Talk:Michael Richards/Archive 2

message: :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#STYLE "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 — 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)
thread_title: Laugh Factory incident & [[WP:BLP]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Extra quote

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Hecklers' viewpoint

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Omission of ugly details

message: 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.
;I'd like consensus for this version.
This doesn't mean you totally agree with everything. It just means you agree to accept it.
;Agree 
No comments please, just signature and date in this section
* 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision draft 2 (ii)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I suggest is "notable for his poytrayal of Cosmo Kramer on the hit television series Seinfeld". Cleo123 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good, Cleo123. Bus stop 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Where is the "peacock wording," The Fat Man Who Never Came Back? Bus stop 06:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The only "WP:Peacock" term I can see in Cleo123's suggestion is the word "hit." Bus stop 06:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There isn't a rule, but wiki always prefers the fact to the interpretation of it.Tyrenius 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Best known?"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I believe that would still fall outside of talk page guidelines...  00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  use of the Talk page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, we (the longtime editors here) have seen this type of editorializing before. Good call Tyrenius.  23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Here's my suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please put relevant quotes and link to sources below with suggested revision for the text. Tyrenius 04:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ya, that's what we all say! LOL Cleo123 05:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: We already have a source for "lynching", just not tied in with "pitchfork", that's all. Tyrenius 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please allow me to clear something up: The word "pitchfork" was never uttered... the word was simply fork.  05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A slip of the brain. Tyrenius 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Revision draft 2 (iii)

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion of Revision draft 2 (iii)

message: 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)
thread_title: Use headings

message: 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)
replies: text: Please put relevant quotes and link to sources below with suggested revision for the text. Tyrenius 04:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outrageous

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Agreed. Cleo123 07:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ya, that's what we all say! LOL Cleo123 05:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Black hecklers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We already have a source for "lynching", just not tied in with "pitchfork", that's all. Tyrenius 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please allow me to clear something up: The word "pitchfork" was never uttered... the word was simply fork.  05:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A slip of the brain. Tyrenius 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Mock trial development

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Lynching

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mentioning of the names of patrons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't object. I used "who" for style. Tyrenius 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Laugh Factory Incident consensus

message: 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)
replies: text: A consensus needs to be achieved for any change to this section. Tyrenius 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question