Talk:Michael Richards

Laugh Factory incident

If you wish to change or add to the article or lead section text on the Laugh Factory Incident, please first read the long discussion about the main text which reached a consensus and can be found at Talk:Michael Richards/Archive 2, as well as the debate on the lead section which can be found above. Change to the current text should only be made after establishing a consensus to do so. Tyrenius 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus section

NOTE TO EDITORS: THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS AGREED BY A CONSENSUS OF EDITORS AFTER A VERY LONG AND DETAILED DEBATE ON THE TALK PAGE. IT SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED, UNLESS A CONSENSUS TO DO SO IS LIKEWISE ACHIEVED

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.

See the archived talk page for more details

What is the proper way to tell the reader that 'more information about [about the laugh factory incident] is available further down the page'? I would like to see something like that in the second paragraph of the article. Jovriel 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that more of the page is devoted to the "Laugh Factory" incident than his tenure on Seinfeld, which if anything made the incident more appalling. boone292929 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Freemason

How is that relevant in any possible way to mention that he is a committed free mason ?? I don't see that kind of report on the Thomas Jefferson page or on any page of other well-know freemasons.

---

First, there's nothing to establish that Thomas Jefferson WAS a Freemason.

Second, Michael Richards IS a Freemason, and (although his outburst may affect this) a respected one. The fact is as relevant to his biography as is any other facet of his life, such as his faith or his political party. Saxophobia (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I think that the first reference about freemasoning is a fake. Look at the photograph, is clearly a fake. josemiotto —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

Incident Line - Time to remove?

Is it about time to remove that line from the header now? It's about two years now, and there's already a section later in the article about it.

I'll remove it if there are no valid reasons not to. Already read the archived discussion on it, but that's, again, two years old.

Gpia7r (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus, this happened 2.5 years ago, and apparently there's more info about this silly incident than Richards's role as Kramer! I think it's time to consider expanding the Seinfeld section a bit about Cosmo Kramer character. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the "recentism" tag, but I think someone should shorten the incident section to not skew the entire article toward it. Gpia7r (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Negative. This incident has had an extremely large impact on this man and his career (he retired from stand up as a result of this event). As such per the specification in the WP:LEDE guidelines it would not be correct to have it not found in the introduction. (→Netscott) 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Greatly disagree. You don't see in the Rick Sanchez lead that he killed a man, nor do you see the Lewenski scandal info in the lead for Bill Clinton, other than 8 or 9 words vaguely referring to it (unlike the paragraph that was here.) Gpia7r (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And disagreed again. I think many people (including myself) have come here not for the Cramer character, but for a more detailed overview of the incident - For better or worse, South Park has also cemented this as a defining moment in his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.172.34 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:LEDE, "the introduction should ... summarize the most important points". This controversy has a whole section of this article therefore the introduction needs a summary of it. Your comparisons are false. Sanchez did not intend to commit any harm and the death was not his fault and the salient point about what resulted from the Lewinsky scandal is that Clinton got impeached and this is well represented in the lede on his article. (→Netscott) 12:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld filled in for Richards on Letterman?

I'm almost completely positive that Richards was originally booked to appear in person on The Late Show the very night he appeared on the show via satellite, but because of the nightclub incident Seinfeld appeared instead and Richards apologized live on Letterman's show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.70.147 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I think its time to give the guy a break and take out the "Controversy section" about the racial issue. The guy supported Obama for president, clearly he isn't some anti-black neo-nazi. The guy had a bad day, the victims of his bad day tried to profit off of it by getting media attention and potentially lawsuit money. I honestly don't think that one act is important considering the scope of Richard's career, besides its not like the guy called them "mucacas" or some noteworthy term. People call people names all the time, and these kind of events don't belong in an encyclopedia. I mean whats next the gays getting married what the hell. He just said the truth. ALSO JEWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.219.254 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you proved the point of exactly why this section is necessary.

I think it should be part of the article, but arranged in a slightly different way. He was a laugh factory regular until the incident occurred. It is presented in almost half the entire article. While I don't condone his actions, perhaps we should change it to 'Stand Up Career' include the Laugh Factory and the incident. College Watch (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Heckler use of racial epithets

I came by this article and noticed that the hecklers' use of racial epithets ("cracker" and "fucking white boy" [1]) toward Richards had been removed. In line with Talk:Michael_Richards#Consensus_section and Talk:Michael_Richards/Archive_2, I have restored these comments. 18:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HesAKramer (talk • contribs)

Good restore. Richard's debacle was quite public and made the headlines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Home address?

Is it appropriate to list the whereabouts of his home, down to the street intersection? I'm pretty sure that's not allowed by WP:PRIVACY. If it is OK to list, then there should be a source for it, whereas none is presently listed.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not his home address, but specific information which has been published in very public sources outside and independent of Wikipedia. Thus should be restored and cited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Beth Skip

Redlinks encourage the creation of new articles. Removing them does not. A search for Beth Skip shows an article for her is certainly do-able. [2], [3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

This discussion leads into a personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead should state what a person is best known for. This man is best known for his acting and his racism and to a much lesser extent his stand up. all three should feature in the lead, to not place this in the lead is tantamount to supporting racism94.168.210.8 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC) No, he's not "more known for racism," nor is not supporting your inclusion of the material in the lede "supporting racism." Dayewalker (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Instructing editors that we support racism because we do not support your particular edit of flatly stating Michael Richard is a racist in the lead sentence of article, when there is mention of his problematic behavior with regard to a particular incident later in the article, is not an optimal path to opening a discussion of why your edit should remain. You have been reverted by three separate editors now, please do not restore the edit again. It does not appear that you have read the policies I suggested when you posted to my talk page, but I will suggest two more: Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Both pertain to your current actions editing the article. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC) problematic behaviour?? you cant even say racist behaviour are you michael richards?? or just some random zionist?? open your eyes.... i guess if you were in nazi germany you would have just gone along with the holocaust as it was just problematic behavior eh. yes i proved godwins law but it is apt! you are no better than a nazi!94.168.210.8 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Strike or refactor your post. Tiderolls 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Attacking other editors isn't going to help anyone see your point. Please make yourself familiar with WP:NPA, and comment on edits, not editors. Dayewalker (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC) To the list I would also add Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I personally am not much bothered by abuse from anonymous editors, but it is an official Wikipedia policy and many people do take the policy seriously. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your calm approach, Michael. I am not a member of the civility police, but some things can not be allowed to stand. Tiderolls 02:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Personal attack? i said you were no better than a nazi which is true, i did not say you are a nazi. maybe you should all learn the connotations of the English language94.168.210.8 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Godwin's law --Guerillero | My Talk 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Early life quote

From the "Early life" section: He was drafted during the Vietnam War, was in the U.S. Army for two years,[5] and stationed in Germany as one of the co-directors of the V Corps Training Road Show. "This was a successful, educational operation, boosting the morale of our men and incorporating the arts into the service." He attended the California Institute of the Arts, and received a BA degree in drama from The Evergreen State College in 1975.

I'm assuming the quote is from Richards? But there's no citation or context, and there should be. At the moment, the quote is sitting there, unconnected to what follows. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)