Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Quotes

Just as a reminder, per WP:QUOTE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL we are not looking for any more quotes from famous people. We can summarise any that have been published in reliable sources. Only exceptional ones need to be quoted. --John (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Obama be exceptional? Already been added, nevermind. Tutelary (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Obama quote is the only one needed. The reactions of other celebrities would easily become out of control. Bahooka (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's debatable even if his wife's quote should be included. The presidents, maybe. This is not a wake. Thousands of condolences have been sent from all sorts of people. Cosprings (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The quotes add nothing. They are all completely predictable, so they are undue. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone put them back in. I move they should all be left out, as my edit did. Cosprings (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed them Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this for now. It's flatly unencyclopedic to report a litany of soundbites that, while many are heartfelt and moving individually, have little to no relevance to this man's career, and individually have no effect on the story of his death. There are a multitude of articles out there in reliable sources discussing the outpouring of reactions to his death... if we're going to cover it in this article we should do so by reference to one of those articles. A single paragraph should be more than enough for this article, and it needn't have quotations. Much more and we'd surely be violating WP:DUE (in the same way as we would by listing every single film Williams has starred in here rather than in the filmography article). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote myself, "This happens on a ton of pages." And "Mr. Stamos is much more notable than and as equally irrelevant as Mitt Romney." Same deal here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just saying that John is misappropriating WP:NOTMEMORIAL above. The content of that only says that non-notable people don't suddenly become notable by dying, not, as he interprets it, that condolences of people professionally or personally close to a celebrity in life must not be quoted. I can see how it may be a tad excessive in the article here on the man himself, but I don't see why his family, the President, and the people he directly worked with can't be quoted in a future article called Death of Robin Williams. --217.225.210.31 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, pardon my error. It is WP:DUE that rules out crap like this, not WP:NOTMEMORIAL. My apologies. --John (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Once again, we will not be filling this article up with useless quotes. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Try reading first. These are not memorials, but details in context about his long career. If you have a problem with his career-related quotes, copy them as a new section and discuss for consensus. In any case, sections are being expanded and you should wait to see if there is a reasonable balance and the quotes can or should be abbreviated. Editing bios takes time, so please allow some instead of edit warring. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

These quotes are fine by me. I'm not so sure I'd have used centered blockquote rather than, say, {{quote box}}, but I think it's fine. It might be better to paraphrase the quoted text if possible, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. After adding details, with quotes when needed, it's easier to go back and prune or paraphrase material. I'll be expanding some material and would appreciate any editing corrections, however. --Light show (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll often quote a word or phrase that's best not paraphrased, especially if the quote came from a book. But with online linked sources, a quote may not be as critical since the wording can be checked. --Light show (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Easier solution. Leave them out. Much tidier. No information of any value is lost. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. That's why I leave them out when editing articles about cars and toasters. --Light show (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Afer some deliberation, I'm suggesting that the quotes should abide to one solid rule: They should state something definite about his legacy and/or career, not just how upset the speaker is or generic stuff such as "touched so many lives, brought joy to so many". Another rule I think should be that we ought to try and limit the quotes to his family, professional collaborators, and professional reviewers. Oh, and one exception for Presidents. --217.225.210.31 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Presidents? What politicians say is what they believe the voters want to hear. We don't want that here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are being added in now in a very "sloppy" manner without seeming forethrought, just because you can find a quote doesn't make it appropriate. We're trying to tell a story here, not just drop quotes. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have tagged the section accordingly. A lot of this material now needs to be trimmed and summarised. Why do it this way, Light show? --John (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To further the subject, you should first create a new section which doesn't lump the "memorial"-related quotes discussion with career-related ones. There, you can itemize or give example quotes that might need reworking, and would allow some clearer feedback from others. There's no reason to jump in and start deleting things without clear explanations and some agreement. I already know that Masem doesn't like quotes, and wants articles, even bios, to be "dry" and "sterile" as the preferred style. Others, like User:Gothicfilm, have strongly disagreed. So please discuss first. --Light show (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We are here to document while Williams was important, not why Williams was great (that would be POVish). Some quotes are appropriate, but most of what I'm being seen added is just a random dump of "oh, that's in interesting quote" into the article (which, incidentally, is what you've accused another editor of doing and saying is wrong, elsewhere). Be selective, maybe have a sandbox of these interesting quotes to look to draw from as the article is improved, but we should avoid just randomly dumping in quotes with no forethought where to take them. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Masem. It isn't a matter of "liking" quotes, it is a matter of having a clue about what an encyclopaedia article looks like. It does not consist of a bunch of random quotes. --John (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I never use "random" quotes, only quotes useful in the context of the commentary to help explain it more clearly than paraphrasing, and as suggested by the guidelines. In any case, just create a new section to separate the earlier comments about memorial quotes, add some example problem quotes and explain why they aren't needed or aren't helpful. I see the quotes, but none that aren't beneficial to the article. And the fact that you call them a "bunch of random quotes," implies you haven't read them in context, thereby sticking a quotefarm tag on the page seems totally unwarranted. With 563 page watchers and plenty of active editors, a consensus is a reasonable goal. --Light show (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you do not think the quotes are random as you added them, but that is how they look to me. There are certainly too many of them. Please don't remove the article improvement tag until we reach agreement here that the quotes are under control. --John (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please prune "Other interests"

We learn such exciting facts as Williams read Narnia to his kids, liked Tom Waits and drove a friggin' Prius. Very important stuff that deserves to be recorded somewhere, but not in an encyclopedia. Phiwum (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Williams is the greatest

Williams is the greatest, until somebody else comes along. We had something like that with the Phil Hoffman article, and I sure hope nobody has the bright idea to turn this article into a shrine like that one was. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Personal life" section has already become a collection of trivia (Oh! He liked Radiohead!) interesting only to rabid fans. Phiwum (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Popeye

Hello. I won't try to reinsert Popeye in the list of financially successful films that Williams acted in because I'll be reverted. I should try to insert it in the list of "acclaimed" movies but am sure to be reverted. So where do you editors of his biography suggest that Popeye be placed? Thanks to Eric Spitznagel of Vanity Fair who wrote a whole article about this. Without reading it, I'll add that if comic strips could move, Williams and Altman invented that motion. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and add it. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@SusanLesch - FWIW - *Entirely* agree with you - If interested, my recent FaceBook post => https://www.facebook.com/drbogdan/posts/10152608474489691 - Film: "POPEYE" - Best Ever By *ROBIN WILLIAMS*? (Trailer; 01:55) => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUqfsI_L34 - NEWS => http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywood/2014/08/robin-williams-popeye - WIKIPEDIA => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye_(1980_film) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - added relevant ref to main article => < ref name="VF-20140812">Spitznagel, Eric (August 12, 2014). "Popeye Is the Best Movie Robin Williams Ever Made". Vanity Fair. Retrieved August 13, 2014.</ref> - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I said this before, but my comment got lost in the shuffle: I don't like how we're trying to draw a line between "acclaimed" films and "financial successes". Many of Williams' films enjoyed both critical acclaim and financial success. And if one Vanity Fair article is enough to promote Popeye to the "acclaimed" category, then I'm sure we could also classify Hook, Aladdin, Mrs. Doubtfire, Jumanji, The Birdcage, Night at the Museum, and Happy Feet as acclaimed films. There must be at least one critic who liked each of those. Zagalejo^^^ 00:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Zagalejo, I agree it is artificial to have a 100% positive division between acclaimed and financially successful. The first two pages of Google results give Popeye both "underrated" and "critical failure" status. I am pretty sure that the disagreement is about the film, not about Williams's character which cemented his reputation for me 30 years ago. Drbogdan, thank you for the link to the trailer. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bicentennial Man significant

I believe a link to this fine 1999 movie (in which he played the main role) should be added too, in the introduction, between movies The Birdcage (1996) and Night at the Museum (2006), since this movie is however fairly important achievement, based on Isaac Asimov's recognized novel. Today for some Sci-Fi fans even considered a cult-classic of the genre, underrated, with much deeper message than it might seem at first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.144.21 (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Filmography

Main article: Robin Williams filmography

This part does not need expansion ... hence the separate article ... Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you making an edit request to not make any edits? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another answer: I think the reason for the expansion template is to say that when there is a separate filmography page, a short list of notable films can (or should) be listed on the main article. I don't know if it's found on any MOS, but it is SOP. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

RS cover

Speaking from a NFC viewpoint here, while the cover technically does meet the basic requirements for inclusion, I really don't think it does at the end of the day. The ancedote about the cover is mostly limited to reactions from Williams and his current wife, then, and doesn't reflect on a larger commentary about it, and as we have numerous other photos of Williams (free), this feels like we're adding non-free for the purposes of having non-free, which really isn't helpful. If anything, the Time magazine cover [1] would be better as, first, that's Time, a much more influential magazine (and discussed in article), and secondly, that photo is being installed at the National Portrait Gallery to remember Williams [2], making a much stronger case for NFCC. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

When it's off lockdown we can switch images and add some more support. --Light show (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Williams sometimes suffered from depression"

Full sentence: "Williams sometimes suffered from depression and struggled with drug and alcohol addiction for much of his career." Small thing, but this sentence is not accurate - depression is a lifetime illness. The ability to cope/the severity of a depressive episode may fluctuate, but one is always considered to have depression - similar to how being an alcoholic is a lifelong condition, even if you've been sober for years. Suggest removing the word "sometimes".166.179.68.0 (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"depression is a lifetime" and "alcoholic is a lifelong condition"? References to peer reviewed journals would be nice if you're going to throw around blanket statements like that. AlanS (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I also found the "sometimes" bit that someone added odd, but only because sources seem to indicate that Williams's depression was recurrent. As for depression being lifelong, not all types of depression are. This is why we have the Depression (mood) article (which can cover a person being temporarily depressed once or very sparingly in their lifetime) and the Major depressive disorder article (which is significantly more so about lifelong depression). Flyer22 (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. It appears to me that one article is about the mood/state of depression and one is about the ongoing disorder. I think in terms of the Williams article (given the sources pointing to a recurring struggle with the illness) that it would more accurate to state that either "Williams suffered from depression" or "Williams suffered from multiple depressive episodes" or something along those lines. I would expect that if it was not an ongoing condition for him it would be listed as such (eg "Williams dealt with two known episodes of depression during his career/lifetime"). 166.179.68.0 (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but so far reliable sources don't support much more than sometimes or recurrent or some such. Depression NOS (not otherwise specified) is all we have. On a related issue, see "Battling severe depression" section below. Paulscrawl (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP's point is that since the depression was recurrent, "sometimes" shouldn't be there. Simply stating "Williams suffered from depression" is sufficient; it takes care of "recurrent" and "sometimes." And as far as I can see, "sometimes" is WP:Weasel wording in this case anyway; not to mention unsupported by the sources. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes is vague, suffering is loaded. What's wrong with just having an illness anymore? Not living or dealing with, or battling, or suffering from. "Williams was depressed" (with whatever Wikilink) is perfect. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Influences - too many for an infobox

I've been reviewing many of his early and later interviews, where he rattles off comedians that he has considered influential in some way. There's too many to list for an infobox, and giving a selection creates a false impression of his most important ones. And while there are some names added throughout the article, they have some commentary and context to his career. But otherwise I'd leave off giving only names. And I would do the same with those he supposedly influenced. We need more than a simple cite for all the people he's influenced in some way. --Light show (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this is one of those cases where we should ditch primary sources and exclusively go with secondary sources. List the influences that someone independent of Williams has noted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think primary sources are safest, but I would not simply list names because some article somewhere includes it. There's way too many professionals he's influenced or been influenced by to list raw names without some commentary and context. --Light show (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Primary sources—like Williams himself stating something in an interview—is interesting and all, but really it's prone to the same issues as with any primary source: Williams may have overstated one influence over another, or included a bunch of things that aren't really influences. We should leave it to his biographers or the academics to look at his career—and his interviews—and to discuss who influenced him in their own publications. Then we should report what those publications say. Going just off whatever Williams states is hard to do without violating WP:NOR. If there's nothing definitive, I'd rather just omit the infobox field (since it provides zero context) and discuss possible influences in the prose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A possible solution, but this requires a bit of rewriting, would be to list 3 or 4 big, obvious ones, and the have a "(see #influences)" to point to an influences section. However, we'd need this section, and that section would be best as part of a section on his comedic styles and methods and legacy that goes beyond just his career history. Some of the details towards this already exist in the article, but it would be a careful rewrite to do this properly. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

He's rattled off names of comedians, actors and actresses that have influenced him in some way, at that point in time. The names change based on when the interview was done. But there are too many to list, IMO. He named John Belushi as one, for instance, but never explained how or why he was influenced by him in the sources I looked at, so I didn't mention him. --Light show (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I'm saying that if we move the full documentable list to prose but select some of the more recognizable ones as representative in the infobox (with the link to that section for more details), we'd be good. For example, if John Belushi is one he has cited, that would definitely go in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 04:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll go over some of the people he lists and see if he had enough favorites, besides his "idol," Jonathan Winters. BTW, some of the names in the stand-up section were early influences, including any relevant quotes. --Light show (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: The only person he said influenced him would be Winters, that I've come across. All the other names of comedians and actors were people he said he admired for various reasons, many in relation to films he worked on. As for being influenced by him, I haven't yet seen any direct commentary that would yield a section like Elaine May's. --Light show (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to step back now from our sadness over Williams' death. As a professor may I ask everyone to remember that we're supposed to be creating a great reference work? We already know that it is the ONLY reference work that my college students consult. At the moment we're creating a eulogy, not a biography. A student in one of my classes ten years from now would think that Williams was notable primarily for committing suicide, judging by the attention paid to it in his Wiki biography. Would Williams himself want that? It's important to get back to writing an account of his place in the history of American comedy. Now, call it "influences" or call it "history," it does not diminish him. He himself was open about his debt to Jonathan Winters. Winters didn't have Williams' dramatic range-- personally, I think Williams' One Hour Photo is magnificent, Dostoevskian, an Underground Man. But Williams did learn a lot from Winters. Also, Williams' generous attempts to revive and sustain the career of a person as sad and depressed as Williams was himself (we now know) was a rare glowing moment in the history of comedy, like Carson's affection for Jack Benny, or DeVito's for Andy Kauffman. It reveals a kindness that we also sense in his characters. Williams was excellent at playing father figures, remember, and I'd say the Genie was one of his best. Anyway, I think it's time to come back to creating a Wikipedia reference work. Profhum (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Williams had Parkinson's disease (early stages)?

FWIW - seems Robin Williams may have had early stages of Parkinson's Disease, according to his wife? => < ref name="LAT-20140814">Rocha, Veronica (August 14, 2014). "Robin Williams was sober, in early stages of Parkinson's disease, wife says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 14, 2014.</ref> - hope the text/ref helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Already added from BBC reference. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Prince

Prince is mentioned as someone Robin Williams liked, but there is no reference to him; I think there should be one. Strombomboli (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the request is to link the mention of Prince in the Other interests section. Reasonable, though I debate whether we should even be rattling off these various interests unless there's something to tie them into a narrative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error found in article - diagonsed

I found a spelling error. "Diagonsed" should be "diagnosed". KellyLeighC (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Sarah 21:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of his home

I'm wondering whether a Flickr photo of his house now in the article, by an unknown person, and with no independent confirming source, should be used here. The photographer wrote, "Someone told me this is Robin's house." Can that be enough for an encyclopedia? --Light show (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No. --John (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hell no. In bad taste even if it is his home. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it should be removed. --Light show (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

At the news conference, the police gave the address as 95 St. Thomas Way. If someone wants to look that up on google, they can. There's no value to including a picture of the house in this article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That was his house near Tiburon. The photo here is one taken in San Francisco. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Right. The one he died in is like a one-story with an orange roof, relatively modest. This mansion might be the one he was trying to sell. And the photo's been in the article since at least late 2013. That doesn't mean the picture belongs, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, please remove File:RobinWilliamsHouse.jpg from the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 August 2014

MOS:POSS suggests we adopt and follow one style of reporting the possessive singular. We appear to be following the first on the list, the Strunk & White style of adding 's, even if the name ends in s. But there are three instances where someone has dropped the s. All can be found by searching for "Williams' " (with a space). I'm requesting these be changed to add the final s.

1. 2nd paragraph starting, "Williams' film career ..."
2. 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph under Robin Williams#Stand-up comedy, "Schlatter recognized Williams' talent immediately."
3. 1st sentence of 4th paragraph under Robin Williams#Film actor, "British director ... understood Williams' kind of humor."

Msnicki (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Makes an awful lot of sense to me, but some clown has locked this whole place up, so Wikipedia has to stay looking silly for longer. We can't even make simple corrections. Incompetent Admin behaviour, again. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Support this change. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore highly meaningful quote from reliable source: "battling severe depression"

Who is whitewashing this article of highly relevant reporting on his "battling severe depression" just before his death? Why?

The editors of the New York Times, in their collective wisdom, thought it worthy of quotation in their obituary. If his death is to have any meaning whatsoever in a public health sense, this fact needs to be reported here, as well.

It was, then someone thought better. Think again. I'm restoring it.

Current

In mid-2014, Williams admitted himself into the Hazelden Foundation Addiction Treatment Center in Lindstrom, Minnesota, for treatment related to his alcoholism.

Current References

Prior to article Protection from Wikipedia process

In mid-2014, Williams had admitted himself into the Hazelden Foundation Addiction Treatment Center in Lindstrom, Minnesota, for continued sobriety treatment related to his alcoholism. According to his publicist, Williams was "battling severe depression."

Prior References

Restore second sentence, replacing EW source with New York Times obituary as latter directly quotes publicist on this highly significant news and identifies him by name.

"Mr. Williams’s publicist, Mara Buxbaum, said in a statement that Mr. Williams “has been battling severe depression."

Itzkoff, Dave; Fitzsimmons, Emma G. (August 11, 2014). "Robin Williams, Oscar-Winning Comedian, Dies at 63". The New York Times. Retrieved August 11, 2014.

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we include numerous direct quotes from Williams himself during his career, when he describes his life and moods in opposite terms? And when he was depressed, and said so, is it reasonable to give his own explanations, ie. drugs, hangovers, marriage break-ups, or when he felt People magazine "stabbed him in the back" after his interview with them? And do we know what prescriptions he was on, which may have been a factor? Just askin'. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. His publicist was talking about his state of mind just before his death. Period. As such, highly significant in that context. Paulscrawl (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Light show, I see you completely deleted that sentence and reference on battling severe depression - while simultaneously adding your content on a totally unrelated matter, asserting Williams' supposed money problems led to his suicide. Your transparent edit summary? This is the best part: Add details. That was dishonest, not a good faith edit.

Not hard to see why you've been blocked for edit warring.

Your disingenuous edit was not reliably sourced and was quickly reverted, with an exemplary edit summary, "The "money issues" claims have been refuted - http://www.thewrap.com/robin-williams-death-reports-of-money-troubles-robin-had-no-financial-problems/ The Telegraph was sourcing from Radar Online." oldid=621168954

So your sloppy editing is to blame for this. Nice to know. Hint: Next time you delete something, say what it is and why. Next time you add something, say what it is and why. Don't try both adding and deleting at the same time if you can't be bothered to say so in an edit summary. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The change was an update from a better, more reliable, more current, and much more detailed source, which incorporated the previous one.

Previous: According to his publicist, Williams was "battling severe depression." (Entertainment Weekly, 250 word article, Aug. 11th)

Added: In August, 2014, he admitted to his friends that he had "serious money trouble," and that weeks earlier had been treated for depression. (Daily Telegraph, 950 words, Aug. 12th)

The subhead and 1st paragraph of that non-tabloid, more recent, and more reliable source, was, The Mrs Doubtfire actor, found hanged in his California home, had been battling with depression and money worries, Robin Williams was found hanged after telling friends he had “serious money troubles” and had sought treatment for depression in the weeks before his death, it has emerged.

Hence, your rant is unnecessary and ridiculous. In any case, someone did add an even newer site and simply removed the old one. That's the way it works in WP. We don't go around attacking editors for brief summaries. --Light show (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

I fully protected the article for a day, since the edit pattern suggests that there is too much wish to edit and revert and too little to discuss. I hope you will use this day to figure out what should be in the lede, what sources to use etc. Note that I am not watching the article, pls ping me if needed (e.g. if consensus has been achieved and the full protection is not needed any more).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Admin employs lazy option. Puts entire class on detention instead of stopping two kids fighting." WWGB (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny words for someone at 5 reverts in the last 24 hours on this one article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If an admin finds I have broken any rules I will take my chops. It is still a gross overreaction to a minor issue. Most famous death of the week and the most read encyclopaedia goes into lockdown. Hopeless. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I made the following three changes on the infobox, only one remains
1) Cause of Death I inserted the following line - Asphyxia due to hanging
(preliminary autopsy results)<!-Please keep the cause of death specific to that of the coroner’s statements until they release a full autopsy report. This will keep the current citations in the article in line with the information here->
2) spouce, I looked up Patrick Swayze's page to see how it was worded for end of marriage as I thought the current posting "Susan Schneider (2011–2014 his death)" didn't come out right, and it was worded a bit differently on Patrick Swayze's page (his death being before the final year) I changed that to "until his death in" as it was better phonetically.
I added the following to spouse -

Valerie Velardi

​

​

(m. 1978⁠–⁠1988)​

Marsha Garces

​

(m. 1989⁠–⁠2008)​

Susan Schneider

​

​

(m. 2011; until his death in 2014)​

3) children - I correct the children to - "3 (including Zelda Williams)" as it should be. Has a single person even looked at his ex-wife Marsha Garces' page and see that her infobox has it at "2 (including Zelda Williams)", obviously not or we would not be seeing all this nonsensical bickering over how to display the children aspect.
Well that's my 2 cents worth — Preceding unsigned comment added by slave28 (talk • contribs)

The reason I reverted WWGB is that the '3' does not accurately demonstrate the names and the dates of his children. Just like with the spouse, which don't have articles, we list them anyways. In this case, it should be the same, since it gives the appearance that 'Zelda Williams' is the only important one to list because she has an article, meeting WP:UNDUE criteria. I tried to list the other names for balance but that was reverted by you citing 'Violation of infobox guidelines' and I am still awaiting the link forthcoming. Tutelary (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Before you make accusations, you should always check the pages history, I did not revert your changes for a 'Violation of infobox guidelines' I simply "corrected children section of infobox" which is quite a significant difference. I also noticed that no one made such a claim in any edit so I am not entirely sure where you came up with that? As for criteria, I used the following, WP:NPOV,WP:GEVAL,WP:WEIGHT. The only reason Zelda is listed in the infobox is because she has a page to link to on Wikipedia, the other two children have not reached such status. Furthermore, as I stated in my previous comment, while everyone is fussing on how it should look on Robin's infobox, no one seemed to have a care in the world how it looked on his ex-wife's Marsha. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason Zelda is listed in the infobox is because she has a page to link to on Wikipedia, the other two children have not reached such status. Understandable, but when I added the names of his other two kids, they were subsequently removed for 'not being notable'. Why even have a 'children' field if only the 'notable' ones get mentioned? I wanted to do a red link sort of thing but that was taken out. Additionally, Marsha's page is different and the two probable discussions are linked to this one. Tutelary (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Red links would work fine in the article itself, WP:REDNOT, WP:REDDEAL, as for the infobox, The template page for "Infobox person" specifically states the following in it’s description, “Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable, in which case, separate entries using Plainlist or Unbulleted lis. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable.” You may review it at the following link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_person - Hopefully this finally resolves the issue with what should be listed in the infobox in regards to Robin's children. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't agree as it's a bit ambiguous in my mind; are they only notable if they have an article at Wikipedia? Is that the determination? What if they played a crucial role in his death, such as they tried to save him, or something...gah, alright fine leave it out. But it's still quite confusing to me to have that wording of 'only notable children'. Shouldn't all his children be listed? After all, why even have the parameter if only the notable ones get listed? What if there were no notable ones? Would we just list the #? Gah, OK. But fine, I'll let it be. Tutelary (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey personally I'm more inclined to go your way, "3, Zak, Zelda & Cody" that is how I would like to see it listed. But what I like and what Wikipedia guidelines and regulations lets us do are two different things, so I added what I thought I could. Anyways, no harm no foul been a pleasure conversing with you on the matter. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, the template documentation is not a guideline, not a policy, and not a regulation. It's documentation of how to use the template, bundled with some suggestions that may or may not reflect a broad community consensus. We can do whatever we want, provided we reach a consensus, and provided we don't violate other policies (and the claim that naming Williams' other children in the infobox somehow violates WP:BLP is ridiculous). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion notwithstanding, the page is clear, even more so if you take a gander at the French one (we use a lot more words and tend to be much more specific) it has three sections to clarify how to use the template; Parameter = children, Example = 3, and for a lack of a better English word, The "part" the parameter plays = Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable... The template may not be a guideline, nor a policy, nor a regulation but like you said it is a documentation on how to use the template, hence, as the examples show, there are no suggestions. I agree a consensus should be reached by a large majority regarding its use, but the matter should be brought to another forum as it should affect all Infobox person templates, not just this one. Lastly, I fail to see where any mention of WP:BLP violations are mentioned in this section. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC) I hate typos --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anything you said has any bearing on this discussion. There's no policy or guideline, there's a template documentation. If you believe there is consensus for the template documentation to have the weight of a guideline, you should propose such a guideline. Until such a time, we're dealing with forming a local consensus. Template documentation is a suggestion, at best, for how to use a template, and more often than not has to do with how to technically use the template. As to the ridiculous BLP concerns that have been raised, please see the edit summaries during the edit war yesterday that triggered my request for page protection. There was a claim that naming Williams' other children raised privacy concerns. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Have I woken up in an alternate reality or something ... seems we both have different opinions on how to read a page, not to mention completely missing the point I was trying to convey. And considering the so called at best suggestion has been on that page for almost as long as you have been a user on Wikipedia and that it shouldn't be followed is somewhat of a conundrum is it not? Let us simply stick to what you want, consensus on what to put next to the parameter children. I was more on Tutelary's side with having all three children named, but I think first names are sufficient, Zak, Zelda, Cody. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

But who are you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter? I replied to his posting. I gave a description of the changes I had made as an opinion of what should be done in those categories. In my opinion the reason he locked down the page is because users kept changing the children section in the infobox. He obviously wants a clear consensus on what should be done in regards to the children, pun intended, and then punishment can be doled out. It takes a madman to know one. Does that answer your question? --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a bad imposition of full protection. Yes, lazy option. Most of the article was stable. Some mature discussion was underway on most matters. The number of real miscreants was small. Yes, punish them and let the good editors do their work. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Full protection is heavy handed and lazy. Sorry life and death are so messy. Hope those responsible enjoy a day of peace and quiet. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well that full protection is a bad option in this case. Shame it keeps all of the legitimate edits out. I've left Ymblanter a message about our comments here. With any luck, we'll get this lifted several hours early. Right now we're at 12 hours left in the editing ban. --CrunchySkies (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the fact that there's already a TOC section for Marriages and children, which includes excessive personal details, means that having "3" for the infobox is fine at this point. --Light show (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you just replied in the wrong place, but I have no opinion either way as to his number of children. Any edits I planned to do were more clerical in nature... it's just nice to be able to edit an article directly rather than have to wait because some people can't play with others. I wasn't trying to make it seem like I had a horse in the edit-war. But as it stands, I doubt we'll get this unprotected before the 24-hour limit, anyway. It seems the person who set full-protection had no real intention of restoring access to this article before the 24-hour cap, even with broad consensus by the 12-hour mark. Not to assume bad faith, but every indication would say that the individual just set the ban with the intention to walk away. As others have stated above, an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach, with unfortunate side effects. --CrunchySkies (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have encountered this Admin before, doing everything but make this a better encyclopaedia. It would not surprise me if my presence here was partly behind the full protection. The Admin involved took me to AN/I once, and lost. I embarrassed him. Since then he has shown spite against me more than once. But no other Admin will censure him, or reverse his actions. The Admin system here is broken. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In other news headlines today, we have a report from the Vatican that the Pope is Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Full Protection Full Protection seems very heavy handed and even after a request to unprotect, it appears that it will say that way. Whatever happened to admins using the tools to enforce editor consensus, instead of admins using the tool to do whatever they wish? The fall of Wikipedia continues.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 August 2014

In the Television section, "After the Laugh-In revivial ..." the final word should be corrected to "revival" VickiZ (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Done. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note about Parkinson's

At the bottom of the paragraph "Death" there is a note about his Parkinson's disease in a box. That box is broken on the latest Firefox and the line doesn't break... Could anyone fix it? Thanks Lapibacsi (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wording of "commit suicide"

As per a conversation that I just had with User:Coolcaesar, I had changed the wording to "died by suicide" which was reverted on the grounds of following normative writing conventions.

However, there are prominent guides for media writing from a well-known national suicide prevention body that recommend against using this wording. These recommendations are based on peer-reviewed research by the World Health Organisation and others, and that have been adopted, at least nominally, by at least one national press standards body (UK Press Association). I would, therefore, recommend that we avoid this wording even if others do continue to use "commit", which implies criminalisation from its etymology. MartinPaulEve (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To use that wording would probably require adjusting our overall MOSes (and how that would affect all other notable people that committed suicide). I understand that there's some caution on language, but I think that the discussion can't be limited to just this article, and requires a change/attention at the MOS level. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll raise it on MOS talk and see what consensus emerges. MartinPaulEve (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See also this pdf by the same organization. --83.117.104.167 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the words "by hanging" be included in this section? Usage is not consistent across articles: Virginia Woolf's and Vincent Van Gogh's articles include the method of suicide, whereas Ernest Hemingway's does not. I do not dispute adding this information in the article's body, just whether it should be included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:66:96:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Input from Koko (gorilla)

I feel the article about Koko the gorilla mourning Robin Williams death[3] should be included into the Death section as she did comment on his death with "CRY LIP" and expressed much emotion towards his passing. Koko met Robin Williams 13 years ago and clearly remembers him and her interaction with her as it had a profound effect on Koko. 108.8.123.100 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. A ridiculous bit of nonsense, of no relevance whatsoever to this article. There is precisely nothing in the story to indicate that Koko is capable of such a response - and frankly I find it distasteful that those responsible for looking after her should use the death of Williams as a means to free publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Andy sums it up as well as anyone can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, story doesn't purport to say Koko responded to Williams' death but the sadness of the women who took the phone call about Williams' death. Lip is the sign for woman. It certainly doesn't belong here either way. The story is far from distasteful though. Williams did commercials for their foundation and the story offers condolences to his family. Capeo (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In some sense, it's no different from everybody and their mother trying to put out a quote about their reaction to Williams' death. That info might belong in the Koko article. If there's a separate article about the countless reactions, it might have a place there. Not here, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not to be included here. Maybe a mention at Koko's article, in describing her awareness/intelligence, but I see no reason for it here. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Description of death scene

Because he was depressed, it's assumed he committed suicide, but not leaving a note, and the way the belt was wedged between door and door jam with him sitting in a chair, I'd say auto-erotic asphyxiation is much more likely. Just my 2 cents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.22.214 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that there is hardly a description of Williams' death, it needs to be extended as much as it can so readers can know exactly what happened. What there is now is just saying he was found hanging by a belt, if you watched the press release on Tuesday, you'll know that he was found sitting in a chair with the belt he used wedged in the closet door, with rigor mortis already set in. I know there's links to it and probably some already used in the article. The description needs more details. --Matt723star (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's far too much detail for an encyclopedia; that's details for forensics but too much for us. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps we could say more, but I'm certain this is going to be controversial for a variety of reasons. For instance, mentioned a couple of times elsewhere on this page is a recommendation by an independent organization for the reporting of suicides in the media so as to mitigate the risk of copycat suicides. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Look at the page for Sylvia Plath, her suicide is, sadly, considered "iconic" for the style in which she chose to go out, but in that article it perfectly describes her making her kids breakfast for the next morning, sealing her doors and windows shut, and then turning on the gas and placing her upper body in the oven. --Matt723star (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It might be better to wait for the final forensic report before (or if) adding a lot of gruesome detail. As regards Plath, sticking one's head in the oven sounds less iconic and more like darkly humorous cliché. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well you know what I mean. She is a poetic icon for many, though her suicide gained more fame than she did during her lifetime. I'm just saying, people want to know what the celebrity, whoever it might be, was doing up until that final moment of their life, and how they went out. --Matt723star (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Death by hanging by a belt seems fairly explicit. To those who want more info, I could quote John Wayne in The Searchers: "Do I have to draw ya a picture?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's still something. --Matt723star (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose adding the full details (1) until the full forensic report is released and reported on in the mainstream media, and (2) until there's a proper discussion of the merits of putting in the full details that takes into consideration the copycat suicide concerns that have been voiced elsewhere on this page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, if you look closely, the authorities are hedging a bit, saying that the preliminary investigation results are "consistent" with suicide. They're not saying flat-out unequivocally that it was suicide.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support waiting till the full details/reports are out so we can make sure we aren't putting information that turns out to be wrong. However, I would say that we should not be concerned with copycat suicide - we are making an encyclopedia and should be informative, putting up information is not the same as encouraging someone to go out and kill themselves that way - we have articles on murderers, murders, poisons, etc. all of which could inspire one to go out and do likewise, I don't think such articles should be curtailed on the basis of that - the same applies here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying we should keep info out because of that concern. Rather, we should consider tailoring our release of information. This isn't the same as providing information about how to kill people... suicides are a rather different animal. I know I'll probably attract cries of WP:NOTCENSORED with this, but that isn't a license to just blast out whatever. Really, we need to have an honest discussion of the recommendations and how—if at all—we should apply them to the coverage in this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Facts are facts and California law makes these factual details of death public facts, with indisputably authoritative reference.

Those concerned with other parties' policies on suicide reporting might consider this: if Wikipedia can't get it right, curious will find what they are looking for elsewhere, on sites with nowhere near Wikipedia's scrupulous attention to verifiable truth. Let's get it right here and stop fretting. - Paulscrawl (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, at this point it shouldn't go beyond what the cop stated yesterday, as what he said is literally all we know for sure at this point. As for copycats, I doubt Wikipedia would be the first place the lemmings would look for "guidance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My point precisely, "indisputably authoritative reference" - that would be officially released details only, with no journalistic interpolations or secondary cites.- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph about the death reads like a police report. A lot of these details are excessive and anyone that curious can simply read the linked source. I propose trimming useless trivia. --Light show (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's released to the public doesn't mean it has to be reported. The details are released by law - we don't have to have every specific graphic detail included. Death by asphyxia is entirely fine, with a link to the reference where those who are curious can find out all the graphic details they want. Just because we're not censored doesn't mean we have to include every detail. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And the wrist injuries are (back?) in now. I don't think they belong until some authority attributes some significance to them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Announced by the coroner's office, so clearly they see significance or they would not have announced the detail. WWGB (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't follow that we need to report it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Need" isn't a wikipedia rationale. This is a BLP. He killed himself, reliable sources have reported the details, they are relevant to the article, and stating the facts from reliable sources isn't injurious to his reputation. The section on his death is very brief as it is right now, it lists the bare minimum details of the circumstances of his death, no more or less is really...well...'needed'. Anastrophe (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There's still no rational basis for including the wrist injuries at this time. There has been no real significance attributed to them, just a lot of speculation. We are an encyclopedia, not TMZ. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Significance is determined by the prevalence of the material as found in reliable sources. Many, many reliable sources have reported this - all the major news outlets, not TMZ alone. That's the significance. There is no other interpretation of significance in wikiland. Anastrophe (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But WP is not a newspaper and doesn't report news stories just because its big news. Considering that the many links in the section can take anyone to the minute details, a brief coverage at this point is reasonable. --Light show (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And as it stands at this moment, it has the appropriate balance between being too brief, and too detailed. Anastrophe (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We could report it, but I think the problem is that this will attract editors that aren't paying attention to this page to add that he tried to slit his wrists before hanging himself, which hasn't been shown turn - there was a knife, there were cuts, but that doesn't mean that he tries to commit suicide first by slitting wrists. I would suggest that these details should be added only after they complete the toxicology tests and make a statement about whether he was any medication or drug influence or lack thereof, and see if they connect the knife/cuts to that. (A similar case happened with the Sandy Hook shooter - they found violent video games in his home and press wanted to make that connection but once the final report was out, they determined there was no connection. Same could happen here). --MASEM (t) 05:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is nothing more than juxtaposing verifiable information in a manner that causes our readers to draw a conclusion that isn't reflected in reliable sources. Injuries to the arms and a pocket knife nearby at the scene of a suicide is all but saying he tried to slit his wrists. The way it's presented smacks of original synthesis, or at least general OR. It is especially important we exercise caution here because this is a BDP. The knife and arm injuries should be kept out for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. There is zero synthesis or original research - this is information exactly as has been reported by the police, and then by the news media. The synthesis you are describing is what you are inferring from the information presented. The information implies nothing however. You are responsible for your inferrence. Not wikipedia. Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Except the goal of the news media is to sensationalize the news, not just report it. They want viewers where the police want detailed facts only. Big difference. "If it bleeds, it leads."--Light show (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that this is precisely how the police reported it in the press conference. He hung himself. There were superficial cuts on his wrists, and a pen knife was nearby. That's all they said. And that's all that the press has reported. Primary source, to secondary source, to encyclopedia. It's pretty apparent that some editors don't like the details as reported by virtually every reliable news source - AP, Reuters, ABC news, NBC news, CBS news - which are verbatim from the primary source. That's irrelevant. This is what was reported. The material draws no conclusions, no synthesis, nor OR. It's just stating what the police stated, via the reliable news media. If the material in the encyclopedia said "with cuts on his wrists, and a pen knife nearby, it appears that he tried to slit his wrists unsuccessfully before hanging himself" - well, you'd have something to argue. It does not. That some editors infer something from what is not implied is interesting, but not relevant to the encyclopedia. But that's my last word on it, I have no dog in this fight. I'm saddened that he took his own life.Anastrophe (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very incisive comments. That the coroner reported the cuts and knife make their presence significant. The coroner did not report on the colour of his shirt, or whether he was barefoot, as those matters were not considered significant to mention. Some editors seem worried about synthesis or original research, where neither of those issues are relevant to the matter of the cuts and knife. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually saying that claiming there were wounds on his arms and a pocket knife was found nearby does not lead you to conclude he attempted to slash his wrists? Any reader who even has a clue what suicide is will automatically infer that. It's inappropriate for us to present this sort of synthesis in this article, which is governed by WP:BDP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anastrophe, for exhaustively outlining the obvious fact: "It's pretty apparent that some editors don't like the details as reported by virtually every reliable news source - AP, Reuters, ABC news, NBC news, CBS news - which are verbatim from the primary source. That's irrelevant. This is what was reported." The question remains, which editor(s) think they own this article. - Paulscrawl (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection

Does anyone have a clue why the article was protected? It mentioned lede, but the only discussion is about whether to note news stories about a knife and cuts in the Death section. In any case, that minor a topic couldn't trigger full protection. --Light show (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I requested it during the edit war over the children parameter in the infobox, which I note has still not been discussed by anyone other than myself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You asked for protection of an article over an infobox parameter? Really? Was that the reason? I don't buy it, in light of your comments above. Paulscrawl (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Money troubles

I noticed the article goes into Williams' alleged money troubles but doesn't mention that his rep denied this. There's a million RS for the denial but this one http://www.businessinsider.com/robin-williams-rep-denies-money-trouble-reports-2014-8 seems to go into the most depth. There should probably be a sentence in the money trouble paragraph at least mentioning the denial. Capeo (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is tangible evidence of money troubles, and not just hearsay voiced as "Oh, he's selling a house, he must be in financial trouble", then the article needs fixing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Forbes estimates he still had a net worth of about 50 mil. And half the attributions about money troubles come from an article using unnamed "friends" as sources.Capeo (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Then it's the same problem as with the alleged plagiarism - broad-stroke accusations with no specifics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion there's way too much emphasis on the money troubles currently. A simple mention of his alleged financial issues followed by his rep's denial, in one sentence, should be sufficient. Right now that section is a bunch of quotes of people's speculations Capeo (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. And this is where full protection becomes a double-edged sword. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's back to semi now is it not? I cringe at the idea of making a change to this article right now. I've lurked for years and mostly asked for changes on the talkpage or made innocuous edits to pages nobody cares about. If by tomorrow nobody has addressed his reps response to the story of Williams financial troubles I'll take a shot at integrating that source into the paragraph. Right now though it's Friday, gorgeous out and I just poured my second scotch so I'm going to refrain from Wikipedia for the evening to spare us all ;) Capeo (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction section regarding illness and death

Masem, you reverted my edit on the following grounds,

I'm reverting that, only because the language is better for the lead - we don't need to say that the health problems were reported by asst or wife - that's better in body.

I did not enter the initial wording of assistant. It was already there I only moved the citation to the correct area, so that assistant part has been there for quite some time and you let it sit there. I added his widow (not wife) as she is the one who brought forth the information of his having Parkinson’s, which was not cited by anyone in that paragraph. So I went and got the reference and added it. Reworded the paragraph so it worked with what everyone else added. If you think not mentioning his widow is the one who broke the news of him suffering from Parkinson's, you should stick to editing Dr. Seuss books. Furthermore, on the reference of his death, it does not say he committed suicide, it says he apparently hanged himself, so the citation source was corrected.

I am getting a little tired of the personal attacks and narcissist views. I think I am done trying to bring positive contributions to this article, some of you seem to want to be in control of it.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, that should of been a "the", not "your", on that last bit, definitely was not directed at you Masem, and I missed the "some of" as well, my apologies on that. But there are a few on here trying to control everything.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article's body. The body mentions who reported what Williams had and sourced there (leads do not need sourcing save for direct quotes). As the lead should be tight language, as long as it is verified that Williams had depression and Parkinson's, it makes no sense to "waste" the prime space of the lead to go into the details of who reported that. Also, the wording that has "substance abuser" is a bit harsh. There's a difference between someone that had substance abuse, and someone who is a substance abuser. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough ... the abuser part wasn't mine, someone edited my original edit when I edited drug and alcohol addiction to chronic substance abuse. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

One last thing, when reverting my edit, it now again states he committed suicide, which is incorrect (even on the citation used). The deputy coroner was very careful with his statement, "appeared to have hanged himself". That is the most reliable source. To state any differently is pure tabloidism. There will be a lot of people who will need to take a very hard look in the mirror if turns out to be death by misadventure (not sure if you have that in the US but we do in Canada) on the coroner's report.

I don't question that there's a slim possibly that he might have tripped and fell and died by accident, but given that we have a preliminary ruling of being suicide, and every highly reliable source (NYTimes, BBC, etc.) is calling it the same, that's not a wrongful statement. I am confident forensics and the coroner looked at the entire scene and tried to figure out what other possible ways it could have happened, before issuing the initial call of suicide. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is the coroner never stated it was in fact a suicide, the only reason a statement was made at all, was due to the fact it was a high profile case. And do to its sensitivity the coroner used the appropriate term, appeared to have hanged himself. If you want to join the sheep and turn Wikipedia into a tabloid, by all means go ahead, I for one want no part of it. Anyone who has studied law (and actually paid attention at the consequences of false reporting), would never post such a blatant yet to be substantiated fact. Anyone who has studied behavioral psychology would never have posted that because it could have been accidental (ever heard of erotic asphyxiation). That would more then explain the near seating position on the chair. Anyways, knock yourself out with the sensationalism, you are making a mockery of the term encyclopedia. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have faith in the forensics people that if there was even a reasonable chance that this was anything other than suicide, they would have written the cause of death in broader terms to not implicate that he did this to himself purposely. And remember , they did write it without 100% certainty (they are pending toxicology results and the like), so they may prove themselves wrong later, which happens. But it is a sensitive issue about how he died that they wouldn't have used language that suggested suicide without being strongly assured that was the most likely cause. And the RSes that are repeating suicide are the ones farthest from sensationalism reporting and that do have a reputation of their own they protect. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Substance abuse

Is this really the most neutral way to inform the user of his drug use? Especially in the context of appearing literally right before mentioning his suicide, it seems to be suggesting a direct connection.

I'm not saying we shouldn't mention it, but the way it's written right now, seems like someone was trying to suggest the two things are directly related with no evidence or citation. "Abuse" is a highly subjective word to use as well, especially in the summary at the top, maybe it should be in it's own section, or grouped with something else in the page. Megaspel (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 August 2014

Please restore one sentence to article, with revised reference, to state of article before sentence deleted (without comment or discussion) and article protected.

See discussion on Talk page section: Restore highly meaningful quote from reliable source: "battling severe depression" - thank you!

Last paragraph of Robin_Williams#Addiction_and_health_problems Illness and health problems section, please restore final sentence and (improved) reference:

According to his publicist, Williams was "battling severe depression."

Thank you!

Paulscrawl (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• We wouldn't use "battling" as it is tabloidese. We also already have too many quotes. Can you suggest a better wording? --John (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"We" wouldn't? Well I would. And I have just as much editorial judgment as anyone else here. Moreover, I have considerable , uhm, expertise, in depression and I want his reported correctly, literally, in this case, from the best source we have available.

Remove another quote then if you think one more will tilt the entire balance of this article. THIS, however, is a highly significant quote and not at all tabloidese, not, at least, according to the editors of the New York Times obituary, renowned for getting it right the first time. I think they are far more expert at these judgments than you or I.

If it were not directly quoted it would be chopped up in future edits. Hello, this is the one and only place in the article where his depression is addressed at all, other than mere mention in lead. THIS is the place to get it exactly right by exact quotation. Please reconsider the consequences of mealy-mouthed paraphrase - if it is not made known that he was literally "battling severe depression" (have you ever? do you know what you are dealing with here?) very near the time of death than many might think his suicide a mere self-indulgence or drunken act. The man literally lost his battle with severe depression. We know that now.

What is the fear of putting that fact in the memorable words we have before us? Don't be afraid of quoting the words, "battling severe depression" - they won't kill you, but reading them just might help save someone else. Paulscrawl (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How very moving. As an encyclopaedia, we do not use mealy-mouthed euphemisms or tabloidese, even if a newspaper has. --John (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How very sarcastic. How about 'dealing with severe depression' - does that work for YOU? Paulscrawl (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder uses "suffering from" which seems ok. Alternatively I would propose "being treated for", if the sources support that. --John (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's make it 'suffering from severe depression' then - source does not indicate whether or not receiving treatment for severe depression. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I saw acknowledgment of my last edit hours ago. Can this be done, now, please? After Masem's helpful last edit, it appears Parkinson's disease was precipitating cause, just by juxtaposition. Important to add following agreed upon paraphrase as last sentence of preceding (penultimate) paragraph:

According to his publicist, Williams was suffering from severe depression.

Itzkoff, Dave; Fitzsimmons, Emma G. (August 11, 2014). "Robin Williams, Oscar-Winning Comedian, Dies at 63". The New York Times. Retrieved August 11, 2014.

Appreciate your time. Thanks again. Paulscrawl (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus seeking

Please weigh in on restoration (not new addition, just better source and language) of article's second mention of depression, as sourced and phrased per suggestion of admin (just above).

See context without any mention of his suffering from severe depression: Robin_Williams#Addiction_and_health_problems. Does suicide without depression make any sense to you? This is the place for second mention, with reliable source attesting he was suffering from severe depression just before his suicide. Makes a little more sense, doesn't it?

Support addition of sentence and source immediately above -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait until toxicology report is out to determine if there was anything in his system (or lack of medicine) that was considered part of the reason he might have committed suicide. (This is considering the established, "pre-2014" depression aspect already documented, and more on the months/days before he died.) If toxicology comes with nothing clear about any recent depression issues, then we should avoid asserting it again. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Certainly it will be interesting to later add any details of any alcohol, illicit drug, &/or pharmaceutical drug use when the toxicology report comes in. But this makes no sense: "If toxicology comes with nothing clear about any recent depression issues, then we should avoid asserting it again." I can guarantee you it won't, as there are no standardized DNA, blood, or tissue tests for depression. Here is a sample toxicology report. All chemical analysis, no psychological profile. Currently, the illness section contains absolutely no mention whatsoever of depression, extremely widely reported by his publicist no less, and that is plain wrong as it makes the illness section incomplete and unbalanced, per WP:WEIGHT. The one previous mention of depression in the article does not mention his severely depressed state of mind just before suicide. Toxicology report won't change that fact and no need for any further delay in reporting it. While I disagree with your rationale, I appreciate your time in expressing your views. Paulscrawl (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

However, if, for example, he was on medication to deal with depression and he had not taken his dosage for several days, the toxicology report would indicate that, thus likely leading the investigators to say that was a contributing factor. Or perhaps he had his medication but he also mixed in something that would counter/imbalance the effects. Between what his doctor would have expected his state to be in, and what the toxicology report would report about if that agrees with what the doctor had prescribed Williams to deal with, we would then have a better idea if his depression was the primary reason his took his life. To include it now would be the same as including the reports about the cuts on his wrists and the penknife - for mass media that is sensational journalism, for an encyclopedia that is begging the question and edging on original research. We can wait two weeks until the reports on his death are "set in stone" from all these reports. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is no deadline and Wikipedia is a work in progress. The claim that the article somehow violates WP:DUE by not mentioning something right now (when that something is fairly speculative and of questionable relevance to the section itself) is nonsensical. We can wait. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonsensical? His widow was not speculating and she thought his depression relevant.In the cited source for the Parkinson's revelation: "Susan Schneider said her husband had been sober but "not yet ready to share publicly" his struggles with Parkinson's. She added that he had also been suffering from anxiety and depression." Adding those last 5 words would better express full reality as closest eyewitness to his life knew it. Leaving them out is arbitrarily selective editing. We'll have no better source and waiting solves absolutely nothing. Paulscrawl (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It is important to make it clear if it is the case that, given he was likely feeling depression at the time, if there was any otherwise-unnatural chemical imbalance in his system due to taking or not taking medication or other substances, that would have thrown out his clarity of thought and lead to him committing suicide. No one is arguing in the broad time frame of days and months before this, he was likely still suffering depression, but that's a point stated already. What is important is how much of that was the factor at the immediate time of his death. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 DoneThank you, Masem, for your recent edit, "sourcing things about depression and impact of Parkinson's diagnosis" (and thanks WWGB for copy edit). The restored missing context of recent severe depression greatly improves continuity and balanced use of sources and does nothing to imply cause of death. If you'll maintain at least the first part (severe depression) I'm done here. Thanks again for keeping an open mind, Paul - Paulscrawl (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to be clear that what I added w/ sources was specifically an undefined period but likely on the order of months before August 2014 and that is become a subjection of discussion around news sources. What this isn't is saying "he took his life because he was depressed." If that depression was a factor (given what we can expect the toxicology report given) in the actual act of his death, that's different but we have nothing to immediately connect the two without engaging OR. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Today's revelation about Parkinson's certainly could figure into the story. That came three days after the initial report, so we may be in for yet more surprises in the coming days and weeks. There have been commentators pointing out how depression can be connected with addiction, with heart surgery, and with Parkinson's. If someone is already a depression sufferer, those additional factors can add up to a breaking point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We can wait on this. It's not essential to responsible coverage of this story. We aren't a newspaper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Influence

"Williams's on-stage energy and improvisational skill became a model for a new generation of stand-up comedians, including Steve Martin and Andy Kaufman." I am pretty sure those two men are older, and began their style, before they ever met Robin Williams! Perhaps better examples are Jim Carrey or Russell Brand...but that would require citations. 24.167.52.195 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)