Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Pre-death mystery section

Unless someone wants to add a new subsection called Pre-death period or Mystery surrounding his death, or something similar, 90% of the details below should be removed. It's actually worse than news reporting, as WP is not a newspaper, but is mostly stating circumstantial clues surrounding the period before his death, turning the subject into a mystery, written as a police report. They may be facts, but not for a Death section. They're suitable for tabloids only. Current 1st two paragraphs:

At 11:45 a.m. PDT on August 11, 2014, Williams was discovered unresponsive at his home in Paradise Cay, near Tiburon, California, by his personal assistant.[126] Police and firefighters responded to a 9-1-1 emergency call; Williams was pronounced dead shortly afterwards.[127][128] Williams had apparently hanged himself with a belt[3][129] and died due to asphyxiation. No suicide note was left. According to his assistant, the final days of his life were spent sleeping up to eighteen hours a day in a bedroom with blackout curtains to prevent sunlight from entering. During his final days, Williams was often tired, barely able to lift himself out of bed, and lost his appetite.[130]
Williams reportedly told friends he had "serious money troubles" and had sought treatment for depression in the weeks before his death. Once reputed to be worth $134 million, Williams had reportedly complained of losing a large chunk of his fortune in alimony payments to his two ex-wives, and had been trying to sell his 600-acre (240 ha) ranch in California to raise funds. Williams's divorces are reported to have cost him $36 million, and he had put a substantial sum into trust funds for his three children.[131] Williams's publicist denied that Williams had any money problems.[132]

I think if we're going to call it a Death section and go by what's been concluded so far, something simpler is enough:

Williams died on the morning of August 11, 2014, at his home near Tiburon, California. Initial reports based on the evidence indicate that Williams hanged himself with a belt, dying from asphyxiation, although no suicide note was found. --Light show (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That statement is quite agreeable.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Cut that stuff for now. We're an encyclopedia not a news aggregator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, pending new conclusions. --Light show (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Now if you could only solve the top part LOL, same issue, death in the introduction. I think the wording you used is much more appropriate then what is currently there. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Now were rolling, looking more and more like an encyclopedia page. Thanks for the input.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold on thar, Baba Looey. The statement "no suicide note was found" is not correct. At the police press conference they refused to comment on the contents of any note or even whether there was a note found. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I took that out. Even if it was 100% true no suicide note was found, that also seems to beg a question. If the full report on his death comes out and it is clear that the lack of a suicide note is a important fact, then it makes sense to add it, but right now, it reads like "most people write suicide notes before committing suicide, Williams didn't, why is that??" which is not really our place to say. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And the first response to a question like that could be, "Who says they do?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, to the point, it's like the issue with the knife and scar marks that have been reported to. "So what?" We, as WP editors, can't make any inferrence here, particularly prior to the final report. Trimming the death aspect down to the bare facts as we have now is the best solution until that report is issued. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, well, look who just made a complete turnaround from their previous stance. Cngratulations on seeing the light.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about refering to this as a suicide, that's the fact. That's listed in the coroner's report and the subsequent press conference from Aug 12 "suicide by hanging". That's the fact. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if the police hedged and said "consistent with suicide", all reliable news sources are going with suicide as an accepted fact. In the slim likelihood that the full investigation were to turn up something to the contrary, obviously all the sources would change their tune, and then so would Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Now back to the lead, mentioning his drug abuse in the same sentence with the suicide is not needed, "not facts in evidence" as I see it. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. There's been no evidence released indicating that any kind of substance was involved. If anything, the best info we have is the widow's statement that he was not off the wagon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

However, in his earlier life, we have clear evidence, from him and other, he had substance problems. That's completely appropriate to leave in, and leaving it in a separate sentence disconnects it from the death. I agree that until the toxicology comes back with any substance issues there, we can't say that his substance abuse led to his death, but to ignore this as a part of his earlier life is wrong too. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We could state those facts, but add that there is no evidence that the apparent suicide was in any way connected to drugs, or even depression. In effect, forcefully break any linkage for the time being. --Light show (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A way I was considering saying it was "Earlier in his career..." which implies that it is not necessarily connected with his death. However, I think on second thought maybe if we wait for the final report with toxicology, we will be able to figure out how to word it better. For example, if the report ends up being that attributes the suicide to his depression, then we can write a logical flow going from his depression to his death in the lead section. If it is something different, we can figure out better wording then. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad idea to delete citation to article giving correct place of death (Paradise Cay, not Tiburon)

User:Light show just eliminated a citation to the BSkyB story. Not too bright. It should be immediately obvious to anyone following the press coverage of Williams' death that about 98% of the journalists out there are incorrectly reporting that Williams died in Tiburon. Only BSkyB correctly reported that Williams' home is in Paradise Cay, which happens to be an unincorporated area located outside of Tiburon's town limits. Saying he died in Tiburon is nearly as sloppy as saying he died in Corte Madera or Belvedere. Paradise Cay is within one mile of Corte Madera, Belvedere, and Tiburon, but it's not in any of those communities. (And unlike most of the people editing this, I've actually visited Tiburon and Corte Madera. Several times. Though not recently.)

Every experienced Wikipedia editor knows that if you have a WP article with a correct assertion that conflicts with other (incorrect) external sources with no cite attached, sooner or later someone is going to append a citation needed footnote, which is needed because some other person who doesn't bother to check out the citations they are deleting unwisely deleted the footnote that supported the assertion! I'm adding that back in right now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has never said he lived in Tiburon, it said and still says that he lived near Tiburon, which is correct, as you point out. --Light show (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that you said that. I'm saying that because you dropped the only cite in the article that supports the correct place of death as given in the infobox (and which was previously given in the lede paragraphs until you removed that too), then the overall effect of your edits is that the assertion that Paradise Cay was the place of death has no support in the article at all. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick fix, therefore, maybe even quicker than explaining. One related problem, in general, is that the article may be overloaded with cites which makes editing much harder. For instance, the very first body paragraph has 13 cites! 140 cites for the article seems unnecessary. --Light show (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Susan Schneider

The current ridiculous looking spouse parameter in the infobox for Susan Schneider which keeps getting reverted back to "Susan Schneider (2011–2014, his death)" is the most nonsensical use of the English language.

Consider using the following "Susan Schneider (widow, 2011-2014) --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What's there is pretty standard. That or putting "(his death)" in a separate set of parentheses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Standard notation. See Lauren Bacall, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And she was not his widow in 2011. WWGB (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. The marriage ran from 2011-2014, and ended when he died. As opposed to a generic male public figure's (xxxx-yyyy, divorced) or (xxxx-zzzz, her death). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I just love how instead of trying to solve an issue with poor use of the English language you all try and find ways to defend it. A proper response would probably been more in the lines of, "well, she wasn't a widow in 2011, therefore we can't really put it in that way, maybe if we reword it to Susan Schneider (2011-2014, widowed). --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be an ongoing trend here, there has been at least three hotly debated issues on this page so far, and it does not appear any resolution is forthcoming. Might be time for outside assistance on the matter WP:ARB/R and finally set policies on how things should be dealt with in the future. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think arbitration is a reasonable way to settle this dispute, I don't think I should stop you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not that I want to, but there is too much bickering over issues which seems quite irrelevant in all honesty.

First we had the children parameter in the infobox, Williams' second wife Marsha Garces has hers listed as "2 (including Zelda Williams)" and we can't seem to match that here, not even for consistency's sake. Second, the whole thing with posting a cause of death before a cause of death is officially confirmed by a coroner. that is for the mainstream media, encyclopedias are for facts only, and we should refrain until such a statement is release by a coroner. Let people continue to keep coming to Wikipedia to check. At least when they finally see it posted, it will be accurate. And third but not least, this "his death" thing that keeps coming back in the spouse parameter of the infobox. Try even reading it out loud. Good grief Charlie Brown, I can understand your teacher better then that. These should be simple issues to resolve yet there is a deadlock and it makes no sense that it should be a stalemate as they appear to be straightforward enough but seem to lean back on either misunderstanding or misrepresentation. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The notation (xxxx-yyyy, his death) seems to be standard here, even if it seems a little confusing at first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Might be standard, but it's stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally ... there is more then one voice against moronic use of the English language. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Implying an infobox is supposed to consist of complete sentences. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Influence on psychiatry (?)

"His penetrating Academy Award winning performance in the role of a therapist in Good Will Hunting (1997) deeply influenced some actual therapist."

Surely this needs a citation 81.62.251.44 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I added that and will cite. But don't call me Shirley! (First person to say where that line came from gets a star.) --Light show (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Clue, for quitters] --Light show (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No one guessed that yet, surely you must be joking ... Airplane! --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

He's not joking, and stop calling him Shirley! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Where Robin first lived in Marin

In this article it states, unquestioned and uncited, that Robin's mother and father moved into Woodacre where he then went to "nearby" Redwood High School. Isolated and small, Woodacre is no where near Redwood High. If Robin did live in Woodacre he would have been required to attend the closest high school... which was (and is) Sir Francis Drake High in San Anselmo. In Marin (and pretty much anywhere), a kid goes to a school determined by his address. No one living in Woodache (far from Larkspur where Redwood High is situated) would go to a distant school when there was one much closer. I lived in Larkspur. I got sent to Redwood. Anyone living in Larkspur, Corte Madera, and Belvedere/Tiburon was automatically sent to Redwood High. There's something wrong here. The Williams' family could not have settled in Woodacre, but if they did - where is the citation? And if they did, why did Robin travel halfway across Marin County to Redwood High taking him right past Sir Francis Drake High School to get there? Stellabystarlight (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If what is stated in the article regarding where he went to school is supported by a reliable reference, then that's what we will go by. Find a reliable source that states differently, but by no means is original research or synthesis acceptable. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Redwood High School article cites an article documenting a tweet from Williams' Redwood High School classmate Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll. Affluent parents pull strings all the time to get their kids in a preferred school. As to why he eschewed Sir Francis Drake High, hard to say, but this might be a clue: Explicit dancing prompts dance ban at Drake High - Paulscrawl (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Started in 1972?

According to the info box, it says he was active in 1972-2014. Do we have any sources or info as to what he did in 1972 ?Tinton5 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's said 1972 for some time now. It probably depends on how you define "active", since he didn't go to Julliard until 1973. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ending his suffering

I'll ask that we refrain from saying Williams "suffered" from anything in the lead, least of all substance abuse. Have you ever tried cocaine? It's great! Sure, it can lead to terrible things, but that's just part of the parcel of "having" an issue. Likewise with depression, that sort of bleak view works for comedians, and probably helped his career immensely. Even for non-comics, sitting around the house is what depressed people want to do, at that moment.

"Suffering" isn't NPOV, it suggests we pity someone, or blame something. Not cool, Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your usage conclusion (below) but not your fallacious reason (above). Your assumption about depression is badly misinformed, whether concerning temporary, situational or clinical depression, and is, in your words, "not cool":

"Even for non-comics, sitting around the house is what depressed people want to do, at that moment."

Do you have a source for that interesting news on the volitional psychology of depressed people? I have a source on just such: Peter C. Whybrow's A Mood Apart: The Thinker's Guide to Emotion and Its Disorders ISBN 978-0060977405. Seriously, please take this time to get educated on depression. Volition is one of the first things to go.

I wonder what you suppose to be the payoff of the exacerbation of depression widely correlated with Parkinson's disease? - Paulscrawl (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a depressed person. But no, no reliable source off the top of my head. Haven't had Parkinson's yet, but I'm sure it has a silver lining. Even if it doesn't, nothing wrong with saying he "had" it, and leaving the judgment calls to the reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It is cool to say the publicist said it, though, in the Death section. This shouldn't be confused with a problem about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Substance use might be fun; abuse is not. Two very different things. Nymf (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Many people who overdose just wanted to get as high as possible (and return). That's abusing the substance, but it's for fun. It's not abuse when the substance kills or addicts you, that's just chemistry. Abuse needs psychological motivation. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

At the same time "substance abuser" is a negative term too. Reading various articles, it was something he didn't want to be doing but had uncontrollable periods where he would uses substances despite his intentions. I would not call someone like that a "substances abuser" (which in current vernacular is someone like a junkie who's given up attempting to quit ), but he was someone with substance abuse. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Drug addict, maybe? Or substance dependant, by our article's language? (I had to create the redirect, there's apparently no equivalent noun. So it's not common.) InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

current vernacular ... but he was someone with substance abuse ... try "someone with a substance abuse problem", where do they find these people, never mind. (2011-2014) his death. Another fine example of a well written sentence. The terminology "substance abuse as defined by the American Psychiatric Association appears to support what Mr. Williams explains in several interviews. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24405 - --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My concern is more the word "abuser" which can have extreme negative meanings. I believe we can even quote "substance abuse" (I'd have to double check) but not "substance abuser". --MASEM (t) 02:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Habitual drug user, perhaps? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Read what "suffer" means before jumping to conclusions.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well said. But contemporary usage is more relevant than etymological derivation. "Suffer" suffers from ignorance of its true meanings.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition: suffer

American Heritage Dictionary definition: suffer

- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Name source for bicycling / Parkinson's anecdote

Article reads "family friend" or some such, based on vague source. The name is Tony Tom, a friend of 30 years, cycling partner, and owner of a bike shop near his home. One specific source to replace current one Paulscrawl (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that even referencing this named source doesn't change the fact that he is speculating, and indicated no knowledge of Parkinson's diagnosis nor any report from Williams to effect that he was concerned with effect of loss of cycling ability on sobriety etc.

Still speculation. Paulscrawl (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at some of the other Tony Tom interviews, and this guy knew Williams well (according to him, Williams came to him after Jim Belushi died and that's where he started cycling). I do agree on careful read that Tom knew Williams used cycling to battle his depression, but it is his speculation that Williams would have become depressed further when the Parkinson's would have hit. I'll do some edits. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If the actual quote concerns Jim Belushi, I wouldn't bet on its accuracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my bad. It's John. Please check my changes, I moved that up a few para where it is connected with JOHN belushi's death, and stripped out the possible connection to Parkinson's (clinically, there is an obvious connection but absolutely right it's speculation/OR from what I can read). --MASEM (t) 06:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the move up near top of section for continuity and the loss of Tom's speculation. Just wish we had a print source rather than video for Tom's Belushi/cycling connection, but good overall. We can lose the extraneous final footnote #123 CNN Alan Duke relating to Parkinson's now. Paulscrawl (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Patch Adams (1988), 71.238.142.71 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
As the article states "Williams had at least 106 acting credits to his name in films and television shows between 1977 and 2015"
Patch Adams (film) is included in Robin Williams filmography and there is no point in simply repeating all his films in this article as well. - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Children

So we've been going back and forth over whether to name each child in the infobox, or to just name Zelda Williams. I'm in the latter camp. We need to reach a consensus on this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And while it's been stated that the "infobox guideline" says to omit non-notable children's names, it does no such thing. See MOS:BIO and WP:IBX, which don't even talk about children in the infobox. While Template:Infobox person/doc says "list of names if notable", that's only documentation, not a guideline. So we need to reach a local consensus unless I'm missing something. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to name at least her since she's notable. Breaking News! "Consensus reached." --Light show (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet, having a "Marriages and children" section in the TOC, it's still a minor issue IMO. --Light show (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

His daughter should be named because she has her own article. Notable children should be included in the infobox and there's no reason not to. Jim Michael (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Their names are no secret. All three have been mentioned many times recently, often in interview clips with Williams himself. Bios here often name relatives that don't have links. And as regards being a "minor" issue - well, I'm fairly certain that all three of them are 18 or over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

None of them are currently named in the ibox. I can see the case for not stating the sons' names (even though they're common knowledge), but omitting the daughter's name is bizarre, as she has her own article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about changing it in the Infobox from "Children Three" to "Children 3" because it would be more readable in my opninion. Any thoughts on this ? --Avampace (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, thought this Children section was for discussing status of Wikipedia editors with article under full page protection. Apologies to Zelda ... and the unnameables. ;) Carry on. Paulscrawl (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP tag on talk page

Why is there still a BLP tag on the talk page. I know it says something about "recent death", but since the recent death tag was removed an his death is still, but not that recent should I be removed. Plus, he is not alive so why do we even have this. I mean Lauren Bacall's death is a day more recent than Williams, but she doesn't have a BLP tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:BDP? It explains why it still applies, and points out that it especially applies to this article given the suicide aspect and controversy around that and the extremely high profile death and the very large traffic this article receives as a result. WP:BDP gives examples of BLP still applying after death as "six months, one year, two years at the outside", so given that less than a week has passed, I don't see any reason why BLP should be ignored, especially given that this article is still on the "In the news" section of the front page and is still getting hundreds of thousands of page views each day. - Aoidh (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The blpo template is appropriate for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not, it then posts a banner at the top of this page saying that BLP "does not apply directly to the subject of this article". That's inaccurate and inappropriate for an article covered by BLP. - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the template needs to be revised to have a bdp= parameter. I suggest someone make an appropriate thread at the template talk page or at WP:BLPN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

I would like to add new information to the Robin Williams article. Under the "Other Interests" section, where it discusses Mr. Williams hobbies like video games, music, etc, I would also like to add:

"Williams was also a fan of "anime" or Japanese animation, as noted in his Reddit "Ask Me Anything" interview on 25th September 2013. He expressed his appreciation for such series as Neon Genesis Evangelion, Ghost in the Shell, Akira, Blood: The Last Vampire, and Cowboy Bebop. [2]

Huorns (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This needs to be discussed first, with a view to keeping it in line with WP:DUE. We just got through removing a lot of the indiscriminate information that came from his Reddit AMA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to say it has to be added, but at least a line to say "he enjoyed anime" groupped in a sentence about other interests would be good. I don't think we need to call out any specific anime. (I do note that some points have been pulled by a cinema blend source from the AMA that capture high level details). --MASEM (t) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention of plagiarism?

It should be noted that he was often accused of plagiarizing material in his stand up comedy. There is section about plagiarism in Carlos Mencia's, Dennis Leary's, and Dane Cook's articles, all of whom are other comedians that have been accused of plagiarizing stand up material over the years. So I believe there is a well established precedent for including this type of information. Here are two sources for Williams' alleged plagiarism...one from Time and one from the huffington post. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/20/patton-oswalt-on-the-unsavory-business-of-joke-theft/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/11/robin-williams-thief-bitt_n_67994.html
--Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And in the case of those "sources", there are some allegations but no examples given to support those allegations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect, there is an example listed in the Huffington Post article quoted from David Brennar. Tt was argued last time that there were no reputable sources for including this material. I believe I just listed two. Added with the fact that there is a well established precedent that lists this information for other comedians. To list this information in other peoples' pages, but not Williams is inconsistent and it leads me to believe that there is a possibility that Williams is being excluded from this group because of his popularity compared to the other three. I believe I can add more sources, including published books. Both Time.com and Huffington Post are AP sources, unless someone can provide a very good reason why information from an AP source should be excluded, I would like to add this information to his article. I will defend my case if anyone disagrees and if we can not come to a peaceful solution, I would like to take the issue up with dispute resolution to avoid what happened during the last time this issue was brought up. I feel that this should be mentioned, and with the AP sources and the precedent already set in other articles, I believe it would be incorrect by wiki protocols to not include that information without some extenuating matter that disqualifies the two AP sources I listed.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Time piece is useless, as it makes accusations but doesn't cite anything specific. I'm not sure Huff Post is considered a reliable source, but I didn't see that item you're talking about, so I'll look again. But any source that says "so-and-so steals jokes" but doesn't provide any specifics is of no value - just hearsay and gossip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Huff Post thing doesn't name any specific examples in the intro blurb. The "read more book details" link might have something, but it doesn't work for me. Is it a registered-user-only link? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the HuffPo article can be called reliable since it's based entirely on a New York Post gossip article (the link goes to the NYP). The Post has often been called unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither source is AP at all. The HP source is a blog that clicks through to a NYP blog. It's useless. The Time piece's reference is a Radar magazine article from 2007. That article could be used to attribute some quotes to other comedians about claims of stealing. There's also quotes of people defending him. It does seem a notable enough aspect of his stand-up career to get a brief mention. Capeo (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Brief mention is key. One of those links pointed out what I've heard others say about Williams, that he absorbed everything around him and reconfigured it in his mind. It's not like one of the other guys mentioned in those articles who was blatantly stealing specific routines. It might be worth mentioning in the general context of how his comedic mind worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And I take back what I said about using quotes. There's way too many already. A simple paraphrase of the Radar article in one or two sentences describing some comedians claims and how some other comedians saw it as part of his free associative style should be sufficient. And no way should it have it's own section. I think it's notable enough to mention in the section about his standup career thoughCapeo (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can find it somewhere, I saw a comedian reminiscing about those old days, talking about how when Williams was on drugs and half the time he didn't know what he was saying on stage. It was traditional for comedians who used someone elses jokes to pay them a little money if confronted about it, but word got around that Williams was an easy touch, because he was loaded with money from his TV show and had a poor memory from the drugs. So every two bit comedian who was down on his luck and couldn't pay his rent would come up to Williams and accuse him of using bits from their act, and Williams would just pull a wad of cash out of his pocket and start peeling off hundred dollar bills, trying to make it right. I think whatever reputation he has for plagiarism probably comes from that period in the early 80s when he was on drugs, because I haven't heard anything about him intentionally stealing from others during the several decades since he's been clean. 66.27.174.138 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to the brief mention. My goal is not to say Robin Williams is a joke thief. My goal is that the accusations deserve some mention. I would have no problem if there were a short paragraph or a few sentences from the people who have defended Williams or Williams' own defense following the mention of plagiarism. Once again, I am not here to say "Williams is a joke thief!" Just that the accusations warrant a mention, and if we do not decide it is worthy, then we need to remove the same information from Mencia, Leary, and Cook's pages because those articles mostly rely on the same type of sources. (Mencia's is a little stronger only because Marc Maron did an entire podcast with Mencia specifically discussing the incident and Joe Rogan confronted Mencia at the Laugh Factory. But as Capeo mentioned, Williams himself has addressed this topic in various interviews. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any specific allegations, or just "He's a joke thief"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by specific. There are quotes from famous comedians accusing him of it and even giving people money after getting called on the theft. He was widely, widely know for it among comics thus I think a sentence or two is warranted. Certainly not a paragraph, nor a section though. @Jmurdock21 What is done on other comedians articles has no bearing on how anything is handled here or at any other page.Capeo (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This all seems like a WP:FRINGE POV. Maybe there are some that do think Williams stole jokes, but we have no specific allegations nor did it have any apparent impact on his career or influence, it's basically a minority opinion that would be UNDUE to include. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually he did talk a lot about the accusations from other comedians and denied them strongly. As Whoopie Goldberg said in an interview, any comedian who goes to all the shows and watches tv will naturally pick up phrases or ideas they use, like impressions, "Make my day," but to think Williams did that intentionally was ridiculous.

The sad part for everyone is that it forced Williams, who liked to do unannounced and unpaid surprise appearances at clubs, especially around San Francisco, to do them after the other comedians left the stage, just to avoid their worried and competitive looks. And having become a star, he never wanted to upstage anyone. In his 1992 Playboy interview, he said, "If I found out I used someone's line unintentionally, I paid for it--way beyond the call. But thinking that I'm sitting around listening to people and saying, 'Oh, that's great, I'll use that.' No, that's horseshit. . . . A lot of times people come up and tell you this stuff. And you have to be careful. Did they hear it somewhere else? That's why I avoid anything to do with clubs. . . . Another thing is, I don't want to take anybody else's time. I got tired of other comics giving me looks, like, what the fuck are you doing here?" --Light show (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a way to phrase that then without implying he was called out on, specifically "plagiarism" which is a very harsh term. Something like (w/o reading sources to confirm) "Williams would attend other comedians' stand-up routines, and pick up ideas from that. Some comedians believed he was copying their jokes, but Williams stated in a 1992 interview '(quote above)'. To avoid such accusations in the future, Williams would make sure his appearances at clubs to avoid listening to other comedians and unintentionally incorporating their lines in his routine." (you get the idea). I just don't think there's sources to use the word "plagiarism" in that manner. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think plagiarism is more for some narrative, from written material, but not from any concept or theme. In any case, just hearing him describe his style of comedy, any copying of an idea could only be fairly minor in relation to his acts. --Light show (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The word plagiarism should certainly not be used but the accusations should be mentioned in some form. They dogged him his whole stand up career hence himself and other famous comedians being asked about it in interviews. The Radar piece has direct accusations by famous comedians, noting that when called on it Williams would give them money, as Williams himself admits in the Playboy interview. It doesn't deem anything close to a section but it's a notable enough part of his career that it should be briefly mentioned. Capeo (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

By saying he "paid for it" he meant in terms of his reputation, not actual money. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, comedians said directly he would pay them money when accused of stealing a joke. It seems nobody has read the actual sources. I'll go find links. The Radar story requires the Way Back Machine but there's an easy to find LA Times story written the same year that references it as well. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Stealing jokes is not plagiarism. There are some good ancedotes in the Radar story [3] but the archive i also apologetic to the issue: "Though the rap has followed Williams for years, he's not alone. In the world of stand-up, joke-jackers are as common as exposed brick walls and liquored-up hecklers—an occupational hazard that eventually robs every working comic of time-tested material. " "Some of Williams's longtime friends defend him, saying that a key component to his brilliance is his lack of a filter—his inability to block ideas from entering or leaving his head. Which means that if Williams hears a joke, he feels compelled to repeat it, even at the risk of infuriating his colleagues." So we can talk about this "reputation" but we're not at a point of calling it plagiarism or the like. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to the source ;). Though I'd say you're being a bit generous in calling it apologetic given that there are quotes from other comedians that aren't nearly so. Not to mention portions that describe floor man flashing the lights when Williams showed up so the comedians would know to stop practicing thier acts. Point being, the accusations exist (search joke theft and Williams is notorious for it) and Williams and other notable comedians acknowledged it. This is simple, state the accusations, state Williams' response, and nothing in Wikipedia's voice. A couple sentences is all takes nested in the section about his stand-up career. We're not here to condemn nor defend Williams. Just mention what is notable. Capeo (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We'd need something more than a tabloid for a source, I assume. --Light show (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Radar Online, at the time this article was written, 2007, the print version was not a tabloid (nor does the article read like a typical tabloid story); only after 2008 was the magazine's focus rejigged to tabloid. I would consider this an RS as long as we are saying that Williams was aware and took steps to avoid using other stand-up jokes in his routine (as opposed to calling it "plagiarism". Also [4] a book also goes into that subject. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note I found this Rolling Stone article from 1991 [5] (republished on the website this week) which goes into all the details of his joke-copying. As this is definitely an RS for this, I have added a few lines to note a few pieces. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good find. I think there's some redundancy and implications in the added text that could be rephrased. I'll give it a try, but feel free to revise. --Light show (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Autistic?

Speculative content with no relevance to Williams

Is it too late for him to be diagnosed as "undiagnosed high-functioning autistic"? Like a savant? Any doctors who might look into autistism, which was fairly unknown until the last 20 years or so? Steverino999 (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) You got a source for that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC) But if someone diagnosed him, how could he be an undiagnosted high-functioning autistic? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Where is the indication that he had impaired social and communication skills? He spoke in front of large audiences with no difficulty. Intelligent autistic people typically have a formal, rigid way of speaking that is inappropriate in informal situations. Sheldon Cooper is a fictional example of that. They can't do 'small talk' or 'smooth talk'. Williams showed no such impairment. Jim Michael (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC) I've heard some say that he was kind of awkward socially when he wasn't "on". That's not necessarily a sign of autism. And if he were, it's a bit late to conduct such a diagnosis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Jim Michael: "Intelligent autistic people" (you were trying to say "intelligent people with autism", weren't you?) have all kinds of ways of communicating. When you've met one person with autism, you've met just one person with autism. Please don't ascribe across-the-board characteristics to those on the spectrum. People with autism can do all kinds of things, even pretending to like and effectively engage in small and "smooth" talk. Regardless, if there's no diagnosis that's been publicly released and is available from a reliable source, we can't/won't include it in the article on Williams. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC) I completely agree with Winkelvi. Can't seem to find any sources on Williams having Autism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC) In the absence of any citations from WP:RS supporting this theory (and you'd need lots of them to back up such a controversial claim), this would be pure original research, and thus ineligible for inclusion in the article. -- The Anome (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Spot on, Anome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC) I meant it how I wrote it. I would never make a blanket statement about any condition based on knowing/observing only one person who has it. Most autistic people and organisations dislike the wording 'person with autism' because it makes it sound like a side-issue (person with a car, person with a handbag) rather than the hereditary, lifelong, disadvantaging condition that it is (most autistic people do not work and most have other mental disorders). None of the autistic people I have met in real life or have observed on documentaries can do small/smooth talk like a neurotypical person, although I'm not saying that they don't exist. Autism is continuous, and I'm sure that if Williams (who often spoke out of character in public and on TV) had autism, it would have been noticed by psychologists etc. I haven't seen any reliable sources that even speculate that he was autistic, let alone state that he was. Williams was a successful stand-up comedian - I'm struggling to think of one successful stand-up comedian who is autistic. The social exclusion which autistic people face and the introversion and impaired social and communication skills that are typical of the condition make becoming successful in comedy extremely unlikely for them. Jim Michael (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC) If autistic people absolutely cannot be successful entertainers, how do you explain List of people with autism spectrum disorders? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC) You meant it how you wrote it? Yes, I know you did. It was obvious then, and now even more so, that you understand little to nothing about the neuro-atypical in this world along with all that being so entails. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC) I personally know some autistic people very well. I've also read extensively on the subject as well as having watched many documentaries about it. I didn't say they 'absolutely couldn't be entertainers', I said it would be very unlikely that they would be successful in comedy. This is borne out by the fact that there are no comedians on the list of people with autism spectrum disorders. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Trivia and not particularly related to section it was included in

Robin Williams was particularly proud and regularly rode a high end phantasmagoric bicycle by Dario Pegoretti. Gay, Jason (August 14, 2014). "Robin Williams and Dario Pegoretti: The Comedian and the Bike Builder". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 18, 2014. This directly followed the statement that cycling saved his life. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary, 7&6=thirteen, it's trivia. It is fan-cruft type content. And it was placed in a section not related to such trivia. Please don't re-insert it without further discussion here. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The Wall Street Journal is not given to publishing "fancruft". You are entitled to your opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree all you like. Newspapers frequently publish fancruft. This is an encyclopedia article. There's a difference in what is included in a newspaper as opposed to an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessary call it fancruft, but just excessive details for the section which was talking about how he used cycling to relieve his depression. Actually in another article, I recall it saying he had dozens (many) bicycles, but even if I could relocate that, that's excessive to me. Agree with removal. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

While the content itself is not really fancruft in nature, the prose used and how it was presented certainly was (hence, the immediate removal). As you said, Masem, it's excessive. Your agreement with the removal is noted. Thanks for commenting, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Robin Williams' Financial Problems factor in Depression/Suicide

Why no mention of Robin Williams' financial problems that clearly were a factor in his depression/suicide?? no mention at all. this Wikipedia article/info is incomplete.

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/09/17/robin-williams-divorce-money-problems/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/robin-williams-looked-terrible-tormented-4042507

67.60.183.28 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

First, there are no "clear" factors as to what fed his depression - it's all speculation. Second, the rumors about his financial status are also speculation, and in fact the family says it's not true - as has already been discussed here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done (ec) It's speculation if they are connected, in addition the sources reporting this are of questionable reliability (particularly the UK Mirror). We have had them removed before, and won't add them until there is clear connection made by an RS. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Death section

"... hanged himself with a belt" should be removed from the first paragraph. It is not an encyclopedia's place to describe a death, only the type of death that the individual succumbed to. This can lead to copycats, should be removed immediately with no further mention. Let the regular media handle sensationalism, and let Wikipedia be the ethical source of information. Infobox should also reflect this, apparent suicide should be the current listing next to the parameter until the toxicology report is in. FYI Its not hanged, its hung. Hanged is reserved for capital punishment. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph, but I don't agree that it should be removed altogether. There's nothing unethical, unencyclopedic, or sensational in stating how he died of asphyxia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. I could go either way on the lead, but for sure it belongs in the subsection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the exact method shouldn't be in the lead, but the idea we have to worry about "copycats" is not WP's place - just as we aren't here to give legal or medical advice, we're also not writing in such a PC manner to obscure associated facts. Until we're told otherwise, he hung himself with a belt, dying from asphyxiation. Now why he did that, we don't know, and likely won't know 100%, but the toxicology report will provide some insight. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops. My fault for not reading comprehensively. Slave28, I thought you were saying the method shouldn't be in the opening paragraph, not the first paragraph of the death section. Considering my error, I retract my comment that the method shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. It shouldn't be in the lead of the article, but is fine in the opening paragraph of the section. I see no problem with it there at all. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us Winkelvi, what rises us is coming back an admitting so, I tip my hat.

Now, if someone has a large enough set of cojones to cite an actual encyclopedia that describes a person's suicide, I will gladly accept your opinions on the matter, even if I disagree, since I can't seem to find one that does.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the one making the claim, Slave28, therefore, the onus is on you to support your claim, not those of us who disagree with you. Until you brought it up, there was no issue with including the method of asphyxiation. Can't see why we should have to prove anything, really. The method of suicide isn't going against any Wikipedia policy that I can think of, so, there's no issue as far as I'm concerned. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you agree that an encyclopedia should have standards above other forms of media? --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Some should read this article - http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/opinion/robin-williams-suicide-media/index.html?iref=storysearch

As for referencing guidelines on Wikipedia regarding Biographies ... WP:MOSBIO is quite clear. Their is no section of death even suggested. I have no intention to track down who the first crackerjack that started the trend, but everyone on the death barge forgot to even bother updating the appropriate guidelines if this was an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Waiting for the new guy to go dig around and show you the error of your ways is a sad state of affairs indeed. The mentality that every little detail of everything minute aspect of possible spec of information needs to be within the confines of these pages is what is causing Wikipedia to regress instead of evolve. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a line that we do have to be careful about. I'm all for, until we have toxicology and other reports, making any assertion that he killed himself from depression, or the like, despite how some in the press are making that connection. But here we have the officials that are overseeing the analysis of his death coming out with a clear statement, "It looks like he committed suicide". That's not the press twisting the truth or trying to be armchair psychologists. That is what the coroner has said. Yes, they might be flawed, and if they were wrong, they will probably be making the biggest apology ever, but we're in absolutely no wrong place to reiterate that assertion as long as we are saying that that is the official report of death and not our presumption. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

To add, I'm fully aware that how his death was reported was atypical, particularly outside of the US. However, that's why we've cut out the excessive details that aren't clearly connected yet. We are taking care to avoid the speculation that the press has done on this case. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I will give you that Masem the details have been brought down a great deal from when news first broke, that being said, I am honestly not here to argue with everyone, I am only looking to improve the contents of Wikipedia. So if I get all fired up, all you editors out there, be forewarned, its not personal, its for the love of this website, which has taken a serious beating in its reputation. Case in point; My daughter, who is now in her second year in college, is told specifically, not to use Wikipedia as it is an unreliable source of information and that it does not adhere to its own principles. These are professors saying this. So ... pardon my ... aggressiveness on any matter, but if I think it makes Wikipedia look stupid, I'll beat that dead horse well beyond beaten. I will NEVER debate anything I have a personal view on, proof, I refused to have myself added to Wikipedia for over a decade, but had no choice recently due to someone posting falls claims. I am in this for the long haul now, start getting used to debating issues until you are blue in the face, Smurf style, again, it will never be personal against any of you, as frustrating as I may find some of you at times LOL. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians will tell you that Wikipedia is not to be considered a "reliable source". What it is, is a guideline, a summary of other information. A Wikipedia article is a starting point, and then you have to research the sources to find out more (including finding out whether Wikipedia got it right or not). As far as looking stupid, I've always said the first rule is, "Don't make Wikipedia look stupid." But I can't think of anything any editor has done that approaches the "monkey selfie" fiasco, which makes the Wikimedia organization look both stupid and arrogant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Getting back to the original proposal and comment: "... hanged himself with a belt" should be removed from the first paragraph. It is not an encyclopedia's place to describe a death, only the type of death that the individual succumbed to"

I really have to disagree with the statement that only the type of death one succumbs to is encyclopedic. No...the facts are encyclopedic. Whether or not enough time has past to know all the facts, is another question. But, simply looking at George Reeves shows that the lede does state: "His death at age 45 from a gunshot remains a polarizing issue; the official finding was suicide, but some believe he was murdered or the victim of an accidental shooting". However, then if we look at Michael Hutchence (who died in a similar manner) : "On the morning of 22 November 1997, Hutchence was found dead in his hotel room in Sydney. His death was reported by the New South Wales Coroner to be the result of suicide." Sensitivity is an issue but common sense is as well. This was a "very famous figure". Much more so than the two other comparisons. Time will tell how editors will want to make this editorial judgment but I could go either way. I would say that simply saying he hung himself is not accurate enough for the circumstances and that adding that the fuller details is best dealt with in the body of the article. The Hutchence article has huge amounts of detail in the section on the subjects death that are not in the lead and probably best left out.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you made it over to this page Mark Miller and thanks for weighing in. I would like to see some of you head over to the Infobox Biography talk page WP:MOSBIO and help the discussion there, you are great debaters and bring good points to the table. Details about death should be mentioned, agreed. We all must look at the bigger picture, the belt issue, now is not the time, that is the problem, in my opinion. I think there should be a period of time that should go by before that kind of detail should end up on the page. It is far too late now, but for future instances of a case where a celebrity or a notable person, takes the path of ending their own life, a period of pause should be given by the editors to withhold that kind of detail. Maybe one month should be sufficient, even two weeks perhaps. We have to consider the implications of what the information can cause. Let us be the responsible ones to take a stand and say on the matter of suicide, we will not post details for X number of days, and let the rest of the media look like petty children. Honestly, it would be the ethical thing to do. Oh, one last thing, I knew Wikipedia wasn't perfect Baseball Bugs, I just didn't realize how hateful they were in academic circles. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's being hateful, but rather it's to curb laziness in their students. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That could be true, I would have to be there and hear the comment in its delivery to be sure, but meh, what can you do, at least I can say you are all doing quite a splendid job on this article. There has been quite a bit of new information added on Mr Williams since his passing, it's almost like reading a brand new article now, Darwin would be so proud LOL. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you know how hard it would be for average/non-registered editors to not include the manner of death if that was reported in a huge number of sources? While one can understand that we would be more respectful to not include that detail for a brief period of time, the fact that every news source published that makes it hard to deny that we should include it too; we're meant to reflect what reliable sources published. Now, if it was the case that the only reported means of death came from a source like TMZ, yeah, I'd be all for holding off. But I cannot see how we would have been able to keep the means of death off the page with the level of reporting it got without having this page in full protection lockdown. We have to recognize when something is so prevalent in media that for us not to include it is harmful. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point Masem, I forgot about the pariahs. Yes that would be an almost impossible battle, at the very least, a very steep uphill climb. In my attempts to try and be more ethical, I was blind to those who stop at nothing to vandal, mistaking the editors attempts to try and publish the facts. I guess it would be akin to blanking a section because it tarnishes your companies image. I have seen this happen. My sincere apologies to anyone who was offended while I was attempting to do the right thing in my mind. We learn in our mistakes. I have learned much these last few days. But I am happy that one of my edits on this page has survived. The hidden message by the cause of death in the Infobox, which should probably be changed now to match the article in all honesty, as the header and the death section are different. If someone would be so kind, and thank you all for adding to my tool box. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are those that will jump fast at the chance to be the first to add details about a figures demise. I can say that we really do take seriously adding details from weak sources, as Masem said. Having experienced editors in the discussion helps, but consensus is how we decide the content and we do have to be prepared to accept information that we may disagree with...if the content is supported by a strong source, summarized accurately and written with due weight.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Do we really need to archive recent discussions? seems we should probably keep the contents since his death here.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, any reason his discography was removed? it needs work, but its not here or in his filmograhy:

Discography

• Reality...What a Concept (1979)
• Throbbing Python of Love (1983)
• A Night at the Met (1986)
• Pecos Bill (1988)
• Live 2002 (2002)
• Weapons of Self Destruction (2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would say the article is easily ready for GA class review, once it passes B class hurdles of some excessive quotations, and adding the discography either here, or at filmography, or incorporating the recordings as a narrative paragraph (i prefer the straight list).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that the audio recordings were added to his discography, and noted here. i added his video recordings and audiobooks for children (notable).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Typo fix please

Film Actor - Second paragraph. "Willaims's first major break" to "Williams' first major break". Also, should it be Williams' without the trailing s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.99.119 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2014

I've fixed the typo "Willaims's". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)It should be consistent. Look for comments elsewhere here, on that subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been consistent as "Williams's" for possessive, from previous discussions. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Death certificate

If anyone wants to add as footnote or EL, here is a link to an article citing his death certificate, with a partial photo of it. Also, an archive link. http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/08/robin-williams-death-certificate-pending-investigation-ashes-scattered/. Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20140821002904/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/08/robin-williams-death-certificate-pending-investigation-ashes-scattered/ --209.122.114.237 (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We would never include that at all, adding that Radar is more a tabloid site now and similarly would be dismissed. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Radar Online was never a reliable source to begin with Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a point it was, before it became a gossip paper (2008 iirc). --MASEM (t) 02:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Williams with Reeves

That photo of Williams with Reeves is going to be tough to use under NFCC. There's nothing discussing the photo itself, and to show they were friends a free image of Reeves could be used. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added some more details to the photo's info. page which should help. --Light show (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Too many quotes?

While we're waiting to unlock the article, maybe a few editors can look at the section Stand-up comedy and see if there are too many quotes in that particular section. There's a tag at the top which IMO is an eyesore which will confuse average visitors. Feedback on which quotes seem unnecessary or should be paraphrased would be useful.

• Most are fine with me, but I'd trim or rephrase a few when I get a chance. --Light show (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Think about making a Legacy section (as most famous influential people would have). Quotes that reflect back on Williams' influence can be moved here, but quotes that in context are part of his career should stay there (eg the quote " "I started to incorporate my stand-up into the stuff on the air." should stay where it is, while, for example, the Jonathan Winters parts would be a legacy aspect. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are far too many quotes. The article would be better without any. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

With the widow's revelation that he was in early Parkinson's, the context has changed. Comments from his widow could be fair to include. Otherwise, probably best to keep it at a separate page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps include the widow's comment, but ultimately even that needs a better source. And once we have it, the widow's comment should go. Look at articles for people who died 100 years ago. No quotes. 50 years ago. No quotes. The ten year test says we include only content that will still be important in ten years time. Quotes don't hold importance that long. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This being the era of sound bites, there are endless quotes about nearly everything. In the past, such quotes were a special few, such as Stanton saying about Lincoln, "Now he belongs to the ages" (and some think he actually said "angels" - no smartphones then). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• A few well-chosen quotes can be a good thing. Having loads of quotes looks terrible; it is how a 12-year-old writes. Instead, we should summarise the important ones and take all of them out. --John (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

His assistant that found him described his final days and I posted that. Also with the many quotes, I think it's fair to add a few considering the huge response worldwide to his passing which was not mentioned in the article. I posted a brief quote from President Obama along with Williams' daughter Zelda. The link to these quotes also provides countless responses on Twitter from the entertainment world on his passing. --Jason1978 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to my post of 23:33, 14 August 2014. (This IS meant to be a discussion. Not just somewhere where we declare our position then head off and change the article!) And why on earth include anything from the President? He's a politician. Politicians say what they think the public wants to hear. Such comments add nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There are far, far too many quotes. Too much cruft and celebrity-profile stuff. It's overwhelming. Moncrief (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that @Light show: added a section on his influence on other stand-up comedians, this is a great start to a more formal legacy section, which is where some of the quotes could be added. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's an excellent move. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. But give me about an hour more before moving stuff so I don't get my old and newer edits confused. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I last looked a whole lot more crap has been added to the Death section. This is nonsense. Do we have consensus to remove the quotes? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Obama and Zelda Williams quotes can go (though the fact that they reacted can still be mentioned). The whole Broadway League thing... hmm... I think it probably doesn't merit mentioning. The Aladdin play certainly doesn't merit mentioning. The makeshift memorials are cool though. I think they should stay in... they're much more significant than the endless soundbites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendaliv (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is any comment of any value at all? They add nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of the quotes, does anyone else see the "George Carlin-esque" humor in the ones that were selected? First (and oddly before his daughter's words) there is one from President Obama followed by the daughter where she says that the "world is forever a little darker". I'm with HiLo, do these quotes really add anything and are they someone's attempt at bizarre humor? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As a note (pinging @Light show:), remember that WP uses logical quote style, that the punctuation should go outside the quotes in general unless' the quote is a full (or nearly full) sentence. Many of the quote uses I'm seeing in the article presently are not correct in this regard. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here is a particularly egregious example. I have removed this twice and will probably not edit-war further over it. But this is the definition of a useless quote that is better summarised. Why would an editor repeatedly restore it? --John (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It was restored in part because you were not giving a reason for taking it out. It was also restored because I thought it added to the article and the reader's understanding of why Williams would leave such a prestigious school. It was also restored because someone as weighty as John Huston said it and Williams would go on to be one of the greatest entertainers of our time, ergo, it was obvious his words to Robin Williams were not just right, they were somewhat prophetic. I say it should go back in. But thanks for admitting you were edit warring, John. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Pff. Of course Winkelvi was the one edit warring over it, against two editors, and then templating John with a nice little personal attack thrown in--that's not even counting their "fuck off" to me. Great going, Winkelvi. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• The reason, as I stated both times in the edit summary and a bunch of times here, is summed up in WP:QUOTE. Wikipedia is not a collection of copied and pasted quotations, although there is a project called Wikiquote which specialises in this. It may be up your street if this is where your interests lie. Here on Wikipedia we prefer to summarise most quotes. I hope that helps. --John (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Drmies: Yes, I said "fuck off" to you because of coming to my talk page to wrongly scold me for putting a properly placed edit warring template on John's talk page. You arrogantly took it upon yourself to remove it. If he wants it removed, he doesn't need you to do it for him - or do you think you are the keeper of the Wiki and need to act as nanny and babysit other admins' talk pages? Obviously, the placement of the notice was correct, as John admits above that he was edit warring. Now, do you want to further disrupt an article talk page discussion with irrelevant comments or are you done? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

John: My sincere apologies regarding my comments about not leaving an edit summary. For whatever reason I did not remember seeing it on the second revert and wrongly accused you. I still believe the quote should stay. But if consensus determines otherwise, I'm fine with that conclusion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead section, third paragraph, still has two out of place, unnecessary, and rather laudatory quotes, by George Schlatter & Terry Gilliam. Better placed in Legacy section, if retained at all. Highly selective, not to say arbitrary, in article lead.

Also in lead, first sentence, reference to "comedy renaissance" uses "its" when referring to both LA and SF. Should be "their" - or pick one city. Check source.Paulscrawl (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

One quote by someone who gave him his 1st TV spot, saying he would be a "force" in the entertainment industry, seems reasonable. The remaining two quotes, describing his range of acting ability, by his twice director, seems fine. "Rather laudatory"? Not IMO, but why would someone complain about that for someone like Williams? The 2-word "comedy renaissance" quote in context doesn't seem excessive in the lead. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we can remove them but the wording to replace has to be careful. I found google books has the page on "comedy renaissance" here [6] and 1) it's about SF specifically, and 2) I don't think the two word phrase needs quoting - it's a ... reasonably standard? term of art to describe similar situations elsewhere. Obviously, this statement should be in the body of the article in his stand-up section, but we can nix that quote/reference. On Schlatter, there's no need for a one word quote, we can say, without quotes in the lead, about Willaims being an importance force in television. On the Gilliam quote, I would rather see a summation of what other directors and co-stars felt of his film style, saving the quotes for the body. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Nice work, Masem; I thought change to "their" (both LA & SF) rather abrupt, esp. without report back here on requested "Check source" - fixed, per source.

Now, what about the two panegyrics remaining in the third paragraph? - Paulscrawl (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about the B-class Review: It seemed odd that for the issue of whether "It is reasonably well-written:" that, question about excessive quotes is all it took to fail it, which implies it was not reasonably well written. Just my opinion, but then I think contextual quotes are more valuable and add more veracity than some editor's paraphrasing just for the sake of not having quotes, and agree with quotations. --Light show (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with you on this, Light show. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote box opinions

We are concerned with too many quotes in the article but yet another quote was added, and this time in a quote box? [7] Anyone care to add comments and thoughts about this to help my understanding of the rationale? Light show? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He was noted for doing drop-ins to comedy clubs in the U.S., where he was widely known. However, overseas 30+ years ago he was an unknown, and a description of one of his appearances is valuable to give some perspective on his stand-up talent. Hearing his appearance described with such detail by another comedian who was there is not something that I personally could or should paraphrase, simply to remove quotes. --Light show (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

From what you've explained, I get the reasoning why, but I don't understand from the aspect of WP:QUOTEFARM an the already expressed concern about the number of too many quotes in the article. That said, I don't have a solution other than cutting out more quotes to balance it with the addition of yet another quote and this time prominently placed in a quotation box. Hoping for some more input and ideas. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that the new quote is really excessive. I think part, like a sentence from that, would be fine, but it's rather excessive to get the idea across that William's standup would excite and exhaust (in a good way) the crowd. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's much easier to avoid quoting and simply paraphrase when the reader can click on the cite link to get the full story. With books, however, I feel a good descriptive quote puts less stress on a reader to buy the book to get the details. In any case, excluding the massive number of citations, the article itself isn't unreasonably long, sectioned ok, and a quotebox breaks up the gray space and acts as a rest area when reading. --Light show (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We're not in the business of worrying whether the reader will go seek out a book or not because of how much of a quote we include. We are summarizing a person's importance, and to provide references should a reader need to learn more. Whether that's a book, magazine, newspaper, audio or video recording or the like, we dont care as long as it's verifible. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I think making it easy for a reader to verify details is important, and with florid details, a direct quote adds a lot. I didn't add a cite or quotes by Nathan Lane from CBS TV, for instance, since they were not as visually descriptive about his stand-up talent as de la Tour's. --Light show (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cremation details

I did take a look into sourcing for the cremation fact and it is repeated by normally RS sources (like USA Today), pointing to the reports from the otherwise weaker RS that he was cremated. USA Today did try to confirm this with Williams's rep but got no response back. I am not saying we need to include it now, but I do believe that the sourcing is there to support this. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN is now reporting they got their hands on the death certificate, confirming the cremation and ashes being spread in the Bay, so the issue of a poor source is now eliminated. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Early life cleanup ideas

The section seems overloaded with about 30 cites. It also contains a lot of short, choppy sentences without much context or continuity, and much of them are trivia. I think the section deserves some added attention. --Light show (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading the article referenced for identifying Robin Willims as having two brothers it seems to me this is incorrect, it should state that he had a half brother, Robert Todd Williams (They only share the same father, not mother), McLaurin Smith is not properly identified in this article to determine his relation to Robin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.128.218 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Years active

I checked numerous sources and searched on google and could find no reliable source showing Williams was active in 1972, can someone please fix this data in the infobox? The earliest he appears to be active is around 1975/76. 74.66.88.150 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)