Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Copycat suicides

I had added this sentence which was reverted by FlightTime:
Williams' suicide was extensively covered in the media, and a 2018 study found an almost 10% increase in suicides in the months following his death.[1]
These studies were widely covered in the media:

"Increase in suicides the months after the death of Robin Williams in the US", PLOS One

"Media coverage of Robin Williams’ suicide in the United States: A contributor to contagion?" , PLOS One

"Suicide Mortality in Canada after the Death of Robin Williams, in the Context of High-Fidelity to Suicide Reporting Guidelines in the Canadian Media", Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

"Suicides in Australia following media reports of the death of Robin Williams", Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A correlation does not mean causation. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
To me, these are articles that may be better on Copycat suicide. --Masem (t) 02:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
They don't even belong there unless there is evidence the increases were CAUSED by Williams' suicide. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As long as these are peer-reviewed papers that simply document that that suicide rates increased following media coverage of Williams' death, it would not be inappropriate to use them as an example of observed cases of copycat suicides. It would not be our place to debate the coorelation vs causation conclusions they may have research if they have been peer-reviewed. --Masem (t) 03:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No. That would be wrong. Rates may have increased for all sorts of reasons. The articles would have to specifically say that they were cases of copycat suicides. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
My take on those articles is that is exactly what they are saying, within statistical model analysis. Particularly the third paper which talks about how Canadian media adjusted how they reported suicides after Williams' death which appears to decrease the rate of suicides. Its nearly impossible , from what I'm ready at copycat suicides, to attribute any specific suicide to being a direct copycat of one reported in the media, its simply the effect that reporting of major suicides can cause more suicides (it doesn't have to be by the method, in contrast to "copycat murders" or something like that). --Masem (t) 05:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The correlation/causation thing is very important. We must not speculate. There may have been other well published suicides local to the areas concerned that somehow led to others committing suicide. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
My point is these papers are doing whatever correlation/causation issue there is, not any WP editor. That they (appear to be) peer-reviewed studies, they are fully valid to be considered for inclusion. It would be a WP editor problem if all we used were suicide rates that were published and said "hey, look, after Williams' death, they spiked", that's OR and a problem. (These papers do seem to be trying to statistically show that there's something to the causation issue by showing the increase is statistically significant as well) --Masem (t) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Masem, sorry for pinging you twice. Are you satisfied with the current state? If you think it's better at Copycat suicide, then I'll cheerfully defer to your judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
It would be a wholly separate discussion to see if there is sufficient reliable sourcing (and this might lean into MEDRS quality ones) that Williams' suicide (along with others) led to the media adopting a more careful tone on reporting suicides. But it would have to be specific on Williams' death being a catalyst, not just one example. Otherwise that's all mostly for copycat suicide. --Masem (t) 00:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Suicide reporting changed in 2018

I found sources confirming my claim that suicide reporting changed after the suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain.[2][3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Who? And then, obviously, where? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
What else could I possibly be asking than who are the people you named in that comment. And where did that occur? HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I was reading too much into it. I didn't think you'd be asking when I gave you their names. Kate Spade was an American fashion designer who killed herself on June 5, 2018; Anthony Bourdain was an American celebrity chef who killed himself three days later. I see there was discussion in Australia about suicide reporting following Spade and Bourdain's death, but not much compared to the States: "Suicide reporting", Australia Broadcasting Corporation. Australian newspapers may have been ahead of the curve when reporting on Robin Williams' suicide, but I don't have access to the following study to see what it says about the use of "commit suicide": Australia's Mindframe guidelines provide media professionals with advice on ways to safely report on suicide ... In general, there were high levels of adherence to the Mindframe guidelines, with 67% of articles adhering to at least eight (80%) of the Mindframe guidelines."Coverage of Robin Williams' suicide in Australian newspapers" Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
The opening of that comment suggests that you expect that all other editors think just like you. We don't. I'm not saying one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. Just that there are many different views of the world to be held. One simple example of this is that I have absolutely no interest in American fashion designers or celebrity chefs. Another is that I don't like being repeatedly told that language I have used with absolutely no intention of offending anyone for over 70 years has suddenly become unacceptable. Nobody I know in my cohort is playing your game of political correctness, and most of us find such behaviour quite irksome. I am getting sick of this, and often feel like abandoning this discussion, but would not want such behaviour on my part to be read as approval of your position. How can I make sure a future absence of comment from me here is not seen as agreement with you? HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think there is still some confusion here. I provided sources for my comments about Spade and Bourdain, sources which described who they are, and I mistakenly thought I had wikilinked to Spade and Bourdain in previous comments more recently. I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm sorry if you feel attacked, but regardless of what your feelings are about the words, Wikipedia goes by the RS, which here are dictionaries, style guides, and in this case the language of the news sources. What I would hope that you would understand is that there is a difference between impact and intent when it comes to language like this. Please understand that these words did not suddenly become unacceptable; they were always problematic, and we are just now realizing that. The delay is often because marginalized communities have less influence over the culture. If you like we can discuss this more on one of our talk pages. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The whole point of the RFC about "commit suicide" was to see if the community felt there was enough consensus in style guides as to deem "commit suicide" as language to avoid, and that answer was "no". (This is in contrast to the trend on the current wheelchair-bound RFC at WT:MOS, where it is clear most editors agree that there is style guide language to support the avoidance of "wheelchair-bound", the debate there now at the edge cases). The RFC on suicide did say discussion can continue for specific pages as necessary, but there was nothing to be read there that WP was being directed by style guides to change the wording "commit suicide" everywhere. That's the whole issue is that you're starting from the presumption that we have to treat these words as problematic, which is against the result of the RFC. We can talk about usage in sources specific to Williams, but we shouldn't be considering problematic factors here because the community has already deemed that a non-factor on "commit suicide". --Masem (t) 03:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I corrected my comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I completely disagree that these words were always problematic. Families of people I knew who committed suicide use the expression. Please be more careful when making such absolute statements. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Language is something we create, and words can mean whatever we choose, but Wikipedia goes by the RS, not the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. WP:VERIFYOR. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I still completely disagree that these words were ALWAYS problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Masem, can you please stop misrepresenting the RFC. As WAID noted above at 02:45, 9 November 2021, "The closing statement from that RFC didn't say that the phrase is inoffensive or neutral". We get that you guys disagree on whether the words are problematic or not, but all of you need to move on from arguing among yourselves about it. Someone elsewhere referred to "writing great wrongs" as though that was a problem attitude of those arguing that alternative wording would be better. HiLo48's comment above is standard and unoriginal culture war rhetoric, which belongs on some social media forum, not article talk pages. The way we've stopped Wikipedians arguing among themselves over facts is by requiring they cite reliable published sources and not make things up themselves. Masem wrote above The whole point of the RFC about "commit suicide" was to see if the community felt there was enough consensus in style guides as to deem "commit suicide" as language to avoid, and that answer was "no". Did you proofread that before posting? It says "consensus in style guides", not "consensus among editors". Of course there is consensus in style guides. I'm not aware of a single style guide that recommends "commit suicide". We have two dictionaries that flag it offensive. And Mark added the OED to confirm what the word "commit" means in that phrase. Instead, it seems, Wikipedians think they are better language experts than the OED and argue and argue their own original research definitions of the words. Honestly, it is like seeing Wikipedians argue about whether facemasks are effective wrt covid transmission rather than find some experts and go with what they say. You know, the tendentious editors on Wikipedia are generally the ones who don't align with the experts. I've no idea how MOS got into this original-research lets-ask-the-ignorant mindset but it is clear that it just causes years and years of dispute. Move on. -- Colin°Talk 18:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to think of a polite way of responding to being called ignorant. I wonder why those who are so determined to prove that "committed suicide" is offensive insist on offending others while doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

New article about his cause of death

Can anyone access the study article below? We may need to change some language even before an RFC.
"Robin’s Wish and the Complex Causal Web of Death by Suicide"

And other than the cited editorial by his wife, here is some more language:
Sources connected with the Williams family tell TMZ … Lewy Body Dementia was the “key factor” they believe drove him to kill himself. We’re told Robin’s doctors agree that the disease was the critical factor leading to his suicide.[4]
Williams’ doctors believe that Lewy body dementia “was the critical factor” that led to his suicide.[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Changed section heading Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  • In all honesty, I wonder if it can truly be considered a suicide if his reason for doing so was related to his dementia. It almost sounds more like "death by dementia". Not that that's an actual thing, framing it like that may be a compromise.-- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • From all I can see of that article (the abstract), they aren't trying to claim there was another method of death besides suicide, just that rather than depression (the usual reason behind most suicides), they are identifying that this was a case where dementia likely was the cause. But the death was still a suicide, period. --Masem (t) 22:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      It sounds to me like the article is criticizing the dismissal of depression as a possible factor in his suicide. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      Given what we know about DLB, anxiety/agitation/paranoia/fear-related emotions may have been a more significant factor. (That is, statistically speaking, this is a huge and dangerous problem in advanced DLB; I of course have no magic insight into any particular person's circumstances.) The idea that suicide is primarily or exclusively caused by depression is well-entrenched in popular culture, but it's not really true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    "Death by dementia" is an actual thing. Dementia is a neurodegenerative disease, and eventually the brain degenerates enough that it can't support basic functions (like swallowing or breathing). However, suicide is generally considered to be more like a "complication of dementia" than a direct effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Dementia is not a neurodegenerative disease. It's just often one of their many non-fatal effects, which only happen to coincide with death because they're chronic. Replace "dementia" with "Alzheimer's", though, and you make a good point. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

It is hard to believe this discussion is still happening. I don't see anything contentious in the body of the article, but the lead now says:

On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died by suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California after having lived with undiagnosed Lewy body disease.

That's quite awkward (having lived with ? No mention it was undiagnosed? When the fact that he never got a correct diagnosis was a factor in the neuropsychiatric issues? Agree with Masem and WAID re the emphasis or not on depression.) My suggestion is:

At the time of his death at his home in Paradise Cay, California on August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams had been diagnosed with early-stage Parkinson's disease. The final autopsy report concluded his death was a suicide resulting from asphyxia due to hanging; his wife and the autopsy both mentioned he had undiagnosed Lewy body disease.

Do as you will with that; I am not watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Suicide resulting from" reads wrong to me. The suicide wasn't caused by the hanging, the suicide was carried out by hanging. --Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that the lead needs to get into specific details like "asphyxia due to hanging". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with WAID about specifics of the suicide in the lead. The body notes the health issues and Parkinson diagnosis before then covering his death and autopsy findings. So it seems odd to jumble that order. How about:

In 2013, Williams developed symptoms that by April 2014 were diagnosed as Parkinson's disease. On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died by suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His autopsy report noted undiagnosed Lewy body disease.

-- Colin°Talk 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

He didn't "die by suicide". It wasn't something that happened to him. He killed himself. If you can't bring yourself to say "commit suicide", then just come out and say "killed himself". --Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
...and it doesn't say that it was just something that passively happened to him, so that's okay. It says he died (an intransitive verb, so not passive voice), and the method ("by") was suicide. I post this note by typing on my laptop. You read this by using the internet. He died by suicide. It's all the same grammar construction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It might make more sense to you if you see the sentence with a synonym: "He died by self-slaughter." Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
That usage of "died by" still reads as wrong to me. I just can't think of anything that would come after "by" that sounds right. I know "died from" and "died of", but not "died by".--Khajidha (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand. It will take getting used to, but that's the standard construction in professional publications now.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
When I see the words "died by" I think of the older expression "died by his own hand". I really doubt that's what its proponents want. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing any style guide recommend against "died by his own hand". Have you seen any?
I now wonder whether that old idiom was the inspiration for "died by suicide" (a blunter phrase). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

On August 11, 2014, Williams, who had a Lewy body disease, hanged himself at his Paradise Cay home.

That's what I'd tell a student who wanted to know fast. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the method used is undue, and based on suicide reporting guidelines I don't think we should foreground this information. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know we had suicide reporting guidelines. I know I've seen hangings (and other ways) in many entertainers' leads. Link? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
We don't have any guidelines. The only type of consensus-based advice is from the RFC that affirmed that there is no issue with using "commit suicide", and otherwise delegating to specific article talk pages to decide the best form. We don't have any type of language-awareness guideline for suicides compared to something like WP:GENDERID or WP:DEADNAME. --Masem (t) 19:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. My issue with "committed suicide" or "died by suicide" is more the relative length and vagueness, but avoiding the culture war between them is another fine reason to say he hanged himself, I think. Rozz Williams prominently did the same in his California home. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Rozz Williams#Suicide is an instruction manual for what not to do according to reportingonsuicide.org. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Double wow! That website doesn't even want us to relay the location. Maybe best drop the date, too, lest anyone get impressionable on Hulk Hogan's birthday. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Masem, you keep repeating a non factual summary of the RFC, which did not "affirm[] that there is no issue with using "commit suicide". When you keep repeating things that are not true, that are easily verified as being not true, and are repeatedly reminded by multiple editors they are not true, it starts heading towards topic ban territory. Perhaps, if you are unable to contain your disappointment that the RFC results were not all you hoped they'd be, you should leave the summarising of them to other editors. Please drop it.
Wrt editorial word choices, not everything revolves round MOS. We all have access to dictionaries and other external resources and there is no rule against citing them in discussions when considering what to write. Editors already present in this discussion know very well that Kolya was referring to external guidelines, though his post could have been clearer. I agree that hanged himself is direct, but then so is killed himself, which would get my vote. However, I don't have a problem accepting words and phrases that sound a little novel to my ear, because a changing vocabulary is normal, and history tends to mock those who make a fuss about new-fangled words. I think we should bear in mind why newspapers have these reporting guidelines about method, and consider how best to fit that into a comprehensive encyclopaedia article. Kolya's argument "I don't think we should foreground this information" seems a reasonable position on the spectrum of options. I think that aside from morbid curiosity, the method is likely to diminish in WP:WEIGHT importance over time, as does the cause of death. Aside from the documentary "Robin’s Wish" and the raised awareness of LBD, the bulk of published material on Williams focuses on his role as an actor and comedian. That this talk page spends so much time on a minor aspect of the subject is pathological. -- Colin°Talk 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
From the close "The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed." I WROTE the damn RFC, and that was the primary question of whether we should avoid that language or not, as a Wikipedia-wide guideline. That close summarizes as I said, that the community sees no issue with the wording to make mass scale changes, but leaves it to individual article talk pages to discuss the nature. There is no point that globally we have made "commit suicide" wording to avoid. --Masem (t) 15:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
You wrote the RFC question, but you don't always get the answer you want and it seems you have failed to accept or understand the result. There was indeed no consensus to add "commit suicide" to any MOS guidance on words that should/must be avoided. That is entirely not the same as saying the community 'affirmed that there is no issue with using "commit suicide"'. Furthermore, InedibleHulk didn't ask about the phrase that so enflames you, but had moved on to choices of alternatives or increased brevity for the whole sentence. The issue which sparked mention of reporting guidelines was whether to mention the method in the lead, which the RFC did not address at all. Your contribution was therefore doubly unhelpful. -- Colin°Talk 16:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
My answer to IH was to point out the only thing we have about discussing suicide is the result of that RFC. I didn't say it that it was a MOS, just to point out that we had a very publicized RFC to that matter to lay to rest the question that editors like Koyla had kept bringing over and over on this and other pages (the assertion that "commit suicide" should be avoided), which was wearing down experienced editors which had previously run many many other RFCs (less publicly visible) that affirmed the same result as this last RFC. Eg I won't ping but I know SandyGeorgia had grown quite tired of that and since unwatched this page because of that (see archives). --Masem (t) 16:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I know you wanted to 'win' the battle and hope we'd "commit[] language to the MOS reflecting this consensus, [] to eliminate continued edit warring over the term". That isn't what you got and MOS neither disapproves of nor approves of any particular wording choices. The closer did not write "The community has affirmed it has no issue with 'commit suicide' and any editor replacing that term on the grounds that they have an issue with it may be reverted." The closer anticipated future discussions on article talk pages and gave some suggestions about these may be resolved. And those suggestions were applied above when we agreed on alternative wording. Masem, it takes two to edit war and disagree about changes. You have been resisting change to the language on this page longer than Koyla has been editing. I put it to you that the problem here is not the claims, by multiple independent editors, over many years, that certain language choices are problematic and trivially resolvable. It isn't like you are fighting a worthy battle against supporters of weird diets and anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. You are they guy arguing the dictionaries are wrong. -- Colin°Talk 17:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Uh, no, don't make assumptions of what I wanted or considered the RFC a victory or not. While having something cemented in MOS would have been preferred, having the wider community agree to the principle that several past smaller discussions since 2014 that "commit suicide" is not language to avoid was still a good result, as it gave us a consensus to point to if an editor came by and claimed that we should not be using the term. (Being in MOS would be easier to explain details, but that doesn't change the RFC outcome- and I do see that the MOSMED has recently been updated to include this) And no, we should not be progressive and change language just because multiple editors (and in this case, many new or IP editors) come by to claim language is offensive and needs to be changed - its why we have RFCs to determine if certain wording should be avoided (usually going off style guides from external sources to judge). The net problem over the last 6-7 years (since at least 2014) is that we have editors that object to "commit suicide", which does reflect some newer external style guidelines, but their methods to try to force a change on WP has been bludgeoning the issue and making WP be progressive in the matter, rather than seeking a consensus as we normally do to discuss language choices that had changed over time. This forced other editors to bring forwards RFC to show (at limited participate) there was no reason to change. That culminated in the VPP RFC I started because it was getting to the point of straw-breaking-the-camel's-back situation, editors were tired of having to reiterate this. That we got a well-advertised, well-participated RFC that established where the situation was as of the RFC is what I was seeking, so that we don't lose experienced editors tired of dealing with the same arguments over and over. --Masem (t) 20:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not making assumptions of what you wanted. You explicitly stated what you wanted and didn't get it. You know, you have more power than you think. You don't need an RFC to stop the edit warring, to end the thousands of words of article talk page bickering, to stop encouraging those who are here to engage in culture wars and self-opinionated ego battles. You can achieve that very simply. Move your mouse up to the little blue star at the top of the page that has the tooltip "Remove this page from your watchlist". And click. -- Colin°Talk 21:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside the arguments about one term ("died by suicide", which this section does not propose changing), what are people's thoughts about the reworking of the lead sentences I proposed above. There is a risk that only mentioning that he had LBD (i.e. removing the Parkinson's diagnosis) gives a false impression that this is what he, his wife and others knew at the time. But we also don't want more detail that necessary in the lead. -- Colin°Talk 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point Colin. Here's a suggestion: "On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died by suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California after having lived with Parkinson's disease and (undiagnosed at the time) Lewy body disease." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Williams never actually had Parkinson's; it was a misdiagnosis.[7] Once the Parkinson's bit is removed, your proposal becomes about identical to the existing lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Kolya, he didn't have both. Indeed we could clarify my version by replacing "diagnosed" with "misdiagnosed". I think if we are going to mention the Parkinson's in the lead, it chronologically precedes his death. Since the lead is supposed to be easy to read, I think it best if we keep the flow chronological. I agree with Sandy that "after having lived with" isn't great. "lived with" isn't really a sensible choice in a sentence about his suicide. If we think the Parkinson's misdiagnosis is too much info for the lead, then we could just drop my first sentence entirely. That then is two chronological sentences and avoids the "lived with" awkwardness. -- Colin°Talk 11:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
What I like about the current wording is that it suggests a connection between his suicide and his experience with LBD. What about "After his death he was discovered to have had" LBD? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that sentence is fundamentally different to "His autopsy report noted undiagnosed Lewy body disease", but wordier and with less information. We need to be a bit careful about connections. We have his wife's speculation and I'm quite sure it is a reasonable connection to speculate about. But there will remain a mystery to it. -- Colin°Talk 20:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"His autopsy revealed undiagnosed Lewy body disease"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I like the Colin + Kolya wording, i.e.: "On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died by suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His autopsy revealed undiagnosed Lewy body disease." Clear, concise, and accurate. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not as clear or concise as "committed suicide". HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've installed this very minor change to the lead wording as it seems to have approval. HiLo48, it is time to move on. We all know your position, and in your comments at 22:28, 14 November 2021, you made it clear to us where that position comes from, and how unchangeable that position is for you. You don't have to remind us. -- Colin°Talk 17:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That is a rude an insulting comment. Because this change has only occurred through what I see as objectionable and vexatious persistence by people with no real arguments at all apart for "I don't like it", EVERY argument here has been stated multiple times by everybody. It has been a victory by siege and the wearing down of opponents (several have given up - obviously the goal of those demanding change), not by rational argument. The change has been achieved by YOU and others repeatedly reminding us of YOUR position. It is time for some here to learn what logic and respect mean. Gloating comments that really read like "We won. Just shut up" are NEVER helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
HiLo48, stop focusing on which editors "won" and start focusing on readers. Wrt "I don't like it", I'm afraid you lose on that ground. Your original research opinions and openly stated politically and personally motivated opposition to change contrasts with Kolya who supplied published expert opinion: style guides and dictionaries. Those things generally "win" on Wikipedia, and editors who fight experts and reliable published sources generally "lose". Please, move on. -- Colin°Talk 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The ONLY reason you can write what you wrote above is BECAUSE you won, through objectionable tactics. And now you're telling me to shut up. I know your perspective won't allow you to see that right now, but one day perhaps you will. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
HiLo48, the "died by suicide" wording is not my choice of words, so I didn't "win". When editors are involved in an argument over some medical fact or another, and the article goes with what the expert wrote in the cited reliable source, rather than what some guy in on the internet is ranting about on the article talk page, that isn't about whether one or other editor "won". It is about what is best for our readers. IMO we should adopt the same practice for determining if some word choices could be better made. Wikipedia was designed to stop editors bickering among themselves about who is right or wrong, and to avoid ego getting in the way of serving readers. It isn't a game with winners and losers and tactics, though your comments suggest you think it is. -- Colin°Talk 12:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A key point here: WP is purposely not proactive in changing language that some find problematic. If there is a question if language needs to be changed due to new sensibilities, we have RFCs to decide if there's site-wide consensus to change. That is not the case for the language of "commit suicide" at a global scale on WP and allowing for local discussion. Its why the nearly yearlong push to get the language change since the closure of the RFC is problematic, since there had been previous consensus on this page for the "commit suicide" language. --Masem (t) 13:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Can both of you please stop disrupting a section that is not about the "commit suicide" term. Masem, I've asked you before to stop making false comments like "WP is purposely not proactive in changing language that some find problematic". Wikipedia has no such policy or consensus. There are some editors who loudly voice conservative views on language change as a manifestation of the culture war battles in society outside Wikipedia. A few of them are very vocal at MOS. It may disappoint you to learn that most text on Wikipedia is written without consulting MOS on word choices. By and large, editors are able to collaborate on writing articles, rather than watchlisting an article for years just in case some snowflake changes one word they are determined to retain. -- Colin°Talk 13:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Colin, can you please stop telling other editors to shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
It is absolutely practice that WP is not proactive in changing language and that we have RFCs to determine if WP should follow. WP does not set examples. The point of those discussions is to make sure editors do not go around mass-changing articles to a preferred language when there's no consensus support moving away from older language or from moving towards preferred language (eg to avoid WP:FAIT). It certainly may be that there is enough conflict with editors changing language without consensus to drive an RFC to find that consensus (the wheelchair-bound language is a result of such), but when editors don't get the consensus to remove language they find offendive or to move to less-offensive langauge, that doesn't give them the right to continue to force such changes. --Masem (t) 01:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
What's happening here has not been forcing change, but stonewalling against change. The argument that we must use WP:OLDSOURCES from 2014 instead of modern sources is evidence of that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
See WP:PRESENTISM. --Masem (t) 13:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Masem, you seem to have got MOS and article editing confused, and have confused "the rules at MOS" with "Wikipedia". Wikipedians do not generally write articles by RFC, recent history with Covid19 aside, nor with MOS open in another browser tab. A few editors going around mass-changing articles may influence a reluctance at MOS to mandate or forbid language choices. They don't represent "Wikipedia". Your "The point of those discussions" comment strongly suggests you are highly focused on regulation and rules governing how Wikipedia works and controlling what editors do. I think therefore you have misunderstood that the absence of (and rejection of some proposals to add) explicit rules against a term is really very little to do with whether editors choose or avoid that term in actual editing practice. Wishful thinking and cognitive bias are not a substitute for reality. -- Colin°Talk 14:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Those last two sentences in particular -- you need to take a long look in the mirror. Please refresh your memory on WP core policies, especially WP:NOT. WP is exactly what it is because of those policies. You are trying to pretend those policies don't exist. Too bad. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Have you got the right article talk page? -- Colin°Talk 17:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Please refresh your memory on your comment above: "Masem, I've asked you before to stop making false comments like 'WP is purposely not proactive in changing language that some find problematic'. Wikipedia has no such policy or consensus." Um, no. WP does have a policy (What Wikipedia is not) against using WP as a soapbox.
That's what Masem is diplomatically referring to when he says above that when editors don't get consensus to remove language, "that doesn't give them the right to continue to force such changes." --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I fully agree Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which is why I'm against editors on both sides using article talk pages and MOS talk pages in order to bring the culture wars to Wikipedia, or to repeatedly make false claims that "Wikipedia" has taken a side in the "progressive vs conservative approach to language change" culture war. It really hasn't. -- Colin°Talk 20:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense. It obviously has, right here, right now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I never said anything about progressive v conservative appoarches. I specifically said we aren't proactive in language choices - we purposely lag behind language changes based on what the rest of the world does, and we make those calls through consensus decisions rather than individual editors going around changing without getting that consensus. That is a non-political/ideological stance and instead follows WP:NOR - we should not be the first publisher of anything. This is the essence of WP:NEO. Obviously, we do want to avoid language that we have come to judge as offensive or derogatory, but again, we still need to have consensus to judge if that's the case. And specifically we've had 7 years of editors asking to eliminate "commit suicide" but which the RFC in January determined that there's still no need to eliminate it. That's how our proactive approach is supposed to work. --Masem (t) 05:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Here: "And no, we should not be progressive and change language" "The net problem over the last 6-7 years ... making WP be progressive in the matter". Please, you are just repeating yourself on an off-topic matter. Let's go do something else. -- Colin°Talk 08:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Williams voice recording

The voice recording says is Mr. Williams voice however that's clearly not his normal. As you can tell he is in character, therefore altering his voice. 100 years from now if this was the only surviving record of Robin Williams, it would be wonderful to hear his normal voice, what he truly sounded like when not in character. 2601:8C4:427F:6F80:7438:D6E3:1780:53F6 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Quetiapine and Mirtazapine-"black box" warnings

He was on both psycholeptics. Both are proven to increase suicide risk. There is a strong possibility his suicidal ideations were directly caused by these drugs. (I use "caused" instead of "related to" because there is no dispute on this issue in the literature.) See: https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/11/robin-williams-antidepressant-time-suicide/ and also specific side-effects literature provided with the pharmaceuticals. For more information, google 'Quetiapine Mirtazapine "Robin Williams"suicide' Some mention of the above should be in the article, I believe.. 79.153.137.219 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your help.

A reproduction of the coroner's report mention the pharmaceuticals:

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1107-robin-williams-coroners-report.pdf

Black box warning mirtazapine:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/mirtazapine-oral-tablet&sa=U

Black box warning here also:

https://www.rxlist.com/remeron-drug.htm

Are these sources considered acceptable? Thank you.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bburesch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Robin Williams even starred in a few Commercials for the Zelda Series Ocarina of Time (3DS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bINUfbLV_0M Skyward Sword: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vv2Y6uQY0

And it is believed that there MAY be a tribute to Robin Williams in Breath of the Wild (this is unconfirmed although Nintendo did hint they would make some sort of tribute to him (https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/16/6013071/nintendo-responds-to-petition-to-include-robin-williams-tribute-in)) with an NPC that looks VERY SIMILAR here's something that talks about it https://www.mic.com/articles/172207/zelda-breath-of-the-wild-robin-williams-location-how-to-find-his-look-alike-in-hyrule MarioGamer64 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Change “On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams committed suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His autopsy revealed undiagnosed Lewy body disease.[10][11]” to “On August 11, 2014, at age 63, Williams died by suicide at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His autopsy revealed undiagnosed Lewy body disease.[10][11]” Suicide is not a crime and should not be stigmatized with the phrase “committed suicide.” See AP Style guidance here: https://mobile.twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1160941325073731584?lang=en. Billilg (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)billilg

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. this has been mentioned multiple times in this talk, and consensus remained keeping it as committed suicide. the relevant MoS bit also states that The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people. 💜  melecie  talk - 00:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

Died by suicide he did not commit suicide 81.170.35.15 (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is the consensus, you can try and change it, open a discussion. Good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I restored "died by suicide", which has been the consensus since November 13, 2021.[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Under 'Personal Life', subheading 'Other interests', paragraph 4, the sentence "He also liked the film Innocence Ghost in the Shell, and received a DVD copy of Paranoia Agent signed its director, Satoshi Kon." is missing a 'by' after 'signed'. 82.131.228.250 (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done EnIRtpf09bchat with me 06:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 Feb 2023

What a Concept in 1980. and He rose to fame

Looks like the and shouldn't be there.

Alternatively: What a Concept in 1980, and he rose to fame 92.11.231.151 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Info Box Photo

Of all the photos of Robin Williams, why was this terrible photo chosen for the info box? Is it because of licensing? Ninjabell (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RE ROBIN WILLIAMS. I CAN FIND NO MENTION OF FILM THE BIRD CAGE WITH NATHAN LANE 2600:1700:D401:1860:28B2:3A8E:44C0:5623 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

See the article, "List of Robin Williams Performances" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Robin_Williams_performances 2603:7000:D202:6D25:8D7F:EF4:6C44:AA35 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
That reply was me, 2603:7000:D202:6D25:8D7F:EF4:6C44:AA35 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
NOW I'm plugged in - Wordreader (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the lead

Following on discussions at ANI and WT:MOSMED, I have boldly reworked the lead to address the misleading overemphasis (an artefact of pre-autopsy reporting) on psychology over neurology that led to Williams's suicide. There was never strong consensus for the wording here, and died by suicide is a contentious term. Restoring the paragraph's emphasis to what led to Williams's death (lewy bodies) removes the need to choose any specific wording to describe the suicide and explains the illness that led to the circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Edit for Robin Williams Death --> Aftermath and Tributes section

World of Warcraft added a tribute to him on 2014-10-14, since Mr. Williams was an avid Warcraft fan.


"Robin is a djinn found in the South Sea in Nagrand, south of Grommashar. When freed from his Ever-Burning Lamp, Robin proclaims "PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!" before shrinking back down, adding "Itty bitty living space." Source: https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Robin

Other source: https://www.wowhead.com/npc=88216/robin 2607:FEA8:2981:D000:DD5B:BF3B:2CFE:1CBE (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

Cause of death is disgustingly vandalized, says suicide from drinking parkinson’s cola Noperpetrator (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

arrow Reverted. SkyWarrior 03:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

cites

..... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robin_Williams/Archive_12&oldid=1180340422"