Jump to content

Talk:Michael Richards/Archive 2

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

Laugh Factory incident & WP:BLP

[edit]

Laugh Factory Incident consensus

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I don't object. I used "who" for style. Tyrenius 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Why were the inline references for the Laugh Factory incident removed? Unless anyone provides a reasonable explanation, I'll readd them. bogdan 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See beginning of preceding section "Laugh Factory Incident consensus", namely "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." Tyrenius 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see now...I didn't even notice you had made a request and thought everyone just overlooked it until bogdan pointed it out. Most of them were already restored last night, I'm going to restore the rest and see if the now-defunct Reuters one can be re-found on web archives. Tendancer
Thanks. Tyrenius 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are "inline references?" Bus stop 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes, as in the little numbers in the text that link to the refs section at the bottom of the page. Tyrenius 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what he is talking about, the footnotes for the TMZ link plus the Washington Post, CBC, Reuters links were accidentally omitted when we eagerly pasted the revised version and put the long discussion behind us, and nobody noticed at the time. I'll restore them. Tendancer 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done, it looks though the Reuters link is dead and two references that used to be longer are no longer used but can probably be incorporated. I don't have time to clean them beyond pasting them back from an old version for now so maybe if someone else want to take a stab at it. Tendancer 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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