with prominent quotes by him which are absent from the rest of the article, apart from the Early life section. I don't see any grounds for giving more detail over the LFI, when the rest of the article can do with an equivalent amount of detail. Either that, or describe his remarks, rather than quote, in line with the main article.

The LFI section has enough graphic description, and needs less rather than more. However, it can be adjusted by swapping quotes. I have taken on board suggestions with the version below. It sets the scene and represents the "hecklers", as Netscott suggests. It avoids the blatant language, which is not necessary, as Bus Stop points out. I would be happy to go with this:


 * A controversial incident occurred during a November 17, 2006 performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California. A customer, Kyle Doss, said he was in a group of about twenty people who entered the club after Richards' performance had started: "I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he [Richards] said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'" Richards responded to heckling with a graphic reference to lynching and then yelled several times, "He's a nigger!"

Tyrenius 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This highly trimmed down version is approaching acceptability to me in that it gives a good context, I just see a need for some minor massaging. That said, unfortunately if past history is any indicator the actual quotes themselves (if not an entire transcript - as has occurred before) will likely be added by other editors.  04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding Doss's comments: they become eligible for the article because they have been obtained via a reliable source. If they were in a blog, for example, they wouldn't be. If the editors here can reach a consensus, then that can be stated on this page and enforced if necessary. Oh yes, certainly some room for minor tweaking. Tyrenius 04:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That has been my point all along. I agree that the other quotes that you've removed were gratuitous (they weren't my additions) but this one quote as recorded by this reliable source really goes some way towards establishing what was going on prior to the video. I highly doubt that Doss and party would lie about such an important detail while being interviewed on international television (CNN) when there was hundreds of individuals there who saw the performance and would decry any such nonsense. 04:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I do not feel comfortable with this version, because there appear to be no other sources for the information other than an interested party who has publicly expressed his intention to sue. How can we present ONLY one biased point of view as to what started the incident? If there were other LF patrons who had come forward to verify this version of events, I'd feel differently. Or - if the "Richards camp" made a statement as to what "started" the incident, we could present a balanced picture of the context. As is, I don't see how we can present this as a fact. I think we should steer clear of anything that cannot be verified. We only KNOW what happened from the point the cell phone camera footage begins. I don't see this as presenting a nuetral point of view. Cleo123 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are judging on the principle of truth. Wiki doesn't do this. It judges on the principle of verifiability. Tyrenius 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that this is what the targetted parties have said... nowhere has the article been saying otherwise... Wikipedia doesn't say if it is true or not... we present it as it was presented via a reliable source. That is standard stuff on Wikipedia. 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)We are not presenting Doss's version of events as fact. We are presenting as a fact that Doss said this, i.e. the fact is that this is Doss's version of events. This is quite clear. The fact that Doss said this can be verified, as I understand it, because it was on CNN. This is NPOV. It is following the precedent of established sources. Opposing its inclusion on the ground that it might not be true contravenes NPOV and is original research. I think anyone with a modicum of insight will be able to "interpret" the quote quite easily. Tyrenius 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My background is in journalism, so perhaps, I do not understand Wikipedia's unique spin on nuetrality. I have not taken issue with the statement being verifiable. I'm coming from the perspective that you either present "both sides" or none. Something which must be left open to "interpretation" should not stand on its own. In journalistic fields, that's called "sloppy journalism". We should be attempting to establish the "TRUTH" through multiple sources. Presenting only one view from an interested party is the stuff of tabloids. Cleo123 04:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have observed many times on wikipedia where "neutral point of view" is misused or misinterpreted to mean "presenting both sides", as if it were a court case. Where the facts are uncertain, that seems fair. But what it really means is writing without an "agenda", i.e. without "editorializing". In fact, a significant number of writers insist on presenting opposing views for the purpose of undercutting the facts and pushing their own point of view. Wahkeenah 04:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that I am attempting to push a view point, you are very much mistaken. I do see the facts as being uncertain and I do not see someone with a pending lawsuit as a nuetral reliable source. If his version of events could be verified by other patrons, I would have NO PROBLEM with its inclusion. I'm not trying to "undercut" facts. I'm trying to get at the facts. Cleo123 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an implication of that - it was just a general explanation. The person is not the RS. CNN is the RS. Wiki doesn't get to the facts. It gets to what RSs say are the facts. Take a look at WP:VERIFY.Tyrenius 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When it comes to quotes from reliable sources... they are established as fact... I think perhaps you're confusing what the person is saying as being fact and the fact that they said something. 05:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)(3 edit conflicts)You are right about wikipedia's unique spin on neutrality, not to mention its unique spin on various other things, which I, and doubtless many others, found something of a shock to begin with, coming like you from a background with a different criterion of enquiry. Wiki's neutrality is that it is neutral in following reliable sources. If such a source says something, then we have to follow it &mdash; ours not to reason why. This is what the source presented. Their "sloppy journalism" then gets transferred to wikipedia, which reflects and does not instigate. Of course, if you find something else in a reliable source, that can also be included. However, I don't see what the problem is, as Doss admits they were making a noise. He's not saying "it was a totally unmerited attack on us." Tyrenius 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Making noise, while innocently ordering drinks is something all together different than heckling. Doss' remark puts a very different "spin" on the evening's events. If his statement is correct, then Richards was not "responding to hecklers" but "provoking" heckling by making insensitive racial remarks at innocent patrons. His "spin" needs to be verified because it substantially alters Richards' culpibility in the incident. If Doss is to be believed, Richards was spewing out racial slurs without provocation. If Doss' statement is inaccurate, isn't it defamatory and unacceptable according to WP:BLP? Cleo123 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision draft 1
Well, now you've unearthed another wikinconsistency. If a RS source says it, then it seems defamatory remarks are acceptable. I know that's no defence, but wiki has this touchingly blind faith in "reliable sources", amongst which it amusingly counts newspapers. In the light of your remarks I have recast my suggested version to simply state the known facts:


 * In November 17, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards shouting with a graphic reference to lynching and yelling several times, "He's a nigger!" at some customers, whom media reports described as "black hecklers". Kyle Doss was in a group of about twenty people who had entered the club in the middle of Richards' performance. In an interview on CNN, Doss's explanation of the events prior to the start of the cell phone video was: "I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he [Richards] said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'"

Tyrenius 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As there's been no criticism of this version, I have put it into the article. I'd be grateful if someone could confirm refs and add CNN ref. Further discussion below if necessary. Tyrenius 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been unable to respond due to edit conflicts. I appologize for raining on anyone's parade with my views, but I still feel that this statement should be excluded. I applaud your attempt to balance Doss' view by saying media reports described them as hecklers. It may be more accurate and balanced to say that:


 * "According to some media outlets, Richards remarks were made in response to heckling. One of the targets of the outburst, Kyle Doss, explained that he was part of a group of 20 people who arrived late for Richards' performance. In an interview on CNN, Doss's explanation of the events prior to the start of the cell phone video was: "I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he [Richards] said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'"


 * I still think, however, that the statement should be excluded due to a lack of other verifiable sources. If there is any doubt as to the veracity of statements, we should heir on the side of caution and NOT present them. As you, yourself stated, Tyrenius, a conservative approach must be taken in biographies of living people. If there is a chance that Doss' statement is libellous that outweighs any possible "value added" to the article. I really wish that there were more sources available as to what "started" the incident. Since there aren't, we should not speculate using only one point of view. Cleo123 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I said my interest is in the application of policy. Please see WP:BIO and WP:VERIFY. The major concern is using derogatory statements which are unsourced. This statement is sourced and is not a derogatory statement as such about the subject anyway. You have a basic misunderstanding if you think it is up to wiki editors to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of statements. We rely on what secondary sources have chosen to endorse. I understand CNN broadcast these remarks and that is all the clearance we need. It is not up to us to be libel lawyers. We rely on CNN's libel lawyers. We are not speculating. We are merely reporting what someone else has said. All of this as has already been pointed out is standard wiki procedure. I have to discount your reasons, however sound they might be in other quarters, because they are not applications of policy. Tyrenius 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Just because the quote can be attributed to a reliable source does not mean that is is relevant. I would say that one person's description of the events is too narrow a scope, unless balanced by another viewpoint. In this case, the description given comes from a person with a vested financial interest in portraying events in a light most positive to them. Since no one else has stepped forward and given a similar description, then I would say that quote, while verifiable, does nothing to balance the section. Bulbous 00:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of revision draft 2

 * If we take your argument that one person's description is too narrow, then we should also eliminate Richards' description and his explanation. Richards equally has "a vested financial interest in portraying events in a light most positive to them". I hasten to add I am not saying either party is engaging in any deliberate deception with their report, but things to appear differently to different people. Then all we have is Richards' offensive remarks in isolation, which would read completely as an attack piece. We do have two points of view &mdash; Richards' and Doss's. It is easy enough to let each individual speak for themselves. This is called NPOV, which applies to the wiki editor (not to the subjects necessarily). Below is a version which lets both parties speak, and also shows that Doss aimed to gain financially. This is just stating the facts without interpretation. That is what we do round here.Tyrenius 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's rather disingenuous. You're talking about two different narratives there. One of them is the preamble to the incident, which is described only by Doss. We have no other corroboration or balancing description regarding that. We also have the description of the incident itself, which was recorded on tape. Therefore, what Richard's said is not offered as opinion, it is a piece of a transcript. Bulbous 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. What Richards said was equally describing a preamble and his version of what had happened prior to his remarks. The Washington Post says, "The clip shows Richards interrupting his monologue onstage and yelling "Shut up!" at a patron, who apparently had been heckling during Richards's routine." You will notice "apparently". This is one version. It is only proper to present both versions.Tyrenius 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think most of this doesn't matter. We are imagining ourselves to be detectives. We are writing an article, not trying to solve a crime. Were it not for the cell phone video, the "Laugh Factory incident" in Michael Richards' article would be about one sentence long. Bus stop 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This quote is coming from a reliable source. This satisfies the verifiability requirement for inclusion in this article. Doss being directly involved here makes this quote particularly pertinent to the incident and warrants inclusion here. 01:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An article about Michael Richards does not have to read like a police transcript. Bus stop 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an important difference between "the letter of the law" and "the spirit of the law." There would appear to be a serious problem on Wikipedia with editors abusing the letter of the law, in order to circumvent and over ride the spirit in which policies are made. The fact that something comes from a "reliable source" does not mean that a small baised portion of it can or should be taken out of its proprer context and used (or as I see it, abused) to present a slanted presentation of facts.


 * Doss' statement cannot stand on its own as a descriptor of what initiated Richards' rant. Whether his interview was carried by a "reliable source" or not - HE IS NOT a reliable source - he's a person with a lawsuit, for goodness sake! His characterization, that he and his party were simply innocently ordering drinks when they were assaulted with racial commentary, means Richards' PROVOKED heckling from the crowd, rather than RESPONDED to heckling. This is a SUBSTANTIAL difference in facts, which is unsupported by any other sources. As such it is potentially defamatory and cannot be included. The "letter of the law" on verifiable sources, cannot and should not be used to override the "spirit of the law" in taking a conservative approach to biographies of living people. Cleo123 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Cleo123, you're again responding as though our addition of what Kyle Doss has said is set in stone fact, it is not and has never figured as such. We are adding a pertinent quote of what he said and presenting it as that... merely a quote. It is verifiable that Doss said what he said due to the quote itself coming from a reliable source. Essentially it is a fact that Doss has said what he said. Do you dispute this? 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * -- Are you not selective in what quotes you argue for inclusion in the article, and exclusion from the article? Bus stop 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments after this point apply to "Revision draft 2 (ii)"


 * , you seem to be missing the point. No one is questioning the fact that Doss said what he said. What has been questioned is the inclusion of only one biased point of view as a SUBSTITUTE for actual facts. The inclusion of his statement creates a misleading picture of events. I see its inclusion as a breech of the ethical editorial code of conduct which is implied in the spirit of WP:BLP. This is a controversial subject matter which must be handled conservatively. I feel that Tyrenius's initial approach of eliminating all inflamatory quotations and sticking to a purely factual presentation, was the most correct approach. Cleo123 03:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't deal in facts. We deal in verifiable information from reliable sources. The version now presents a reasonable, informative and balanced picture, avoiding undue sensationalism. You are taking your arguments too far. They are becoming unreasonable. Tyrenius 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If we aren't accepting Doss' description as a verifiable fact, then why is a change being proposed that sets the size of Doss' group at "about 20". Do we have a cite for that? Bulbous 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "about 20" deleted. Tyrenius 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you forgetting that we have major portions of Richards' one sided account of the event as well (ie: Going into a "rage", later returning to apologize, his claim to have been trying to be outrageous in response, etc.)? I think Tyrenius is right... the addition of the "my friend thinks you're not funny" line is needed as well to illustrate what the final straw was that actually launched Richards into his tirade. 03:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so. We must adopt a NPOV towards both parties.Tyrenius 03:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry also, Cleo123. Your concern to protect wikipedia is appreciated, but is original research and inadmissible. We have a major reliable source that has presented this material, and that makes it eligible for use. That is wiki policy and that is what we go by. It is stated quite clearly that it is the description by one of the involved parties, who has stated an intention to sue. Furthermore by going to the CNN transcript, I have found Doss's admission that he did make a comment which directly preceded the outburst. We now have a NPOV factual account which represents both parties accurately. Doss has to be treated equally as fairly as Richards. Please also study Talk page guidelines good practice. Capitals are considered "ranting". I realise this debate has been going on for a while and can result in frustration and emotion. If that is the case, I advise you to leave it to other editors for the time being. There's plenty more to do on wiki. This is only a small part of it. Tyrenius 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let me begin by appologizing to anyone who may have misinterpretted my use of capital letters as "ranting", that surely was not my intention. I was simply capitalizing keywords for emphasis - not "screaming" or "ranting" in any way. Sorry, if someone has misinterpreted this habit of mine.


 * Your point about "original research" is quite lost on me. This is an editorial debate as to whether or not a quotation warrants inclusion. There is no "original research" on my part here. I am not arguing to include a potenetially libellous statement which may put an inaccurate "spin" on the events - others are. I am merely questioning its inclusion, as have the majority of editors to this article. I am neither frustrated, nor am I emotional. I have not reverted any changes. I have discussed my concerns on the talk page in accordance with policy. To suggest that I "should leave it to other editors" simply because our opinions differ seems somewhat improper. It would appear that Bus stop and Bulbous share my concerns. Cleo123 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I understand you weren't familiar with the convention re. caps. It usually happens when people are getting overheated. Original research, as it were, in judging the defamatory or otherwise nature of the remarks. As there is a sound source, it is an irrelevant argument. Also original research in making a judgement on the accuracy or otherwise of the statement. That is simply not our concern. It has been presented on a major news outlet, so it is fitting to present it ourselves. It is not appropriate to use Doss's narrative as a source to say that this is what happened. It is appropriate to use CNN as a source to say that this is Doss's account of what happened. There is an subtle but crucial difference between the two, which is the difference between improper and proper usage in terms of policy in this context. Tyrenius 03:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining this to me. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and I guess I'm still struggling a bit with some of the editorial concepts. I think everyone appreciates your assistance in helping us to resolve our differences. I am confident that whatever the "final" version is - it will be much improved from the version in place last week. Thank you for taking the time to mediate here. It is much appreciated. Cleo123 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for any inadvertent BITE. I do understand the problems of encountering a world that might seem like a mixture of Alice in Wonderland and Franz Kafka. Wiki really has developed its own cultural conventions. Some of them seem not at all right at first (and maybe some of them aren't) but I now see the value in many which at first appeared quite contrary. Tyrenius 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried reading it without the para on Doss. This becomes unbalanced because he and his compatriots are then described as "black hecklers" without any counterbalancing viewpoint, the very thing which is being argued for above. You can't leave out "black hecklers" because that's necessary to explain why he used the word "nigger", which is one of the main causes of offence. Again I return to the evaluation that this is a good representation of the main factors in this incident, and allows the reader to make their own judgement. Furthermore, Doss is not saying he was innocent, and even admits to making a comment that sparked the tirade. This is (refrain from caps) fair . Tyrenius 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. Honestly, I preferred your first version with no quotes, but I'll let the majority rule on this. Cleo123 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've appended the version you refer to, calling it "original revision". I don't have a set view, and think that there are various solutions. I'm trying to adjust between different editorial approaches in light of policy. Netscott thinks the preliminary stage should be included, and it is within the remit of policy via a verifiable reliable source. I don't know if quite that much detail is necessary, but it does have the advantage of putting the incident in a context and showing how there was something of an escalation, rather than an immediate tirade, and that Doss admits a provocative remark. Tyrenius 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The current revision strikes me as illogical. A chronological explanation with both views intertwined makes more sense. As the version is now we're left wondering, "who's Kyle Doss"... was he one of the "black hecklers"? 06:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Two accounts have been stated from two sources. We are presenting those two accounts therefore under WP:NPOV. It's obvious that he's involved from his account of the incident. It's not up to us to decide if he is one of the people described as "black hecklers" unless the source using this term identifies him with it. If we meld the two, it is "synthesis", which is expressly forbidden under WP:NOR. Tyrenius 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the last sentence need to be updated (though with care not to break WP:CRYSTAL): " Doss and another involved party have engaged a lawyer to sue Richards (but as of February 2007 have not done so)." Many sources (e.g. this and a NNPOV analysis from early part of December 2006 have already dicussed the unlikelihood of a lawsuit as there's little chance of Doss and party winning money in court, so they'll sit through a mediation. In fact it's possible the claim Doss and Mcbride have "engaged a lawyer to sue Richards" is entirely OR conjecture--a logical inference that's why people get lawyers of course--but uncited.  Also, I think the section would be more informative if the actual names (esp Gloria Allred's due to her pre-existing reputation) of some parties are used.  Tendancer 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have revised with your observations in mind. I have also gone back to the source. It doesn't say they are going to sue. It is only ever implied as a threat. It just says they are seeking compensation (via a retired judge is their first avenue). I agree Gloria Allred is mention-worthy. Can we maybe just use this version now, and, if anything, get some material about the wider context and implications, per some talk further down the page. Tyrenius 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Omission of ugly details
I know this isn't going to go over well with at least two editors, but I find that the graphic and despicable Richard's quotes add value to the article. There is certainly a line between the uncensored and the needlessly incendiary; however, if we review Wikipedia is not censored, an official policy, we read "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" (emphasis my own). I find the "He's a nigger!" quote and the bizarre "fucking fork up your ass" provide a relevant and vivid picture of the offense this man caused. I find the phrase graphic reference to lynching has an overly refined, middlebrow, almost New York Times air about it that I dislike. If I come to Wikipedia wanting information about a public figure who got himself into trouble, I'll want to know exactly what he did to cause such a stir. I don't want to have to hunt down the offending language in an external link or a grainy video. As Wikipedians, we should certainly not indulge in what Tyrenius calls a "salacious blow-by-blow account of every lurid detail." That would seriously detract from the article as well as violate WP:BLP. However if one or two of those "lurid details" are particularly relevant and speak to the controversy Richards cause in an unflinching and vivid way, I prefer their inclusion. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "That's what happens when you interrupt the white man" is equally--perhaps more--relevant.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with your comments here The Fat Man Who Never Came Back but at this point I am tending to doubt we'll ever be able to get a consensus to reinclude these arguably essential details. 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree per (the oft-misinterpreted) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. However, also agree that's unlikely to gain consensus which we are seeking. Tendancer 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked references [8]-[10] and they are still active and do contain (albeit censored) a rough transcript of Richard's words, so readers who wish to ascertain more details via wikipedia can just click the links. I think that's sufficient, after all consensus often involve each side make concessions from their view of the best edit to reach a middle ground.  I can agree with the current version. Tendancer 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision draft 2 (ii)
''On November 17, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards[8] yelling at audience members "He's a nigger!" (using the word over 7 times)[10] and making a reference to lynching[9] He was addressing a group that the media reported as "black hecklers"[11]" who retorted with insults, including saying "fucking white boy" as they left. During a November 20, 2006, satellite appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, Richards made a public apology for his remarks, and described going into a rage at being heckled. He explained that after walking off the stage, he later returned to apologize, but by that time most of the audience had already left. In the days after his broadcast apology Richards met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss the personal issues that fueled his tirade.''

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

This doesn't mean you totally agree with everything. It just means you agree to accept it. No comments please, just signature and date in this section ''Please state specific points of disagreement and keep to 2 lines max. Thank you.''
 * I'd like consensus for this version.
 * Agree
 * 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tendancer 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus stop 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleo123 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn due to changes Cleo123 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * NOTE: this consensus request is withdrawn because of more discussion and a new revision is at . Tyrenius 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Original revision
''During a November 17, 2006 performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, Richards retorted loudly to black hecklers[1] "Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass!" (a reference to lynching),[8] and then yelled several times, "He's a nigger!" [9] Richards left the stage, and a Laugh Factory employee apologized shortly afterward.[10][11]''

''During a November 20, 2006 satellite appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman Richards stated that he later returned to the stage to apologize, but by that time, most of the audience had already left. He made a public apology on the show, described his "rage" and told Letterman that he was trying to undermine the hecklers by being more outrageous, but his approach backfired. Richards also met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss the personal issues that fueled his tirade. The Laugh Factory has since stated that Richards is no longer welcome to perform at the venue.[12]''

Version prior to User:Tyrenius involvement
During a November 17, 2006 performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, Richards responded to black hecklers with a racial tirade, that he later described as a "rage." The incident was caught, in part, on a cell phone video camera by an audience member.. According to Kyle Doss (one of the targets of the tirade) the incident began when his group of about twenty people entered into the Laugh Factory after Richards' performance had started and proceeded to order beverages. He stated, "[...] I guess we're being a little loud, because there was 20 of us ordering drinks. And he said, 'Look at the stupid Mexicans and blacks being loud up there.'" Later, after direct heckling by Doss and party, Richards loudly retorted, "Shut up! Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass!" in a reference to lynching. He then repeatedly yelled, "He's a nigger!" A heckler later responded by calling Richards a "fucking cracker-ass motherfucker" and "fucking white boy," and saying, "It's not funny. That's why you're a reject, never had no shows, never had no movies. Seinfeld, that's it." The incident ended with Richards walking off the stage, leaving a Laugh Factory employee apologizing shortly afterward.

During a November 20, 2006 satellite appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman Richards made a public apology. Richards told Letterman that he was trying to undermine the hecklers by being more outrageous, but his approach backfired. Richards also stated that he returned to the stage to apologize, but by that time, most of the audience had already left. Richards also met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss the personal issues that fueled his tirade.

The targets of the outburst, Kyle Doss and Frank McBride, engaged the services of attorney Gloria Allred and indicated that they would be seeking monetary compensation from Richards. To date, no suit has been filed. During their appearance on The Today Show, McBride and Doss rejected Richards' apology as "totally fake", forced and insincere.

The Laugh Factory has since stated that Richards is no longer welcome to perform at the venue. The management has since banned the use of the word "nigger".
 * References for the above version

Material that can be added to the article
The LRI section needs to say what effect (if any) this had on his career and reputation. It needs to add info that is in the talk page about international coverage, and what has been said above about the cellphone video being replayed a lot.

I read in the talk that some of his serious, but minor, acting roles had been omitted. They should be included. If the subject is notable, then features of his life, which are not notable in themselves necessarily, become eligible for inclusion to give a full picture of the subject.

Tyrenius 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Laugh Factory "incident" (does anyone else find that euphemeism loathsome?) section should refer to the intense media coverage surrounding Richards's outburst and that the cell phone video was extremely popular on the Internet. To me, that is the most notable aspect of the Richards affair--the amount attention it received from the public; that is why it seems incongrous that certain editors seem determined to ensure sure that, on Wikipeda at least, the "incident" receives as little attention as possible.  These editors have blindly applauded the actions of anyone who removes content or endores the removal of content from this important section for any reason, whether that remover be a wise mediator like or Tyrenius or a mischievous and rude sockpuppet like User:Wik/User:Kgeza67.
 * What's been removed by me is some of the excess local detail. There was no information about the wider reception of this event, which is why I've requested its inclusion above. There was nothing about public response. This section can be bigger with such aspects, but not with a transcript of insults. Oh, thank you for the epithet...!Tyrenius 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so there's no mistake, I understand the importance of adhering to WP:BLP standards, but we must not render this article usesless to the many readers who look up Michael Richards on Wikipedia hoping to read some impeccably researched information about the Richard's well-publized meltdown.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What readers will find here, I hope, is balanced biography that puts this incident into its proper perspective. What we're not having is a salacious blow-by-blow account of every lurid detail, though there's no problem providing an external link to somewhere that that can be obtained. Perhaps you could provide some of this impeccably researched information. Tyrenius 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I agree the section should not go into excessive detail. What I'm trying to discourage is the mentality that shorter necessarily equals better when treating controversial events. The BLP rules do not state "minimize the treatment of any biographical details that do not paint a laudatory picture of the subject" (and I'm not addressing you, Tyrenius; there are others here working to keep this section unreasonably brief).  WP:BLP basically say avoid bias, defamation, and poorly researched/unverified crap.  Quality, not quantity is what's important.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That may have been the case, but it will stay brief until there is material which merits inclusion. Why not find some as I've suggested. This is a hands-on project, where you have to get down and dirty. Tyrenius 06:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, and I do not disagree with you. I'm certainly not suggesting that your removal some less relevant material was a bad thing.  But if we find some helpful, unbiased content about the "incident," I don't want other users to feel discouraged from adding it.  For example, if I can find an article that speaks to the popularity of the cell phone video from a reliable source, I will surely add it in.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm saying. For example, material maybe about how he was not getting much attention in his career for some years, and this was the most significant exposure he had for some time, would be valid. Tyrenius 12:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tyrenius. I haven't had much luck so far in finding a good, reliable source analyzing or describing the media hype surrounding the outburst.  All I've found is a lame ranking of the top ten most-searched-for videos of 2006 by clipblast.com (whoever they are).  The ranking places Richards's rant at number 6.  I doubt it's worthy of inclusion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Best known?"
Also, can we omit the POV and WP:Peacock term "best known" from the opening sentence? Unfortunately, many young people "know" Richards "best" for yelling "nigger" on a YouTube video. A more neutral wording would be that Richards "is an American comedic actor who played Cosmo Kramer on the television show Seinfeld, a role which earned him three Emmy Awards." Just a thought.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- Don't underestimate the intelligence of "young people." Why are you so intent on lowering his stature? Bus stop 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about intelligence? A morbid fascination with the self-destruction of public figures can hardly be equated with stupidity.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Who played" seems fine to me, unless anyone has a ref for "best known". Tyrenius 05:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest is "notable for his poytrayal of Cosmo Kramer on the hit television series Seinfeld". Cleo123 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is good, Cleo123. Bus stop 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You both ought to reveiew WP:Peacock. "Notable" is just as bad as "best known." We don't need to state that a person is famous; we need only describe the accomplishments and deeds that made that person famous.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't "notability" the major criteria for the inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia? I am using Wikipedia's own terminology here. If AFD discussions, use the term notability as an objective determination; then it can hardly be considered a peacock term. Cleo123 06:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the concept of notability is important to all us Wikipedians. But the word notable should not be used in articles themselves, according to the style guide.  We always presume the subject is famous or at least notable; the text of the article then demonstrates how the person is notable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is supposed to be a "given" for any article in wikipedia, so restating it in the article would be redundant; however, someone might be notable overall but not notable for certain specific things, hence the expression "is best known for..." which is another way of saying what he's notable for. Hitler is best known for starting the European Theater of World War II. He's not so well known for his career as a silent-films comedian. Ironically, both "notable" and "best known for" constitute point-of-view assertions. However, if that point-of-view is reached by consensus, then it's presumably OK. Wahkeenah 11:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept his own explanation for his behavior, that he was trying to be outrageous, in order to be funny, and hoping that he could extricate himself from the incident by being ever more outrageous. I've been watching Seinfeld shows, and I notice that he gets his laughs from presenting a very high strung personality, one that does try to enter a zone of outrageousness where onlookers laugh as much from the nervousness he induces in them as from any more clearly defined humor. Bus stop 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this apologist view of his motivations have to do with the Wikipedia syle guide and the peacock wording at issue here? Did you accidentally enter this comment into the wrong talk page section?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the "peacock wording," The Fat Man Who Never Came Back? Bus stop 06:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it. Anyone can remove unsubstantiated material and there is no reference to support the claim that he is best know for this role. Tyrenius 06:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only "WP:Peacock" term I can see in Cleo123's suggestion is the word "hit." Bus stop 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people are hung up on rules. Rules are there to help you. And when people act in bad faith, rules are there to get them back in line. I doubt very much, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, that the word notable, should not be used in an article. Maybe one should be cautious, or think twice before using it, but I don't think there is (or should be) a rule about that. Bus stop 06:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't a rule, but wiki always prefers the fact to the interpretation of it.Tyrenius 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the Style Guide it did caution editors about the use of the word "notable," but I'm sure it's not carved in stone. Bus stop 07:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- I think my "apologist view" provides appropriate counterpoint to the wording which you use above, specifically "A morbid fascination with the self-destruction of public figures." Bus stop 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

use of the Talk page
This thread was beyond the scope of talk page guidelines and has been archived (feel free to revert if there is disagreeance about this thread's archival). 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that one of the interested parties set up a user sub-page where discussions that don't directly pertain to the subject matter of the article can be held? Bulbous 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that would still fall outside of talk page guidelines... 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would, but if the editors on this article reached a consensus that it was necessary, then I would consider it acceptable, though more advisable not to have to have that recourse, as it diverts away from building the article. Sometimes a user talk sub page can fulfil the requirement. The best thing is to try to be friends. Tyrenius 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

LFI consensus request
Please see below. -- Tyrenius 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't have any objection to the content, but I have significant reservations as to the wording. In particular, I have concerns over the punctuation. Can anyone else read this over with an eye to flow? Bulbous 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bulbous, I've just edited for flow, does that read better in your opinion? 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My specific objection is to the placement of commas. The first sentence really seems to run on, in my opinion. Also, the second sentence doesn't follow the same convention as the first. Read the whole thing again with regards to comma placement and tell me if I'm off the mark. Bulbous 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not try editing it yourself? 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked punctuation. Tyrenius 03:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I propose the following rewrite:


 * On November 17, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards[8] yelling the word "nigger" repeatedly at audience members [10] and making a graphic reference to lynching[9]. His comments were addressed to what the media described as a group of "black hecklers"[11]" who retorted with insults, including racial epithets."


 * I see Richards' repeated use of the word "nigger" as being the "core issue" and more important than the reference to lynching. The inflamatory lynching reference is an important secondary detail, but should not lead the sentence. The fact that he said it more than 7 times strikes me as an awkward and unneccessary detail. I have also omitted the word "later" in the 2nd sentence, which I see as potentially misleading and unneccessary. A retort is a response by definition. Cleo123 19:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think the "lynching" ref. is equally pertinent as it has undertones of a threat. Besides, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, Tendancer, and myself actually think that there's too much omission of "ugly details". 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * , I disagree with the notion that a statement he madeonce is more important, or of equal importance, to a statement he made repeatedly. I think that it's safe to say that use of the word "nigger" composes at least 75% of the "event" and, therefore, should lead the description. From a media perspectitve, it is the use of the "n-word" that warranted the coverage, more so than what you interpret to be a lynching reference. I, personally, don't see it as a threat. "Undertones" are a matter of subjective opinion. I am not adverse to The Fat Man Who Came Back's suggestion that the quote "He's a nigger" be included because it puts the word's usage in it's proper context.


 * I've never particularly agreed with our treatment of the "lynching reference". It seems as if we are trying to "tell the reader" what to think, rather than just giving them the facts. It's almost as if we were saying: "Here's what he said. In case, you're too dumb to get it - that's a reference to lynching." I've not jumped in on that debate in the past because I have a limited amount of time to devote to Wikipedia and you have to pick and choose your battles. To my mind it is best to either carry the quote alone, with no extraneous interpretation or leave the descriptive statement as is. It is one or the other - but not both. It becomes problematic because once we start quoting Richards part of the exchange too much the heckler's racist insults then warrant inclusion for balance. Soon, we would be right back to our starting point! LOL Cleo123 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try clicking on the [9]. Also I hope this doesn't even evolve into a discussion whether the sentence should order the lynching reference before or after the Richards "nigger" reference, which would make it a good candidate for WP:LAME.  Personally I don't care if anyone orders it before or after as long as all sourced references are mentioned. Tendancer 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tendancer, If you do not care about the ordering of the sentence, why make this comment? I have "clicked on the [9]". It doesn't specify the pitch fork quotation as the lynching reference. My comment was directed to User:Netscott. Why do you continually answer remarks that are directed to him? I object to the tone of your recent comments on this page. Other editors are clearly making an attempt to compromise and get along here. You seem to be attempting to provoke more confrontation and discord, which I see as unacceptable. Please, be advised that if you continue on this disruptive course I will take the time and trouble to lodge a formal complaint with an administrator documenting the numerous examples of incivility and personal attacks you have made. Consider that your final warning. Cleo123 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where in the revision or the current article do you see the pitchfork remark quoted? As it is not there, that could not have been your objection unless you were objecting to Bus Stop's version.  So it seems after I pointed out your arguments (that "reference to lynching" should be removed because "we are 'trying to tell the reader' what to think") is contrary to the fact that it's actually a sourced statement, you took offense and launched another ad hominem attack against me.  Please by all means report our correspondence to the admin board and observe how well it is going to be received, here're a couple links to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI, also try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:checkuser as numerous times for over two months now both you and Bus Stop have incessantly accused me of being a sockpuppet on the talk pages.
 * I will also note for the others there're many instances now where your replies to Netscott and me contain personal attacks and accusations as in your last reply to me, forcing us to have to reply so we can defend ourselves against these accusations instead of being able to just ignore you and avoid escalation--which is the very definition of provocation. If your motive is indeed for a more civil wikipedia, may I suggest you to put more thoughts into your edits and avoid piggybacking something accusatory in every edit.  Thanks. Tendancer 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's call a stop to it here then. You've both had your say, so let's move on. No need for any response, just for positive contribution to the debate. I might point out that this is a general talk page for the article, i.e. anyone can participate whenever. There are no one-to-one posts. Tyrenius 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

-- It has never been established as a "lynching reference." How do you establish it as a "lynching reference?" Furthermore -- there is no suggestion of threat. Did Richards start to come out into the audience? Did Richards make any "threatening" gestures? You are reading way too much into this. Not only is the characterization of the pitchfork reference not clearly established as a lynching reference, but you are going way overboard in suggesting that Richards posed an imminent threat to the audience members at the point that he made the pitchfork comment.Bus stop 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried clicking on the [9] (in a not so shocking coincidence, supplied right after the word "lynching" in the article) and read the reference. WP:NOR would be a good read in conjunction as well.  Tendancer 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Of course The Fat Man Who Never Came Back thinks there is too much omission of "ugly details." By his own wording he has a "morbid fascination with the self-destruction of public figures." He said that in reference to the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident. There could never be enough "ugly details" if one is morbidly fascinated with the self destruction of a public figure. Bus stop 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent point! Cleo123 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not too long ago Busstop you accused Netscott of trying to read Cleo's mind from her statements, does it not register you're doing the exact same thing now with Fatman just because he shares a POV that does not match yours. See ad hominemTendancer 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Comment on edits not editors. However the source says he "made a reference to lynching" so we can say that. The source does not however say that the reference is the pitchfork remark, so we can't link the two (it would be synthesis which is forbidden), unless another source does. Tyrenius 22:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon but It is not a synthesis. There can be only one thing that they are referring to and that is the "fork" reference. 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are going to mention "lynching" we have to take care to say that such-and-such-publication considers the "pitchfork" comment to be a reference to lynching. That is because it most definitely has not been established to be a reference to lynching. It was colorful comment (made by Richards) with clear references to abuses to blacks at the hands of whites. But it is in fact interpretation to call it a "reference to lynching." That is not established. Bus stop 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. I retract the comment above. Call it a reference to lynching. I really don't know. But there was no threat of violence on the part of Richards. Netscott is off the mark when he implies above that the "pitchfork" comment carried with it the treat of violence. Bus stop 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, sorry that statement is apologetic. Even Gloria Allred makes mention of the threat of violence:

ALLRED: But let's understand this is not about free speech. This is about hate speech, and hate speech which carried with it for my clients the threat of intimidation or potential violence. And everyone in the state of California is protected under the law from that type of hate speech and they have the right to freedom from intimidation and the threat of potential violence. ... ALLRED: We do feel that we would have a strong case, that we could allege intentional infliction of emotional distress, that we could allege a violation of the Unruh (ph) Civil Rights Act, which does protect our clients from such racist statements and from intimidation and potential threats of violence. And we do feel that we have substantial legal legs to stand on.
 * 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

-- How did Richards' words carry, for Allred's clients, a "threat of intimidation or potential violence?" Allred can make that claim. The article can say that the lawyer for some of the audience members makes the claim that Richards' rant conveyed an implied threat. But the article cannot say that Richards' rant conveyed an implied threat to audience members, and rely on your citation above to support that claim. It is only Allred's farfetched claim that such a threat existed. The article needs to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. But the article certainly can report about the claim that Allred makes. It just would be important to point out in the body of the article that this is the claim being made by a lawyer for audience members who were participants in the verbal exchange with Richards. Do you think Richards' words carried with them an implied threat? You have seen the video, I'm sure. Is it your impression that Richards was conveying a "threat of intimidation or potential violence?" I don't think I am being an "apologist." I think Richards was mouthing off in an utterly unacceptable way. But I see no indication of a threat of violence. The words themselves are inflammatory. And it is not at all out of the question that such talk can lead to violence. But it is just as likely to lead to violence inflicted on Richards than the other way around. But the important point remains that Richards himself does not threaten anyone in any way. That is farfetched, and only the claim of a lawyer. (It should also be pointed out that nor do the audience members threaten Richards in any way. I give a lot of credit to the audience members, in that regard. It is commendable that they exercised that restraint.) Bus stop 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article needn't say any such thing but I'm supporting my contention that the lynching reference has "threat" undertones. This quote establishes that my thought in this regard is not original and yes I absolutely think that Richards' words talking about how things were 50 years ago and having the black person strung up with a fork in his ass is threatening.  14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

-- It is demeaning; it is not threatening. It is an attempt at inflicting mental anguish on a person; it is not an intimation of impending physical violence. It is utterly unfair and cruel of Richards to invoke imagery such as is contained in the phrase "upside down with a pitchfork up your ass." But that is imagery invoked to inflict mental anguish. It is painful precisely because of such past instances in which violence was inflicted on black people at the hands of white people. But at the Laugh Factory in 2006 the potential for such violence is realistically zero. Do you think the potential existed that evening for the white members of the Laugh Factory population to turn on the black members of the Laugh Factory population to inflict mob violence? Do you think the potential existed for Richards to manhandle a black audience member that evening while the rest of the people present stood by idly? Where was the threat? Can you enunciate for me more clearly where you saw the threat? It makes no sense to make over-the-top insinuations. Outlandish claims are made by lawyers such as Allred. We can report that in the article. But no realistic observer saw threats in Richards' words. Have you seen any other reportage except that legalistic claim by lawyer Allred that Richards posed a threat to anyone that evening? Bus stop 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion
Here's my suggestion. It is a different wording. I wanted to emphasize the cell phone video. I wanted to touch on the hurtful language. I wanted to emphasize what it not known. I wanted to leave leeway for interpretation. I wanted to assuage the hurt feelings of people offended by Richards' language by acknowledging both the use of the word "nigger," and also the "pitchfork" reference. But I don't want to condemn Richards completely because that "pitchfork" reference is not definitively a reference to lynching, and he probably was at the same time trying to be humorous, in the sense of being outrageous. I wanted to leave open leeway for what is not known about the genesis of the incident. And yet I don't think I am letting Richards off the hook for the disproportionate response to whatever provocation there may have been. I think my version contains more words than the current version. But I think my writing style is inherently conciliatory.

'''On November 17, 2006 a verbal altercation broke out between Richards and members of the audience of the Laugh factory, in West Hollywood, California. This incident would probably not have received the enormous attention it's received if not for the fact that an audience member began recording it on a cell phone video camera after it was already underway. The video shows Richards repeatedly using demeaning racial verbiage. He repeatedly calls audience members "niggers." There is what some interpret as a reference to a lynching: Richards says, "Fifty years ago we would have had you upside down with a pitchfork up your ass." Black members of the audience also shout insults back at him, some of the comments of a racial nature. It is understood that there was some provocation for Richards' lashing out, but by no one's account were they proportional to Richards' response.''Bus stop 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Far too much editorial comment, interpretation and speculation. If anyone wants to make a suggestion, please go to the original sources and stick accurately to them (and cite them as well, so other editors can check). Tyrenius 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we (the longtime editors here) have seen this type of editorializing before. Good call Tyrenius. 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Editorializing? I dashed that off to show the other editors a general idea of how it should be written. It wasn't meant for prime time. And there was no editorializing in it at all, in my opinion. I challenge you to point out specifically what you see as "editorializing" in what I wrote. What we have seen before is not respond when spoken to, or when asked a question. I predict  will not point out what specifically he sees as editorializing in what I wrote. And by the way, Tyrenius did not refer to what I wrote as editorializing. Tyrenius can speak to this for himself if he pleases, but my understanding of his comment was that I was straying too far from what can be strictly be backed up by citations. I think he would point to my saying that "This incident would probably not have received the enormous attention it's received if not for the fact that an audience member began recording it on a cell phone video camera." I can accept that. But is that "editorializing?"  I don't think that expresses a personal opinion. But most importantly it doesn't express the opinion that some would expect to come from me -- namely the opinions of the apologist.  I am characterized as being an apologist, in this issue. In order for someone to say that I was "editorializing," they would have to show how what I have written serves to let Richards off lightly. You would have to demonstrate that I have given Richards a pass. You would have to show that my version let Richards off lightly. So, please indicate how what I have written can be construed as "editorializing. Bus stop 00:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your version is an intelligent, thoughtful and sensitive treatment of the incident. I think what Tyrenius and may have been trying to say is that the writing style is a bit more appropraite for a biography than an encyclopedia. Your point that the availability of cell phone footage resulted in wide spread media attention is an excellent one. It just needs to be phrased a bit more pragmatically and sourced. I think it should be added to Tyrenius's version somehow. At this juncture, it may be best to focus our energies on tweaking the version Tyrenius has on the table. Perhaps I am naive, but it apears we may be nearing a consensus. A whole new version right now may be rocking the apple cart too much. :-) Cleo123 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This way of writing is not at all acceptable:

On November 17, 2006 a verbal altercation broke out between Richards and members of the audience of the Laugh factory, in West Hollywood, California. We can state the actual events rather than having to summarise them. I.e. a cell phone video showed etc etc. "broke out" is rather vague, when there are specific accounts of what happened. The sources say "heckling", so we say "heckling".

This incident would probably not have received the enormous attention it's received if not for the fact that Editorial speculation. Nobody has supplied a ref for this.

The video shows Richards repeatedly using demeaning racial verbiage. Again editorial evaluation. No need, when we have the actual quote. Readers can interpret it for themselves.

He repeatedly calls audience members "niggers." Should say over 7 times. This is what the source says (not Doss).

There is what some interpret as a reference to a lynching: Weasel wording. The source says it. We can use it.

Richards says, "Fifty years ago we would have had you upside down with a pitchfork up your ass." This can't be linked to the lynching remark, unless there is a source that links it. I've already made this point. It is "synthesis".

Black members of the audience also shout insults back at him, some of the comments of a racial nature. Fine, let's report what they did say in that case. Wikipedia is not censored.

It is understood Weasel wording. Who has understood?

that there was some provocation for Richards' lashing out, but by no one's account were they proportional to Richards' response. This is editorial interpretation. Find a source that says that. Otherwise it can't be used.

Tyrenius 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius -- Thanks for that analysis. A wide range of articles can be written with available references. But I guess you at least have to have the citations. And where citations conflict, I think it is said that conflicting "facts" can both be stated with their respective references. Thanks for that breaking down of what I wrote and your constructive comments. Bus stop 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being positive in your response. Well done for trying an alternative, even if to show why it won't work. I have taken my own advice also and made a change to my suggested version. Tyrenius 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above version seems to me to be fair, balanced and informative, giving enough details to make events plain without being salacious for the sake of it. It is significant in terms of his career and public image, so can't just be brushed off or minimised. Readers are entitled to an adequate insight. If the average reader doesn't end up satisfied from our account, we haven't got it right. I feel now we have got it right. It has been evolved out of quite a lot of dialogue and input from all the editors involved. Although it has many of the elements of the original version, they have now been separated out as two accounts by two different people, rather than interleaved to give a continuous, apparently factual, narrative. I considered leaving out the whole of the Doss paragraph, but I feel it would be doing readers a disservice if they were not allowed to hear what Doss says, where he anyway admits making the remark which sparked off the tirade.

If anyone has any specific objection to this, please make it below and be precise, not generalising. It is time to bring this to a close. We need a version, not that all editors totally agree with, but which editors agree to accept. It is a compromise version. (Bear in mind at one stage a complete transcript was uploaded.) I don't see that I can move much from, and if this is not acceptable, then the previous stand-off will just continue, in which case it needs to move to the next stage of WP:DR.

Tyrenius 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I dislike that the proposed version quotes only one word from Richards's outburst, yet contains an entire phrase (one that's far less memorable and less repeated than "He's a nigger") from the hecklers. The article needs to have one or two poignant quotes directly from Richards' mouth.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With the whole phrase there it does seem to be doing a bit of equating. 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It says he used it over 7 times. We are obviously not going to write it 7 times. Racist language was used on both sides. Readers can make their own minds up as to whether the language is equated or not. It's not up to us to judge or take sides and say that Richards' language was worse or more, because we don't know, so there's no reason why we should include more of his language. There's other quotes from the "hecklers" that could be included, but which aren't.Tyrenius 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is merit in not including quotes. And, if including quotes, only doing so minimally. This whole incident is about words. This whole incident is about language. Quotes are the problem. Why are we quoting? Because we have not learned anything from this? Bus stop 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason you are giving to object to quotes is actually an argument for including them. You say, "This whole incident is about words. This whole incident is about language." We can't therefore cover it properly without making clear what these words are, and the most accurate way to do that is by quoting them. Please note Wikipedia is not censored. Tyrenius 02:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So we have some editors wanting more quotes and some editors wanting no quotes. Can I suggest that the compromise is what we have now, i.e. some quotes. If this could be agreed on, then we can move forward. Otherwise there is a deadlock again. Tyrenius 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to the version as it is now... 02:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging by your other comments, I presume you mean you prefer the online version as of this moment, not the current state of Tyrenius's proposed revision.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This section is clearly headed as to which version I have asked for agreement on. Tyrenius 03:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I still thought Netscott might have been referring, out of the blue, to the live article text (which, unlike draft 2 (ii)) contains the all-important "He's a nigger!" quote. But then my reading comprehension is poor at this hour.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of clarity in my response. I'll admit that I do tend to prefer the version that is online now but in the interest of settling this I'll accept the version that Tyrenius is seeking to put into place. 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes are always excerpted. Unless the dialogue started out as a script and was recited by players, it is ultimately impossible to really have a quote in proper context. Two people speak at once. Can you interleave the words of the two speakers? What happens when you add a third or fourth person to the cacophony? Yes, it is possible to quote the Michael Richards incident. It would take many paragraphs. Bus stop 03:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We go to the sources and use their precedent. Tyrenius 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This may sound like a petty point, but I see it as important. The word "later" should be removed from the sentence that reads "...who later retorted with insults...". This goes back to the old "who started it argument". The omission of this word should not be objectionable to anyone unless there is something we are attempting to imply. Are we endorsing Doss' paragraph #2 version in the first paragraph? Other than that, I can live with this version. I'd still rather lead with the "n-word" portion of the sentence and follow with the lynching reference, as it is the n-word that dominates the incident - but that's my opinion. I can see the Fat Man's point about adding "He's a nigger", but once we start adding more quotes than that it opens too big can of worms on both sides. Cleo123 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Based upon what people are saying here I made a few small edits. I encourage anyone to revert me but I think I wasn't mistaken in my edit. 04:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now after watching the video again I actually really agree with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back about including "He's a nigger!" in the article because he in fact yells it out three times in series. 04:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From watching the video I think the word, "later" is appropriate. Those "retaliatory" racial slurs don't come until Doss' group is actually leaving the establishment. 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is definitely accurate to say they retorted. In and of itself that is a respone to Richards remarks implying that it is afterwards. We don't know exactly what happened before the tape starts. To say that "later they retorted with insults..." is definitely inaccurate. Doss himself states that he said "My friend thinks you're not funny." before the tape begins. Is that not an insult? It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it is an important distinction.
 * I watched the tape again myself, and it left me with even more doubts about Doss' version of events. At the start of the tape Richards is clearly furious screaming "Shut Up! Fifty...." The audience is laughing and supporting him initially, as if he is responding to something very inappropriate. The audience reaction alone leads me to suspect that Doss said something much less benign than "My friend doesn't think you're funny." Next, in response to silence Richards says "Oh, you're brave now..." I would LOVE to know what he was responding to - but we don't. To imply that it was only "later" that the hecklers shouted insults or slurs would be inaccurate based upon the available facts. Cleo123 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made one final (I hope) edit to clear this up... their quote was definitely said as they were leaving. Does that make sense then Cleo123? 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me! I'm cool with this version. Thanks! Cleo123 06:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, then you might want to add your name to the agree list. 06:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius, it is obvious that they are leaving if you watch the video. If you disagree then we could add "as they prepared to leave". 07:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, just read this last bit. I took out "as they left" because as far as I know it's not in sources. However, other editors seem to agree to it, and I'm not going to revert its reinstatement by Netscott. But there shouldn't be a comma after "fucking white boy" (which there isn't anyway) as that would change the meaning. I do feel slightly uncomfortable about it and don't think it even adds anything significant. It could be a point of challenge later down the line: please note the video is inadmissible as a source, because everything has to be referenced, and we can't use it as a reference, because we can't link to it, as it's on Youtube and a copyvio. Don't blame me. Those are the rules. Just for the record, the video is 2.47 minutes. First retort is 0.36 with "uncalled for". 1.07 second retort "motherfucker". Third retort 1.15 "fucking white boy". Then several retorts continue up to 1.59 (44 seconds after "fwb")[all quotes abbreviated]. My main aim is resolving the dispute: if everyone agrees to the current version, then let's go with it. Tyrenius 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well again it is obvious but let's go back to our source CNN where the following lines are said:

KING: OK. And then you make -- you have to make a decision to leave, along with other patrons of the club who have been deeply offended by this. I want to listen -- I want you to listen to a little bit of this, this sound from Mr. Richards, which he says as some of you were starting to leave the club. Let's listen. ... KING: It's hard to understand because, obviously, it's not the highest quality recording done on a phone like that, but there's obviously shouting back and forth between Mr. Richards and members of the audience. Is that exclusively to your group as you're leaving, or was the entire audience at this point outraged and in a debate with this man? DOSS: It was -- his comments were exclusively towards us. As we were leaving, he even told me, That's what you get for interrupting a white man, and comments like that. He said so many comments, it was just unbelievable. It was ridiculous. And that was me yelling, saying that that was ridiculous and that was uncalled for, in the background. And so -- and the other members of my group were saying stuff also. MCBRIDE: Comments that came from us were after that small piece of segment that you've seen in which he had already said the "N" word over seven times.  DOSS: It was more than seven times. You guys didn't catch the stuff in the beginning. It was a total of probably over 10 times.
 * Does that allay your concerns? 12:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Version 2.x
Can we adjust the wording of the opening just a little bit? If Ricahrds is addressing the audience, then who is the "He"? We all know the answer, but the para doesn't make it clear, especially after inidicating that Richards was addressing a "group". Bulbous 13:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a version that should alleviate your concern Bulbous:

"On November 17, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards[8] shouting at audience members 'He's a nigger!'[10] in reference to a member of a group that media reported as 'black hecklers'.[11] Using the word 'nigger' over 7 times he also made a reference to lynching.[9] The group retorted saying, 'That was uncalled for!' and insults with one member calling him 'fucking white boy' as they left. During a November 20, 2006, satellite appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, Richards made a public apology for his remarks, and described going into a rage at being heckled. He explained that after walking off the stage, he later returned to apologize, but by that time most of the audience had already left. In the days after his broadcast apology Richards met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss the personal issues that fueled his tirade."
 * What do you/others think? 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I like that better. I'd prefer "shouting at" rather than "yelling at", because that seems more directed to me. But that may just be nitpicking. I can sign off on this. Bulbous 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that the version User:Bulbous signed off on read as follows:
 * On November 17, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards[8] yelling at audience members "He's a nigger!"[10] in reference to a member of a group that media reported as "black hecklers".[11] Using the word "nigger" over 7 times he also made a reference to lynching.[9] The group retorted with insults, including one member saying "fucking white boy" as they left. During a November 20, 2006, satellite appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, Richards made a public apology for his remarks, and described going into a rage at being heckled. He continued that he had attempted to counteract the heckling by being more outrageous than the hecklers — an approach he said had backfired. He explained that after walking off the stage, he later returned to apologize, but by that time most of the audience had already left. In the days after his broadcast apology Richards met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss the personal issues that fueled his tirade

Changes were made to the text after he made his comment. Cleo123 04:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree "shouting" is preferable and more accurate than "yelling". I don't like the way "That was uncalled for" has been slipped in here. If we are going to say Richard said "He's a nigger" AND we are going to reiterate that he used the word 7 times - fine. It goes to follow that if we are going to carry 2 quotes from the Doss party, they should also be racial slurs. I suggest: "cracker-ass mother fucker" and "fucking white boy." It now reads as if we are trying to justify or minimize the hecklers' use of racial slurs. Cleo123 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the word to "shouting"... I don't think the difference is significant enough to have a dispute about it. As far as the "That's uncalled for!" line being included... if that line isn't included then the reader is left with the impression that all that the group did was respond with insults and racial slurs. We know this is not the case. I realize that some of the editing that has been done relative to the group has been towards demonizing them but that is a false way to present the information. A neutral point of view relative to what they said should include this one particular line which they said several times (even before the slurs). 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a good version, I just don't understand the "over 7 times" part. Why not just say how many times? Ecostaz 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Ecostaz's remark referred to the same version User:Bulbous endorsed. The text was altered after this remark was made. Cleo123 04:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is a minor point... part of the idea is to convey per the sources that it wasn't a slip of the tongue or somesuch nonsense. I've modified the version slightly again... regarding the group's retort... most of what they said didn't in fact consist of insults but primarily lines like, "That was uncalled for!". The concerned line now reads, "The group retorted saying, "That was uncalled for!" and insults with one member calling him "fucking white boy" as they left. " Anyone have any disagreeances with this? 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The more I think about it, the more I realize that we must include the quote "cracker-ass mother fucker". The term "cracker" is the historical "opposite" of the "n-word" and really needs to be included for balance. Having reviewed the tape again, in light of the time stamps provided by Tyrenius above, I think we also need to remove the phrase "as they left". They were obviously involved in a verbal exchange before the tape began and early on in the tape. The added phrase "as they left" is somewhat misleading. These weren't chior boys, who were just made remarks on their way out the door. Cleo123 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a simple game of one up-man ship I'm afraid. I agree with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back that we should just include the "ugly details" on both sides. We should go back to our roots and take out the gratuitous lawyer stuff and a few other things and we'll be good. 01:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It seems to me that we were very close to concensus last night. I know I had agreed to the previous version. Bulbous asked that the word "yelling" be changed to "shouting" and for a pronoun clarification. It appeared that you used Bulbous' benign suggestions to make substantial changes, designed to maximize Richards' "bad acts" and minimize the hecklers' culpibility. Why? Cleo123 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll propose a solution. We leave things the way they are but we swap out "fucking white boy" comment for the more incendiary "Cracker ass motherfucker" line? You must realize that to only present the group as though all they were saying was insults and racial slurs is wrong, no? 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about going back to the version we had last night, that everyone had agreed to, and adding Bulbous' minor suggestion? Cleo123 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not, after watching the video again last night I realized how much the wording was demonizing the group and not presenting a neutral point of view. If that doesn't make sense to you then I suggest we utilize Dispute resolution as User:Tyrenius was suggesting. 02:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand your view. How were we demonizing the heckler's in Tyrenius' version? Please, explain. They had a whole paragraph, that presented their side of the story and we only touched upon their use of racial slurs "as they left." If anything, I think we have been overly generous towards them. The article has never even mentioned the fact that they've been criticized in the press for their desire to "make a buck" on this incident. I'd like to get User:Tyrenius's take on these changes before going to Dispute resolution. It seems we were all very close to consensus. Cleo123 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a problem here...as we're near a consensus I researched references for the rather large uncited Letterman section, and now I have strong suspicions about a large part of the paragraph. I can source the first part of it (e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/20/entertainment/main2201817.shtml) including the section about "rage". However, after googling many accounts of the letterman interview and reading the transcript from Letterman I cannot locate any reference regarding the veracity of this sentence: "He continued that he had attempted to counteract and heckling by being more outrageous than the hecklers &mdash; an approach he said had backfired."  Looking at the edit history, it was inserted by one user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&diff=89505047&oldid=89500946, though the edit was never challenged as unsourced (rather amazingly, consider how heated editing this article had been).  The next part about his return to apologize is also uncited and was inserted by another user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&diff=90599079&oldid=90597415.
 * Unless someone can source them, this is a WP:V issue. Hopefully, someone can verify them by locating a reference. Tendancer 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Trippy to have something like this pop up so late in the game. I notice that one of those users who added the "more outrageous line" has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism... so you are very right to question that edit. 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's amazing these claims stayed on so long uncited yet unchallenged, I guess we all assumed since it was piggybacked to the Letterman interview section Richards must've stated it during the Letterman interview, but the transcript indicates that to be false. Looking at that editor's short edit history, the Richards-trying-to-counteract-"by being more outrageous"-claim is likely patent nonsense and one of the his more subtle vandalisms as he did with the Miley Cyrus page...some folks get kicks making subtle edits and seeing how long their nonsense go unnoticed.  The  other editor seems to have a good history and perhaps it's true Richards later returned to apologize, but now we're lacking a source or it breaks WP:V. Tendancer 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What the second editor claimed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Richards&diff=prev&oldid=90600110 Tendancer 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to admit my shortcomings as an editor but the "outrageous" part sounded plausible which is why I personally never questioned it. 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Found source: Richard's stating he returned to apologize part is verifiable. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/21/cnr.01.html Tendancer 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The outrageous part sounds plausible because it is an actual quote from the Letterman show. You can check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2gzv-fy7ro        Ecostaz 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, Letterman suggests that to Richards and Richards responds that he tried to "Jujitsu that."... not the same thing as what was previously a part of the article. 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say Letterman asked him rather than suggest, but you are absolutely right he said it not Richards. At least it was not invented by a wikipedia user out of thin air. Ecostaz 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My response here is completely original thought and without a citation it could never be introduced into the article but what Letterman did was make a suggestion for a possible reason why Richards responded the way he did. I'll give you that Richards seems to affirm what Letterman suggests but then when he make the jujitsu reference he negates it. If the "outrageous" line were to be included the article would have to mention that it was Letterman who in effect "proposed" the idea (ie: suggested it). 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision draft 2 (iii)
''In November, 2006, during a performance at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood, California, a cell phone video captured Richards shouting at an audience member, "Shut up", followed by "He's a nigger!" (using the word at least 7 times altogether), and also making a reference to lynching. He was addressing a group that the media reported as "black hecklers". There were retorts, "That was uncalled for" and then "fucking cracker-ass motherfucker". Richards made a public apology for his remarks, during an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. He described going into a rage and said, "For me to be at a comedy club and to flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry." He explained he was trying to defuse heckling by being even more outrageous, but that it had backfired. Richards met with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in order to discuss personal issues related to the event.''

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

Discussion of Revision draft 2 (iii)
I have gone back to the sources: CBC, Washington Post , Reuters  and MSNBC  as the main ones. (CBC said, "Richards admitted to Letterman he was trying to defuse the hecklers by being more outrageous, but that it backfired", so it can be used.) I have taken on board comments made by editors above. We will have to play this strictly by the book. Only referenced material may be used per WP:VERIFY, a non-negotiable policy. This means the Youtube video is not admissible. It is barred as a reference because it is a copyvio. Youtube has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on wiki and this is the conclusion about such clips. It is not negotiable on this page. Therefore no reference should be made to it in these discussions. We are only allowed to make use of permitted sources, and we have to take what they state as the truth, even if the Youtube video shows something that appears to contradict that. A source said that people starting leaving, but unless there's a source that Doss and friends were leaving, then we cannot say that they were. Please discuss below and get consensus from involved editors before making a change to the revised text. Thanks. Tyrenius 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree This is a fair and balanced presentation. Cleo123 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Use headings
Please put each separate issue under a separate level 3 heading, i.e. ===, to avoid a great jumble. Tyrenius 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous
To refute the "outrageous" line then all that we would need is a reliable source saying otherwise, no? That part is obviously wrong per what we can see with our own eyes... I imagine that I could find a source to support what we see with our own eyes. Also I already found a source CNN describing them as leaving when the racial slurs started flying and I suspect I could find another one. 04:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please put relevant quotes and link to sources below with suggested revision for the text. Tyrenius 04:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Black hecklers
How come on the one hand we say, "He was addressing a group that the media reported as "black hecklers." But on the other hand, in the sentence before, at the end of that sentence, we say, "and also making a reference to lynching?" In that instance, shouldn't we also be using the "media reported" locution? We do not know that it was a reference to lynching. The only way we would know that it was a reference to lynching would be if Michael Richards said that it was a reference to lynching. But we do not have that from Michael Richards. Why are we assuming Michael Richards was making a reference to lynching when he made his "pitchfork" comment? We should be saying that Richards made one comment that the media has characterized as a reference to lynching. Bus stop 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Instead of "a group that the media reported as "black hecklers"", we should say "a group of black hecklers", unless anyone disputes this is in the source. Tyrenius 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Cleo123 07:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose in line with the above to change the wording to:
 * He was addressing a group of black hecklers, who retorted, "That was uncalled for" and then "fucking cracker-ass motherfucker".

Tyrenius 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In light of the language of the latest news reports (the 4 people) etc. I think we should actually start moving towards the wording that the CBS News article Cleo123 found uses. 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose that we settle on what we've got or we'll open up the whole can of worms all over again. Quite frankly this is getting ridiculous! It's not as if it's going to cause World War III or anything. The new development can be dealt with as a new development and added on, by which time I shall be gone, never to return!!! Tyrenius 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, that's what we all say! LOL Cleo123 05:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mock trial development
I hate to mention this, but we should really try to reach a consensus on this portion of the event soon. Within the last hour, CBS has reported new developments in this situation. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/17/ap/entertainment/mainD8NB7GN80.shtml Can you believe it? Cleo123 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason that new details can't be added... I am really beginning to think that if this drags on much more The Laugh Factory incident will make more sense. That link you've added there Cleo123 should put paid to the notion that the "lynching" ref is improper. 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have a source for "lynching", just not tied in with "pitchfork", that's all. Tyrenius 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to clear something up: The word "pitchfork" was never uttered... the word was simply fork. 05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A slip of the brain. Tyrenius 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

, what do you mean "if this drags on much more" - nothing has happened since November. There is no need for a seperate article at this juncture. I believe Alred has staged this little publicity stunt for the sole purpose of pressuring Richards' to pay a settlement by embarrassing him. She has to have a "mock" trial, as opposed to a real one, because the hecklers do not have a legal cause of action. Using racial slurs is not a criminal offense. If she felt that she had a civil case, she would have filed one. The law does not provide for damages because "someone called you names." I see this as an attempt to extort a settlement from Richards through further public humiliation. I have little doubt that this is being done in an educational setting in an attempt to avoid a defamation of character suit from Richards. Cleo123 07:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we please avoid this kind of personal opinion and speculation. WP:TPG expressly forbids it. It is nothing to do with article content and is just going to distract everything massively. Tyrenius 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was trying to address Netscott's remark about a free standing article based upon this new development. I thought we were going to mention it in the article. I do see your point. I have interjected too much of my personal opinion. I appologize and will try to watch this is the future. Cleo123 08:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Lynching
Shouldn't we be pointing out that it is only a reference to lynching because the media have characterized it that way? Supposing Richards came forward tomorrow saying that in fact he was not referring to lynching in that statement. The media's characterization would wither away in the presence of that assertion from Richards. That is because only Richards can know what he was referring to. Consequently when we now mention the reference to lynching I think we want to distinguish between what can only be known by Richards and what is a characterization. Bus stop 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. We follow sources. They say lynching: we say lynching. As for what he might say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tyrenius 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I might point out that under WP:VERIFY, we are not seeking the truth. We are seeking what reliable sources (as they are known) say is the truth. Tyrenius 07:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (To User:Bus stop regarding the "correct" interpretation of the statement) there are different definitions of "meaning" ... 1) intended meaning by the speaker; and 2) a reasonably inferred interpretation by the hearer(s), based on the context, culture, and circumstances. Calling an interpretation "incorrect" based solely on aspect 1) (which is not even available under these facts) is unbalanced. dr.ef.tymac 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

dr.ef.tymac -- I never said there was a "correct interpretation." It is others who are so sure of their interpretation. I have voiced doubt about the correctness of their interpretation. I didn't offer an alternative interpretation. I simply raised the issue of the correctness of the interpretation that the news media repeat ad infinitum. Bus stop 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted material that was here as a violation of WP:TPG:
 * Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

I should point out that there are precedents for such deletion. Tyrenius 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning of the names of patrons
I noticed in the latest CBSNEWS source, that there are "four black people" who have the same lawyer: "Lawyer Gloria Allred, who represents the patrons", but no names are mentioned. They are always referred as patrons or a "group of friends", so it seems the lawsuit is not about two people but four. Is there a reason for mentioning the name of Kyle Doss and Frank McBride, without really explaining anything about them, what of their background, who are their friends. Their names could be mentioned in their own wikipedia articles. Also if they are mentioned we also should mention all four people who try to sue Richards not just two of them. Ecostaz 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doss' name has to be mentioned because we have quoted him. My understanding is that the other two clients had chosen to be anonymous, and hence did not appear in interviews with Doss & McBride. Perhaps, more information on them will becoame available after the mock trial. You do have a good point. Perhaps we should change the last sentence to reference three patrons in addition to Doss, who we have to mention by name. I don't think they warrant their own articles at this juncture. If they actually sue and this stays in the press for a long time then maybe.Cleo123 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the quote, i thought maybe it can be handled in a similar manner to the CBS source "after someone in the group of friends told him he wasn't funny." The article could say : "One of the patrons stated that they were a little loud, because there was 20 of them... or something similar. I think it is best to mention the full name of the participants when they have their own article and we can link to it. Ecostaz 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CITE "When sources are mentioned within the body of an article, it is helpful to identify them clearly on the first mention. For example, this would mean including the first name and surname, that is, the full name the person usually uses. Even better is to include some information about the person's relevant background, such as, 'John Smith, a history professor at Yale University, writes that ...'" In this case we do have the full name and relevant background about Doss (i.e. he was oe of the hecklers, enlisted the services of Gloria Allred, etc) in the section, so it's important to include per the guideline.  I don't think it would be a good practice if all names are omitted from an article unless they have their own article, as that perforce means all names need to pass WP:N for them to be mentioned--sorry I can't think of a less morbid example, but for instance take the Columbine and Ted Bundy articles, I think their quality would suffer if almost names of the victims are omitted because they don't have their own articles. Tendancer 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a very good reason for the names being used as they are, and that is because that is what the sources do. These two people are named and highlighted in the media. We follow the sources. They consider these people worth singling out. It's not up to us to revise that, but to reflect it per WP:NPOV. Tyrenius 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

End of discussion
Rather than protract this for another 6 months, I propose we end the discussion, effect the change under "Black hecklers" and accept that is about as good as it's going to get in order to keep a balance between differing views. There are a lot more things that need attention on wiki far more badly than these two paragraphs. There's more in this article that needs attention! Tyrenius 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Next one to post anything here is a rotten apple. Bus stop 02:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree to both of the above. Bulbous 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree Let's end it. Cleo123 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree: Put it online... but I hate to say it... with these latest developments I don't know how stable the version's going to be. 06:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Put it online. Bus stop 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Put it up. Ecostaz 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Before this drags on any longer and prevent filibustering. Tendancer 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Laugh Factory Incident consensus
I have put the version agreed in the article. I'd be grateful if someone would care to do wikilinks and insert the refs, as I don't have time or energy right this moment. As this version has been exhaustively arrived at, editors have a right to expect that it will not be arbitrarily changed without a consensus to do so. (See Xeni Jardin and its talk page for a similar case.) There is one exception to this, which is common sense, regarding the last sentence:
 * Doss and a friend Frank McBride (also involved in the incident) engaged Gloria Allred to seek compensation from Richards but, as of February 2007, there has been no report that they have received any.

Obviously if they do receive compensation, then the text "but, as of February 2007, there has been no report that they have received any" should be removed. I presume no one will object to this. Tyrenius 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Made a minor modif in the good faith belief that the non-attributional "there were retorts" was the consensus phrasing (as shown here), and that the attributional-style change "who retorted" (proposed here) is not yet supported by a cite. Clarification requested if this is incorrect. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object. I used "who" for style. Tyrenius 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
The discussion above ended... why? Possibly because no one was getting anywhere? I find the current text in the article to be disturbingly blunt and heavily influenced by the over popularized mass media frenzy. The blunt non-censorship is in my opinion unessasary and not incompliance with the honorable standards that people around the world have set for Wikipedia and its sister organizations. I suggest an organized discussion of a revision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wforlines (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

An extensive (very) discussion took place in order to arrive at the present article. Please do not change without reading that discussion (above) and first discussing ideas on this Talk page. Bus stop 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A consensus needs to be achieved for any change to this section. Tyrenius 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)