Talk:Freddie Prinze/Archives/2013

Thanks

I would like to thank the person who started this article and all who are contributing to it to make it a great one. I have done extensive research on Freddie Prinze and hope to continue adding to the article as I have time. I am grateful to those like Zoe and Mariposa who wikify and clean up my grammar. Gracias! Luckymama58 (formerly the unknown prolific editor of this article...LOL)

Other comments

Hey Luckymama! De nada, mi hermana! Mariposa

check out "Monday, June 24, 2002" on this page http://www.jewhoo.com/redseaframe.htm

The article says he changed his name to Prinze, but it doesn't say what he changed it from. What was his birth name?

Random bits moved here from the article

66.167.136.232 08:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC): These paragraphs can be used to expand the debate about his death if someone wants to tackle that editorial and research effort...

A possible motive for Prinze's suicide (despite the later court ruling to the contrary) was because the night before Freddie died, a temporary restraining order had been issued preventing him from seeing his child. Early the next morning he began making a series of goodbye phone calls indicating his intent to take his life.

Freddie phoned his mother and stasted "I love you very much, but I can't go on. I need to find peace." He then phoned his wife Kathy Cochran and stated "I love you, Kathy, I love the baby, but I need to find peace. I can't go on." A suicide note found at the scene stated "I must end it. There's no hope left. I'll be at peace. No one had anything to do with this. My decision totally-Freddie Prinze. P.S. I'm sorry. Forgive me. Dusty's here. He's innocent. He cared."

In 1982, Prinze's widow and son received a settlement of nearly one million dollars to settle malpractice suits against Freddie's psychiatrist and internist for overprescribing quaaludes.

In 1983, the Prinze family received a life insurance payout was issued after a jury decided that Freddie was acting under the influence of drugs when he was playing with the gun, and it accidentally went off, 9 years after he died.

Correction: the Prinze life insurance lawsuit was settled six years later. Sympathy may have played a greater part in the jury's decision, considering the circumstances.

Noted: Prinze was alive after the shooting, and evidently conscious, before the decision to remove life support. (Freddie gripped his mother's hand strongly after surgery, Page 34, the Freddie Prinze Story, by Maria Pruetzel and John A. Barbour, 1978, Master's Press)

Also noted: Jack Albertson (Ed Brown on 'Chico and the Man') gave the eulogy at Freddie Prinze's funeral, "We will see Freddie again," finishing his speech in tears, at Old North Church, Forest Lawn, Hollywood Hills. Freddie is buried at Forest Lawn Memorial Park. Tony Orlando also gave a eulogy at the funeral. (Feb. 1, 1977)

Inappropriate items removed

In the last few edits, I removed several statements I found to be inappropriate. These included:

• A category that alluded to his membership with a certain African American organization (it didn't link anywhere anyway, and I've never heard of this alleged association).
• Allegations that he made vulgar gestures on his TV show, "Chico and the Man." I have seen reruns of the show on TV Land, and saw no such footage.
• An unattributed section about the rambling letter he wrote while under the influence of Quaaludes, shortly before his suicide. The comments, as presented in this article's previous version, were non-sensical. Perhaps comments about his letter may be reinserted – with proper attribution from a reliable source – about its contents.
• "The blackest nigger alive" reference at the start of the article. Also inappropriate and unattributed. If this was part of his comedic routine and can be verified, it should go in the section relating his stand-up comedy career, and then kept very brief. [[Briguy52748 22:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)]]

His paternal ancestry

I'm not sure if anyone's brought this up here before, but this article ([1]-under June 24th) suggests that his paternal ancestry was not Hungarian or Jewish, but rather German? His son referred to his father as "half Puerto Rican and half German" in this interview [2], which seems to confirm that. I'll change it to "German" for now. JackO'Lantern 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC) His father was Hungarian Jewish people! This was allready proven in his biography, and television programs. Freddie Prinz Jr. himself said this was the reason his father called himself "Hunga-rican" ! Attribute both heritages. German? Where the hell did you get that from anyways! Plus, the words were taken out of context in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.249.16 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Image

can somebody upload a picture of him? thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayo1163 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How could he have died when...

He was in them Scooby Doo movies recently? I saw them. Theys credits say, "Freddie Prinze JR" (the JR meaning, of course, "Jeneral Reserve" meaning he's a Jeneral in the Army but he's in the Army reserve).

So how can he be dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing this Freddie Prinze with his son...Freddie Prinze, Jr.... The JR means junior in the case you're referring to, retard. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Flyer, please don't feed the trolls!(67.234.185.113 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC))

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Need more focus on Freddie Prinze's talent, not his personal battles and death

Freddie's suicide was so shocking and tragic because people generally percieved him as a brilliant, young, talent with so much potential - suddenly gone; wasted. His meteoric rise, popularity, and success in bringing a positive Latino character to mainstream American TV needs to be emphasized first in order to give this article's death information any value. Also missing is how huge new pressures from sudden money and fame too often amplifies personal problems.

Prior to Chico and the Man, Americans mainly had Latino images of the hard drinking, womanizing, and Narcisistic Desi Arnaz, then, Cheech and Chong. Like Chico, Cheech and Chong were very good natured and likeable, but, unlike Chico, were known as stoners first, with the implication that heavy marijuana use was what gave them those good qualities.

Chico's most famous lines were "Looking good!!" and "Eees not my yob, man"[sic].

"It's not my job." seems to have become a so much more common attitude in America, which greatly saddens me and prompted me to find and then comment on this Wikipedia entry. 65.78.28.104 (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 65.78.28.104 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 65.78.28.104 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category Removal

Gavia immer , you've shown no compelling reason why those categories should not be removed .

The fact that information may be longstanding is irrevelant, if it is wrong it is to corrected or as in this case removed .

these are properly descriptive categories

Not in this case .In this case it is not considered suicide by the relevant authorities to make such a determination .

The fact that the media by reason of not updating their files about this case and/or for ease of writing articles choose to call it suicide doesn't make it suicide .

Wikipedia has to stick with the determination given by relevant authorities which in this case is that the death was accidental .

To leave these categories in the article now after someone realized they were still in the article when they shouldn't be is to deliberately leave false information in the article .Garda40 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not answering this sooner. You say "Wikipedia has to stick with the determination given by relevant authorities", but this is not correct. On the contrary, we ought to abide by what the majority of secondary sources say. The "determination by the relevant authorities" was originally suicide as well, but was later changed (as you note); those are primary sources, however. We use secondary sources because they will have evaluated both sets of findings and the motivations for both sets of findings and come to whatever conclusion, rather than attempting to come to a conclusion on our own (which would be original research). In any case, this is somewhat beside the point, because categories are not quite the same thing as sourced statements in the article; they are also a navigational and organizational aid. In general, if one would reasonably expect to find the article Freddie Prinze in various suicide-related categories, then it's reasonable to list the article in those categories. I realize that this is a complicated case, and in fact I do a lot of maintenance work on List of suicides, so I understand the motivation for seeing this one way or the other, but I think the suicide-related categories ought to stay. I don not care to continue reverting, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavia-like murder, suicide is a legal detrmination, not a casual descriptor. Again, a jury found that Freddie Prinse did not commit suicide, and that his death was accidental. There is no basis at all-none to call his death a suicide, in fact it is slanderous. Yes the determination was initailly suicide and if this entry had existed between the time of Prinze's death and the later finding that it was an accident, you could have called it "suicide" up until that point. It's not a "complicated case" as you contend, it's a simple one: Freddie Prize was found to have diedd as the result of an accident. There is no legal finding that he commited suicide. To contend that he commited suicide, is not only false, but potentially slanderous. There is no ambiguity here. And that the categories are "long standing" do not exempt clearly innacurate information from speedy deletion, nor are they assumed to have more validity. These categories in this case are clearly wrong, and do not merit serious conversation anymore than if someone had placed Freddie Prinze under an 'Ax Murderers' category. On top of it all the article clearly states that Prinze did not commit suicide. It's absurd to have erroneous categories that totally contradict what has already been outlined in the article. If your opiniuon is that he comitted suicide, that's fine, but your opinion does not supercede established, legally verifiable facts.

Quote: "these are properly descriptive categories"

If he was found not to have commited suicide, which again is a legal finding and not a descriptor, then how is a category which contradicts the facts "properly descriptive"

That makes no sense at all.

(75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I've already covered much of this in my response to Garda40 above, so I won't repeat myself. However, let me be clear about a few things: firstly, you say, here and on my talk page, that incorrect information could make us liable for libel. This is not correct; it is not possible to libel a dead person. However, that does not make it okay to say false things about the dead in our articles, as in your "Ax Murderers" example. We agree on that. Secondly, it is in fact a bit of a complicated and ambiguous situation. That's okay; the real world is complicated, and we deal with it in the article by describing both coroners' reports and the reason why there are two of them. However, we don't have a category for "people who were initially reported to have committed suicide, but later were determined not to have done so, at least from a legal standpoint". That would be a very small category. Instead, because he shot himself, we use the various suicide categories. I've already said that I don't wish to blindly revert beyond what I've already done, but I may look for additional opinions on the matter - it can't hurt to have more eyes on the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem at all if other people look at it, but the basic point is words such as 'murder' or 'suicide' are legal terms and their legal validity are determined by judicial and civil proceedings. My 'Ax Murderer' comment was fairly on target. Freddie was not convicted of an ax murder, so therefore it would be a flase statement. Freddie's death was initially determined to be a suicide, and that determination was made in accordance to legal process. When Freddie's mother petitioned the courts, she was successful in having them set aside the initial finding of suicide, and having the court declare that his death was accidental and a result of being on drugs while having access to a firearms. Once this was done, the initial ruling was no more.

You seem to be using some convoluted logic here in regards to this. Your comment that since we don't have a category ""people who were initially reported to have committed suicide, but later were determined not to have done so, at least from a legal standpoint" (the overly elaborate wording of which seems to be an attempt by you to trivialize this matter, if you were being serious you could have stated that we don't have a category called 'Deaths Initially Ruled Suicides' see..just 4 words!)

You state that because Freddie was not convicted of murder (again a legal determination), if we put such a category up it would not be true.

Well, that is exactly the same point here. Freddie was legally found not to have committed suicide, so to say that he did is a false statement.

To call a death that has been determined to be an accidental death a "suicide" is false, and would be the same thing as calling someone who was initially convicted of murder, but later acquitted in an appeal a 'Murderer'.

I think you need to understand that the term 'suicide' like the term 'murder' is a legal determination.

It was legally determined to be suicide and 1977, and that finding was vacated in 1984, thereby rendering null and void the previous finding. I really do not understand what you are not understanding here, and I don't mean that to insult you, I'm baffled about what you are talking about. That he did not commit suicide was established legally, no other "secondary source" supersedes or negates this. This is not a matter of opinion or debate, this is a matter of fact. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not about facts. It is about verifiability. What do the secondary sources say? That's all we really care about. I would expect you could find all sorts of contradictory information in secondary sources. I'd also note that the WP categories for "suicide" are not necessarily limited by the legal definitions of such, since such definitions vary over time and jurisdiction. It could just mean "people who died by their own hand", which this case would clearly qualify as. Really, it's not worth edit warring over, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find a lot of secondary sources to say various people are murderers even though they have never been convicted of murder .Can I just add that as a category to an article about them .No .I can't because BLP issues arise.

What seems to be happening here is that because the subject is dead the view seems to be around that BLP doesn't apply here .Well as I understand BLP even if subjuct is dead care needs to be taken since other people mentioned in article are subject to BLP and I notice that this recent edit by this admin [3] agrees with deleting material in a dead person's bio that may reflect badly on living people .

So we do have a BLP issue in this article and are libelling his family and a court by keeping these categories as suicide .Gavia immer contention that they are longstanding in this article or that they are properly descriptive doesn't override this BLP consideration or Good Olfactory contention that because we don't have a category "people who died by their own hand" we have to put it in a suicide category .If needs be we create a category "people who died by their own hand" but to leave suicide categories is a clear BLP violation .Garda40 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is not a BLP issue - the subject is dead, and the fact that family members survived him doesn't make it one either. Nor is it an issue of libel - one cannot libel a court, any more than one can libel a deceased person, and merely failing to accept the second coroner's report unconditionally does not libel anyone. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice you are ignoring the fact that you are libelling his family and that does make it a BLP issue .You are saying in essence I know better than his family (who got a court to agree with them ) and that they are wrong .Garda40 (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly am not libeling his family in any way. For the record, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats, which is our policy about making such accusations. I don't think you or the IP 75.69.241.91 have violated that policy, nor intended to, but the manner in which you are making such arguments can still be problematic. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavia, I did not make a legal threat, though perhaps I could have worded things in a clearer manner. I was not inferring anything of the sort, but I can see your point there, and I will make no further such references in regards to that.

And for the record I was not accusing you of anything, nor was I questioning your fairness or integrity.

That aside, we can not post opinion as fact on Wikipedia, and calling Freddie Prinze's death a "suicide" is an opinion. A legal determination has been made that his death was accidental, and not suicide. In the same manner, we can not categorize O.J. Simpson as being a murderer, despite the fact that arguably the majority of people may possibly believe that he did. We can not categorize George W. Bush as a 'War Criminal' or Barack Obama a 'Socialist' or any of these terms because they are solely opinions, though many people believe them. Freddie Prinze was determined, in accordance with law, not to have committed suicide. Anyone else who states that he did commit suicide is only expressing an opinion, an opinion which is totally counter to established fact and legal finding, that he did so, and that is not only NOT a criteria for inclusion in a category, it's sufficient reason per Wikipedia policy for immediate removal from the page without further discussion, debate or consensus in any form. Opinion can not be stated as fact, and any challenge to a legal finding based on opinion has no validity. You can cite books, articles, psychologists, priests, writers, and friends who will state that Freddie did commit suicide and that still adds up to nothing more than a collective opinion, and does not trump facts. These are the sort of arguments conspiracy theorists use, and they have no place here. Facts do matter. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I'll just repeat here that Wikipedia is not primarily about facts, it's primarily about verifiability. Let's focus on WP:V. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory, we are not edit warring, we are discussing the matter here amongst ourselves. As for your comment about the definition of suicide, that would be appropriate had the initial finding of suicide not been set aside, or had no legal determination been made regarding his death. In these cases you would be totally correct. However, there was a legal determination as to his death not being a suicide, further the legal finding determined that Prinze did in fact shoot himself in the head, but did so in a state of greatly impaired mental capacity, and thus, could not have adequately formed an intent to kill himself, and that he possibly could not have understood in his mental state that putting a loaded gun to his head and pulling the trigger would likely have resulted in his death (This is what the court determined). So in regards to this particular individual, the court defined suicide as the intentional taking of one's life, your comment that suicide could be defined as merely "killing yourself" does not then apply here then given that the legal system defined what suicide was, and that Freddie Prinze did commit suicide. Only the relevant definition applies here, and the that is the legal definition used, not alternate ones. So we have the established, and legally determined fact that Prinze did not kill himself, and then we essentially people stating opinion, and that's pretty much it. He did not commit suicide, and the facts were legally determined. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

That's all very internally logical, but it's quite easy to poke holes in it. In any case, we should go with what secondary sources say, not what we can logically deduce on the talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, in any case we won't go with what the "secondary sources" say. Poke holes in it? What??!! The legal determination was made that he did not commit suicide, no "secondary sources" (what "secondary sources"?? ...The National Enquirer ?) negate that. Maybe we can find "secondary sources" that say that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, that Brittany Murphy was murdered, that Elvis Presley is alive or that President Obama was born in Kenya???, Then we can re-edit reality itself! That's your argument????? There is nothing to debate here.

No "secondary sources" negate a legal finding. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

You don't seem to understand the difference between Wikipedia writing and the real world. No matter. WP:RS; WP:V; WP:OR are all fairly foundational. Best to adhere to those, rather than slavish adherence to what you know to be "true". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A finding in a civil case is not equivalent to "vacating" a coroner's judgement. Unless the coroner revisited his finding, and it's far from clear that he did, Prinze's death is still a suicide, no matter what a jury in a civil case said. Quatloo (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• = a "hole poke". Told you it was easy, anon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Those categories regarding suicide have again been deleted. "Hole poke"??!! What are 5 years old? Quatloo's interpretation of what policy means is no importance. First it was that "secondary sources' were justification for the suicide categories, but now cherry picking Wikipedia policy takes the place of the "secondary sources" once the former argument has been found to be without merit. You also mention that "it's not clear" about the coroner's finding having been vacated or not, so you are not even clear if your convoluted argument holds water, or is predicated on facts. So 'Good olfactory' tells me it was "easy". It certainly was for you if Quatloo does all the thinking and all you seem to do is post childish diatribes when you yourself were not the one actually engaged in, or contributing to the debate. And for the record, Prinze's mother worked with the Los Angeles coroner's office to have the initial finding overturned and replaces with " "accidental shooting due to the influence of Quaaludes". So there goes your second argument up in flames! Again...

                      "accidental shooting due to the influence of Quaaludes"

We have only the coroner's judgment. By "not clear", I mean that nobody has presented any source that states that the coroner was overruled. Just that a ruling occurred by a jury in a civil case that does not have the power to alter the coroner's judgement. So all we have is the coroner. Either present such a source -- one that states that the Coroner has altered his judgement -- or leave it at suicide. Quatloo (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(75.69.241.91 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Gypsy Ancestry

He has also said he is of Gypsy ancestry http://www.dzeno.cz/?c_id=6432

I was in love with Freedy Prinze when I was a kid. I also had his album. But I have lost it over the years. My son wants to be a comedian. Any idea on where to find a copy?

His father was Hungarian Jewish people! This was allready proven in his biography, and television programs. Freddie Prinz Jr. himself said this was the reason his father called himself "Hunga-rican" ! Attribute both heritages. German? Where the hell did you get that from anyways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.249.16 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This page exists to discuss issues regarding the main entry. It is not designed for unsourced, anger filled, meaningless diatribes like the one above, which was already posted in the previous section and is now being spammed. If you have some evidence that Prinze's father was something other than German, cite your information and note it accordingly, otherwise take your ravings to the message board on IMDB. The Talk page here is not the appropriate place to post such nonsense. Thank you! (Sellpink (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC))