Talk:Andrew Koenig

Death confirmed

CNN just reported that sadly, the body found in a Vancouver Park is indeed that of Andrew Koenig's. RIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoontocal (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Found dead and announced in Vancouver (BC) Sun newspaper. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Body+missing+actor+found/2613464/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelsenwd (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam

Removed blatant spam

Article needs to be fleshed out

This article needs:

• A photo
• A fleshed out, complete infobox
• A filmography section
• A section detailing his other works, including his podcast

Michaelh2001 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New cat?

Would it be premature to put him under Category:Disappeared people??

I'd wait till after the Olympics are over. Maybe he is there as are thousands of other people. Sergeant Wiggity (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As of a couple of minutes ago, Vancouver police are apparently saying a body they've found is likely to be his. We will obviously need to wait for further, properly-sourced information. Just wanted to let everyone know of the development. Sad if true. tomasz. 23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They have just found Andrew's body. They found him in stanley park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.147.3 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

His family are to give a press conference later: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100225/bc_body_found_100225/20100225 tomasz. 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This all has to wait for reliable sources to include it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason i heard the news early is he is a family friend, and our friend just heard from the police about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.147.3 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Growing Pains" actor Andrew Koenig, missing since Valentine's Day, was found dead in Vancouver, Canada, a source says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.244.162 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

According to CNN, the body found in a Vancouver Park has just been confirmed to be the body of Andrew Koenig. RIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.192.109 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the article that does NOT say he is dead should be removed from the recent deaths section until those sources come through. And recent deaths should be protected permanently and only be edited by admins. I have to use my IP address at work as I cannot log in here, but I see much abuse from IPs on the recent deaths page. Triste Tierra 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He has family in our county that has asked for official confirmation of the discovered decedent's identity. As Sheriffs public affairs deputy, I have been on the phone with Vancouver B C authorities. The face scan is a biometric match. DNA will take a few days. Hope this is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.49.124 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until the family/police confirm it's him. Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... it has been confirmed. http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/growing.pains.actor.dead/index.html —Mike Allen 00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon, as Sheriff's Public Affairs Deputy, you should be the LAST person to make such a statement. Question though, why would the Sheriff's Public Affairs Deputy from NEW YORK CITY be calling the Vancouver authorities about this? And second question, if your claim of such position is true, how much longer do you expect to keep your job? It's not a threat... it truly is a question, as I am sure they will get wind of this (not because I will send it to them just in case you are telling the truth... but I am sure someone will). PS: Deleting it now wont matter... it'll always be in the archives.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert CNN has reported/confirmed it to be him and I added it back (before reading this). We aren't supposed to add it if CNN reports it? :S —Mike Allen 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove the date that he "died"? We don't know if it was today. —Mike Allen 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so. It wasn't today, and it will probably be a few days until an approximate date is determined. Is there a way of making it "Feb 2010" with no day?

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Article needs photo

NOW. --24.20.129.18 (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If I knew how to add one, I would. We (the Star Trek Phase 2 Team) have a couple that we would be willing to donate to this page.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested, please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RobertMfromLI#Uploading_photo for additional discussion... feel free to respond here (or there).

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We now have a photo on the article. Much thanks to User talk:Abrazame and User:Wildhartlivie for their assistance as I stumbled my way through the posting process.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

improper external link: TV.com

[1] this link does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. It is essentially an open wiki (see the prominent EDIT button) without any evidence of "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" WP:ELNO #12. 207.69.139.137 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. First of all, the site has a substantial history of stability and while some parts of it are open to editing, just like the IMDb, not all of it is, just like the IMDb. It is as valid as that link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's not used as a reference, it's fine. —Mike Allen 03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"stable" maybe but no indication "and of substantial number of editors" PLUS itthe link on the article page doesnt even go to Andrew Koenig AND the TV,com site has nothing to add beyond our article content. "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

MM207.69.137.38 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper sourcing

"Koenig played the role of The Joker in the critically successful 2003 fan film Batman: Dead End. " The "source" does not mention Koenig and Film Threat does not appear to be a site with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy anyway. MM 207.69.137.38 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done —Mike Allen 05:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody came along and did some unnecessary editing. There were originally two refs for that sentence, the first an IMDB ref for his appearance. That ref was the second, and is sourcing the part of the statement that the film was well received (the original wording, before the inexplicable change to "critically successful"). The ref observes it was an "instant hit", and I was referencing this assessment of the short's reception and not the review itself. Abrazame (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about this edit, you are way off base to characterize that as unnecessary. The link went to the user comments section, which is obviously user-driven since it is — ready for this — user comments. Those are not reliable comments and using that link is something that is absolutely unacceptable. Anyone can add a user comment and those are not subject to vetting. How someone could be here as long as you have and not know that is baffling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

References

WP:MOS, quoted statement and wording

Hi all, hoping for guidance or a statement regarding this section here:

Police later confirmed Koenig's body was found earlier in the day, and Koenig's father told reporters at an evening press conference that his son "took his own life."[21]

The article was originally worded in such a fashion, linking the quote to the actual article, statement and video where that was the exact wording used. The quotation marks were removed somewhere along the line, possibly when someone wikilinked it to the suicide page. I am learning that WP:MOS indicated the use of the word suicide - but I am guessing that would not apply in a quote.

Perhaps the word suicide should be used in correlation to the official (and still pending) statement by the police/coroner, as opposed to mis-attributing it to Walter?

Ideas? Suggestions? Total reword of that statement?

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:EUPHEMISM. In this case, it should be fine to paraphrase what the father said by using the neutral and encyclopedic term "suicide". Atlantabravz (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with using the word suicide... I just think that the wording should be revised to be more accurate by not stating that is what he said. For instance, I would choose to write "BillyJoe committed suicide" over "BillyJoe took his own life" - but I would not attribute "Andrew committed suicide" to a statement by Walter (which is what the ref link goes to) as it would then be us defining his choice of euphemism. I always presumed that WP:EUPHEMISM applied to editors choosing words - and should never apply to revising an actual quote by a person being discussed.

So, what I am so poorly trying to get at is, in using the word suicide, perhaps we should reconstruct that sentence and use a different reference (perhaps remove the word "told" and replace it with "indicated" - or similar) - or use the quote with the reference which goes to his quote and then add the term suicide to the official report (when it's released) that states such.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that using the quote itself is perfectly fine. WP:EUPHEMISM applies to wording by editors, not a press conference quote. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

[2] Direct quotes should not contain links, particularly piped links. MM4.158.222.180 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon, not sure what you are trying to say...

Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article.

The Ref is outside the quotes and is not a piped link. Or I could be misunderstanding what you are getting at. Perhaps you were talking about the earlier edit that I changed that did have the "inside-the-quotes" piped linking?

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And exactly what quote is linked or disambiguated? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

_If_ we are going to use Koenig's father ...[said]his son "took his own life."[21] it is inappropriate to link within the direct quote "took his own life"; particularly if it is a piped link to the [suicide] article. MM4.158.222.180 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So where do you see it linked? It is not linked. You're going on about something that was removed a long time ago. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(To Anon) I think perhaps you are looking at the wrong revision. The current page has the ref outside the quotes, and points to his statement (both video and text) on Fox40. If you see something else on the current page, you may wish to clear your browser cache as you are seeing the version that I edited to fix that stuff.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon, why is it you don't have an account? In the last day, you've been various places on Wikipedia citing people for WP violations... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4.158.222.180

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To anon, I would suggest that you refresh the article, because that is no longer the case and is a non issue. Robert, I agree, it seems they've been "around the block" per say. When I was an IP editing, I didn't know all these guidelines. I guess it's good that they look them up and study them. ;-) —Mike Allen 03:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you all will look up to the section titled "improper external link: TV.com", that goes to IP 207.69.137.38, which also signs before the IP number as MM. I would strongly urge the IP editor to register an account before an issue with the same person editing from different IPs comes up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

He hanged himself, says reports.

E! is reporting that a "source close to the investigation" is saying he hanged himself. [3]. Probably wait until more sources report it? —Mike Allen 07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... the same article says "A source in the Provincial coroner's office says that the exact cause of death may not be known for another two months, which is a "not unusual" length of time for such an investigation."

I'd expect if he was hanged, that wouldnt be too difficult to determine in... oh, I dunno... a lot less than two months.

Patty and I are not about to ask Walter, and he hasn't yet decided to mention the method.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 07

48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's mostly "gossip" sites reporting it, E! the main source. [4] This person "close to the investigation" is probably not supposed to discuss this. Probably being paid for the "details". What a shame. —Mike Allen 08:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, it matches various additions to the Talk pages from right before the news conference and confirmation of his death: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Koenig_(actor)&oldid=346419031

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced it would be suitable content anyway. We don't tend to include all the grisly details to a death unless it is a high profile murder. That's not true in this case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wildhartlivie. And I would add the substance of my edit summary removing the addition of this detail to the article earlier today: even if such a grisly elaboration were to be appropriate, I should think Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. If a tabloid wants to indulge in speculation, and even if mainstream outlets pick up the factoid, our threshold should be greater than satisfying a prurient interest, while also extending some protection to the next of kin (if BLP guidelines automatically and entirely expire with the subject, something that those guidelines are not overly clear on and which, if so, I'm not sure I accept). The father's statement his son "took his own life" establishes that essential answer; precisely how is not the sort of detail we necessarily include about other events. It's not entirely a question of what or how many sources report it, it's where the "it" came from (off-record and unauthorized comment) and whether "it" (grisly detail) is suitable for the article. Abrazame (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD - Lead covers all significant aspects of topic

The lede section covers all significant aspects of the topic. There is a section on his disappearance and death i.e it is significant and deserves coverage in lede section. MM4.158.231.81 (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is not a tabloid and if you would read further up this page, or in fact the article itself, it was decided that all the grisly details of his death would not require to be covered. The article itself does not cover "hanging himself" nor should it. If you will bother looking at nearly any other article, they do not cover the manner in which someone commits suicide. It is excessive, it is disrespectful and it is sensationalistic in nature and doesn't belong. The article covers that he committed suicide, it is beyond tacky to stick the way he died into the lead and I am again removing it. This isn't the National Enquirer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when is the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post a tabloid? Not covering facts published in reliable sources is completely inappropriate, especially based on a some personal opinion that the facts are "too grisly". The facts are what they are and have been made public in reliable sources. Your claim that we do not cover suidides in the leade is unsupported: Kurt Cobain Anne Sexton Phil Ochs Marilyn Monroe. And the recent featured articles about a person (save one)cover the death in the lead Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, Ceawlin of Wessex Tom Crean (explorer) Master Juba Nikita Khrushchev Uriel Sebree. "On the other hand, Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, ... or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." So where do you have any actual policies backing your position? MM 207.69.137.36 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the Post was a tabloid, I said the way it is being covered by you here is tabloid-y. And the policy is WP:CONSENSUS, of which this is already covered further up. Editors did not feel that trumpeting that he hung himself in the lead was acceptable. That's where. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How in the world is my coverage "tabloidy" when it is a virtual mirror of what is in the Washington Post??? And not covering the established facts as covered by this reliable source leaves the reader to speculate "did he shot his brains out?" or "did he overdose on heroin, pass out on a snowbank and freeze to death?" "did he commit hari kari?" allowing even more UNTRUE grisly speculation. MM207.69.137.43 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How is it tabloidy? You stuck "He committed suicide by hanging himself in a Vancouver park in February of 2010." into the lead. That's how. The Washington Post article is an Op-ed piece about celebrity suicide in which details for several incidents are woven in. The official statement by his parents is sufficient. Not everyone hangs out dying to know the nitty-gritty details. And once again, WP:CONSENSUS is the policy because other editors determined on this page that grisly details would not be included. This is not an exploitation piece or a tabloid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

His suicide -- or at the very least, the circumstances of his death -- should be in the article and summarized in the lede. That was a major media focus in his disappearance and the end of it. The method of suicide should not be in the lede; reasonable minds may differ about whether it should be in the body of the article. I would be inclined to include it, backed by a reference from a reliable source. It's not a matter of grisly detail. It's a matter of inclusion of material fact. TJRC (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That he took his own life, and the disappearance of him are covered in the article. What I am taking exception to, and what the consensus was, is that there is no valid reason to state, as the IP had done by bluntly stating that he hung himself in the forest, precisely what they found in detail. That is tabloidy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was not covered in the article. I was explaining what should be covered in the lede and body, and why. TJRC (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(I saw the discussion at ANI) You don't need to put the suicide details in the lead, those go in the body of the article, worded neutrally in a way that suits the article, don't word them exactly like the source words them. Recount the facts in the article's voice. And in the lead you can simply say that he commited suicide, or you can simply say nothing if it's not an important part of the biography (in the case of Marilyn Monroe or Kurt Kobain, it's part of their legend and it's given great significance on every biography of them, as a part necessary to understand their life, that's why it is on the lead). In the lead you can skip over the details that won't help the reader understand the subject significantly better. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"That he took his own life, and the disappearance of him are covered in the article." duh - EVERYTHING in the lede is covered in the article, AND all major facets of the topic of the article are supposed to be covered in the lede. The death of a human being is a major facet of the topic of any human being and should be reflected in the lede. MM209.86.226.32 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL before you post again. Everyone dies eventually, there is no mandate that an article have "he hung himself in the forest" in the lead. Also, once again, read WP:CONSENSUS. Along the way, please note that if you continue to jump around on various IP connections, it could be considered sock puppetry. This is the fourth IP you've edited from on this talk page alone. Please register one account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is the intent by one person to present multiple identities as independent individuals in an attempt to avoid blocks or impact !votes or otherwise impersonate multiple individuals. Clearly I have NOT been attempting to be multiple individuals, merely utilizing whichever dynamic IP address my ISP provider serves up when I log in. And you still have not provided any policies to back your position that the death as a significant facet of this article topic should NOT be covered in the lede. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And note that your claims of consensus are based on a (rightful) consensus not to include information based solely on unnamed sources quoted in E! magazine. The consensus made by 4 voices includes one that says " Probably wait until more sources report it?" and one that says "Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. " neither of which has come to support your removal of the content sourced without relying on unnamed sources in the very reliable Washington post. If you add the two new voices for including the death here and me, well your consensus appears to be clearly moving to inclusion. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm growing quite tired of your incivil tone and if it doesn't improve, I will stop replying to you. So you have a dynamic IP, all the more reason to actually bother to register an account. I made no threat, just a statement. And it's up to 5 different IPs. That's a problem. Is there some reason you won't register an account here? Have you been blocked before? And a statement in an OP-ED piece is not a reliable source, it is an opinion piece, and any sources I found still refer to an unnamed source or qualifies it as "allegedly", so the consensus stands. And a further consensus can certainly be obtained. Now nice up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Americans, always fascinated by celebrity suicides, have a number of recent excuses for sympathetic voyeurism. " is an opinion. "But it is the peculiar cruelty of hopelessness and severe depression that they attack insight and perspective." is an opinion coming from Gerson who does not have a background in psychology or mental health. However, claiming that " Andrew Koenig, 41-year-old son of actor Walter Koenig, hanged himself in a Vancouver park " is an opinion is a huge stretch. MM207.69.137.25 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: to keep the discussion focused, I have copied a number of comments from this section to a section below. Please use this section to discuss content related issues, and the lower section to discuss allegations of sockpuppetry. MM207.69.137.25 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Because an op-ed editor put it in does not make it a reliable source, but the repetition of something that was repeated "from a source". There is still no reliable source supporting that he hanged himself, even if the op-ed writer chooses to perpetuate that rumor, it still remains just that, a rumor. AND DO NOT REFACTOR MY TALK PAGE POSTS AS YOU DID. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So is it your position that the statement " Andrew Koenig, 41-year-old son of actor Walter Koenig, hanged himself in a Vancouver park " because it does not identify its source is not a creditable statement? MM4.158.222.78 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is my position that there are no other reliable sources that identify the unknown source alluded to in various publications and we cannot rely upon an op-ed piece as a valid source of reliably reported information. Until the time that reliable sources, other than an opinion essay which does not identify its source, reports this, it is unusable. I'm not entirely sure how many times that needs to be repeated. The only thing that is out there is to refer to an unknown source, or an unnamed source and it is not reported in reputable media. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe his death is ready for the lead. I understand the lead is to summarize the whole article, but his death section is small compared to other sections. People can see the table of contents quite clearly, "Death" and jump to it. It's a small read, because his death should not be the focus of the article, so no need to summarize it. —Mike Allen 08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wildhartlivie - actually what you have said is "That he took his own life, and the disappearance of him are covered in the article." True, but irrel because everything in the lead must be covered in the article. "If you will bother looking at nearly any other article, they do not cover the manner in which someone commits suicide." - which is false (Kurt Cobain Anne Sexton Phil Ochs Marilyn Monroe. ) And "Everyone dies eventually, there is no mandate that an article have "he hung himself in the forest" in the lead. " and while there is no mandate, it is clear that the vast majority of feature articles about dead people cover the death in the lead. So excuse me for trying to clarify your position. And while I disagree that an op-ed piece in the Washington post that doesnt specifically name its source can in any way be compared to "unnamed sources" quoted by E!, in the interest of have truely varified content we can wait to specify that he hanged himself- IF such strict application of reliable sources is applied to all other content in the article.

@MikeAllen - there has been more ink printed in reliable sources about his death than all other content of his life and career and achievements. WP:UNDUE fully requires that the death be covered in the lead. "On the other hand, Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, ... or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." MM4.158.222.172 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What we could do is include something to the effect that "the Koenig family was widely praised for the forthright manner in which they addressed Andrew's depression." - I came acrosss that in numerous reliable sources. MM 4.158.222.172 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time analyzing my comments. It is impossible to cover everything in the lead that is covered in the article. It's a summary, not regurgitation of vast amounts of content. Some articles cover death, some do not. I do not need a listing of the featured articles that do cover it, especially those that are part of the legend of the person. You would need to establish that Koenig's death outweighs the rest of his career to support that. Especially when what you added was the blunt and tacky "hung himself in the forest". If you disagree about the op-ed piece, then show me where he could possibly have gotten that information besides the unnamed source that has never surfaced. There has been massive effort to ensure that facts that require sources have them. While you could add the bit about how the family handled it, it doesn't go in the lead. And there is no need to copy and paste guidelines. All that's necessary is the link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources (emph added) [5] As a rough estimate, of the ~500 references of Koenig, ~100 have been since his disappearance in January. And I am willing to bet that there will be scant few pieces of coverage of him and his work in the future which do not include coverage of his death. On what do you base your claim that his death and disappearance are negligable importance to the topic of his life? MM 207.69.139.137 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm done responding to postings from various IPs and being expected to assume they are the same person. This is absolutely the last time. "That his death and disappearance are negligable importance" are your words and your interpretation. In fact, I did not say that. I said that you would need to establish that his death outweighs the rest of his career. There's a qualitative difference between the two statements. Now, either register one account so that the rest of us know that it is the same person or desist in muddying the waters with posts from various IPs. You never answered the question of whether you've been blocked on a previous account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that his death and disappearance are more than "negligable". Considering it is approximately 20% of the published coverence and something around 16% of the body of our article and 25% of the topic areas of our article - to me clearly appropriate to cover in one sentance in the lede. What % of coverage do you feel is needed to be included in the lead as one of the most important points that should be included in the lead? MM207.69.137.10 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to continue a discussion on this page when I cannot tell if I am conversing with one or 15 people. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, there are 3 points of contention on this talk page.

1) Whether or not to include the death in the WP:LEAD

2) Whether or not the Washington Post is a sufficient reliable source to include the method of suicide in the article, either in the lead or elsewhere.

3) Whether or not my editing anonymously is appropriate.

As far as 3) Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie It appears at least from the first responses, that the concerns are misplaced. If WHL is still "not inclined to continue a discussion", then WHL cannot complain that his/her voice is not included in any WP:CONSENSUS. And to keep content discussions clear from user issues, I request again that WHL discontinue insterting that issue in this topic section when there is a seperate section below specifically for such issues.

As far as 2) I have offered [6] that if the strict application of reliable sources is applied to the sources providing the information that Koenig hanged himself, that we should apply the same strict sourcing requirements to all content of the article. It also appears that there is not consensus to include, even if sourced, the method of suicide in the lead.

As far as 3) I have requested, [7] specifically from WHL, but anyone else is also encouraged to respond as to how we should determine "the most important points" of the topic which should be included in the lede.

If I have correctly identified the issues under discussion, I await responses to the suggestions offered to address these differences. MM 207.69.137.35 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RE #1) Hearing no policy or practice based objectsions, the death has been added to the lead. MM 207.69.137.20 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you're the ideal IP to determine that. —Mike Allen 01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, Mike. The Washington Post cite is to an op-ed piece, which has no requirement that it be accurate and as such is not reliable. That you dragged me to a non-actionable board to complain because I will not converse with an IP jumping anonymous editor has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of reliable sources. Also, because others decline to respond to such an account's demand of response does not in any way mean that anything is determined. There still is no reliable source to state that he hanged himself and it is entirely disrespectful to include in the article that the parents and press have taken pains to keep the manner of death private, but damn, we can include it here. Sheesh. How low can we go? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@ WHL - WP:AGF, there is another explanation than the fact that you didnt actually read the content that you removed or that you are activley mis-representing that it included discussion of hanging [8]. Please strike or rephrase anything that you wish to take back.

@ MikeAllen and WHL - Again, I am asking for some policy or general practice that would support not including mention of the death as one of the major facets of the topic of the article that should be covered in the WP:LEAD. Because [9] there were no new policy or practices arguments shown. MM 207.69.137.43 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on this page. If you don't like it, take it to the correct noticeboard. Obviously you, and your 10 IPs, aren't getting anywhere on this page. You're not the ideal IP, because you opened the discussion, so no it would not right for you to close it. It seems like you're been around the block a while, you should know that. Thanks. —Mike Allen 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, what policy guideline or standard practice is the so called consensus for this edit [10] based on? MM 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I have nothing I wish to strike and I misrepresented nothing. The comment about hanging is valid whether it is part of any given edit or not. And again, WP:CONSENSUS, as you've been told. Please stop being obtuse about this. Consensus exists. Because it isn't to your liking means nothing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The "consensus" you keep referring to in the above section is that an unnamed source in E! is not a valid source to use in the article to support the claim of suicide by hanging. All agree on that. There is you (and perhaps MikeAllen?) who disagree (with no aparent basis in policy) that disagree that the death by suicide should not be included in the lede. There is me, TJRC and --Enric Naval who say the suicide should be covered in the lead. The "consensus" AND policy and general practice support that. MM 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's rather disengenuous to demand "policy" when you full well know that policy does not govern content disputes. And there is also User:Abrazame, who spoke against adding content that is only "satisfying a prurient interest." And consensus is not a vote. It's the basis of the argument, which you are short on. But if you want a "vote" we can open a request for comment. Please bear in mind that the family deserves some respect here, which has been totally disregarded in this issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"the family" is who told the media that he committed suicide.] Its pretty disingenuous to state that you are somehow upholding their wishes in keeping the material out of the article. MM207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, get real. It's one thing to say that he took his own life, and it's entirely another, in the face of the family keeping the gory details private, to blame them for news and internet rumors that have no reliable sourcing. And really, learn to properly use the word "disengenuous", instead of lifting from my post. I've made no "disengenuous" statements. His family did keep the gory details private. If they wanted it plastered all over Wikipedia, their representative, who has posted on this page, would have said so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

YOU are the only person who is talking about hanging now. This is about topic of contention "1) Whether or not to include the death in the WP:LEAD" Do I take your "It's one thing to say that he took his own life," as a willingness to revert your edit here [11]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (This was me MM) 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of sockpuppetry

portions of this coversation have been copied from the above section to separate content discussion from allegations of sockpuppetry

Sock puppetry is the intent by one person to present multiple identities as independent individuals in an attempt to avoid blocks or impact !votes or otherwise impersonate multiple individuals. Clearly I have NOT been attempting to be multiple individuals, merely utilizing whichever dynamic IP address my ISP provider serves up when I log in. And you still have not provided any policies to back your position that the death as a significant facet of this article topic should NOT be covered in the lede. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And note that your claims of consensus are based on a (rightful) consensus not to include information based solely on unnamed sources quoted in E! magazine. The consensus made by 4 voices includes one that says " Probably wait until more sources report it?" and one that says "Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. " neither of which has come to support your removal of the content sourced without relying on unnamed sources in the very reliable Washington post. If you add the two new voices for including the death here and me, well your consensus appears to be clearly moving to inclusion. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

5, 6, 7, 100, my ISP has lots of IP addresses it assigns. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and until the consensus changes to require editing by accounts, I see no reason to create an account. If you wish to continue making accusations of sockpuppetry, I suggest that you use the proper forum: WP:SSP. Otherwise, discuss the content and not the contributor. MM 4.158.222.148 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what have you contributed to? Jumping from IP to IP can make it hard to keep track of. —Mike Allen 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And today takes it up to what? 8 IPs on this page alone? How is one supposed to know it is the same person speaking? I suggested that it would be better for an IP jumping editor to actually register an account or it could be viewed as sock puppetry. There were no "allegations of sock puppetry" made. And absolutely do not refactor my talk page posts. You're frightfully defensive on this, which once again begs the question, were you previously blocked from editing here to make you so reactive to this? Very suspicious to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"You know, I'm done responding to postings from various IPs and being expected to assume they are the same person. This is absolutely the last time. ... Now, either register one account so that the rest of us know that it is the same person or desist in muddying the waters with posts from various IPs. You never answered the question of whether you've been blocked on a previous account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)" The approprate place for your accusations or suppositions or whatever they are is not on this talk page but here. MM207.69.137.10 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, an IP jumping unregistered account uses yet another IP and flatly refuses to answer the question of if he is blocked from previous issues. I suspect the fact that he refuses to answer is very telling. And again, it's not allegations of sock puppetry, it's commenting on the fact that this IP knows the IP jumping raises questions and yet flatly refuses to take steps to clear up the confusion. Mmm Hmmm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, whatever you "suspect", please take your suspicions to the proper notice board and not repeat your allegations without any evidence on this page. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Should the lead include a mention of Koenigs death?

Should the lead paragraph of the article contain a mention of Koenig's death, such as this: According to Koenig's father, Andrew Koenig committed suicide. as was added in this edit[12] and later removed without explanation [13].

Submitted per request on this talk page, by MM 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should it?   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow this IP (who is editing from about ten IPs) keeps pushing this. The COD can not be verified by reliable sources (only gossip sites which claims a person "close" to the family told them he was found hanging from a tree in Vancouver Stanley Park.) I also don't believe him committing suicide should be in the lead either, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A very small section of the article mentions his death (any reader can promptly use the TOC to jump to that section). The lead should add more about his career and human rights activism, NOT have "According to Andrew's farther, he committed suicide" plastered as the third sentence of the article. And quite frankly, I find it disrespectful worded like that. —Mike Allen 05:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps for the immediate future, the mentioning of suicide should be left out of the lede. Until a conclusive forensic report is available, emotional testimony and hearsay don't equal a verifiable legal cause. Only a death certificate with the cause of death stated on it, should be in the lede. As to the mentioning of suicide in the article, it should be noted as a possible cause of death, until the above mentioned document is verified. IMO!Victor9876 (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a mention of his death should be included in the lede. His death certainly is not the reason he is notable, and the method of his death certainly isn't extraordinary enough to be mentioned straight out of the gate. Ledes should include pertinent information about the subject. While Koening's death is obviously important, it did not define his life or his notability. I also think Mike Allen made an excellent point in that the way the removed content was worded came off as disrespectful - almost as if Koenig's father's versions of events differ from the official version or something. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pinkadelica, the death doesn't need to be included in the lead. His death does not define who he is. The removed content is original research. The New York Daily News is basing this on an unnamed source. That's not at all reliable which is why we have that rule in the first place. How he died cannot be guessed at or suggested. It would have to be a RS, like an official document by the coroner's office, etc. And even then, it doesn't belong in the lead. This is Wikipedia. It isn't the National Enquirer.Malke2010 11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Point of information The source is NOT National Enquirer or an unnamed source in New York Daily News. It is Koenig's father as reported by all sorts of mainstream, well respected media. MM207.69.137.15 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I already commented days ago that it's not notable enough to be in the lead, and that it didn't help to understand better his biography. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be included? because the lede covers "the important aspects of the subject of the article. ... It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Considering the amount of coverage [14] both externally and within our article, his death IS a significant aspect. Koenigs suicide that was a result of his mental health condition CLEARLY helps to understand Koenig - an important and yes is a defining element. His suicide and his family speaking out about suicide and mental health certainly will have more of an impact in the real world than the character "Boner" ever will.

If the specific wording is inappropriate, thats what editing is for. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A death is a not a notable controversy. It is a death. Death is always a significant event, but it doesn't make it worthy of the lead. There is no requirement in WP:LEAD that a manner of death need be covered in the lead and including it there lends it undue weight, whether the manner and means of death is covered or not. Posting it in bold does not make it any more important or significant than simply stating so would do. It did not have an effect on his notability, which was well established long before he died and his notability does not ride on this event. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Death is always a significant event, but it doesn't make it worthy of the lead." Our guidance on the lede says that significant events ARE covered. What is your basis of claiming that this significant event should not be covered? Recent featured articles about a person (save one) cover the death in the lead: Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, Ceawlin of Wessex Tom Crean (explorer) Master Juba Nikita Khrushchev Uriel Sebree which indicates that in standard practice even the most mundane deaths are in fact covered in the lead in feature articles, and unusual deaths such as a suicide in a park can hardly be excluded from the lead, as you have attempted to argue earlier, "because everybody dies." MM 207.69.137.15 (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take before the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument popped up. For the record, that rarely wins people over because it can be proved both ways. That's precisely why no one here used that as the basis for their opinion or stated "We don't do that a such-and-such article and we're not going to do that here!". No two articles and subjects are the same and we don't treat them as such. Bottom line: No one but you believes Koenig's death should be mentioned in the lede. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we attempt to go by what the community wants as a whole, it appears that the community is against "your" version. You can either keep pushing the issue in the hopes that we'll all change our minds (very doubtful by the way) or just move on to something more productive. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And please, IP, desist from posting a response to everyone who responds here. In case you haven't noticed, this a a request for comments, not a request for the bizarre, jumping IP editor to respond to everything that someone says. Please stop doing so. 12.74.60.65 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

point of information OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument to use in discussions about whether to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. not about specific article content. If people cannot be convinced that using Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and the articles that have passed those criteria as models, I think that may say more about what type of article they are trying to create than it does about a "bizarre, jumping IP editor" MM 207.69.137.20 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, IP, you were asked to stop trying to respond to every point that someone posts in a RfC. This takes the appearance of tenditiousness and is totally improper. This is for garnering opinions, not for giving you a venue to respond to each point. You've rendered your opinion. Please stop trying to respond to the opinions of others. It's poor behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If other people are making claims/statements/ applications of rules and guidelines that are not based on the actual rules and guidelines or sources under discussion, I will continue point that out. MM 207.69.137.43 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is disruptive to try and argue back points that people bring up. Now stop trying to argue in a RfC - comments are comments and it is not your job to argue them. You've done far and away enough of that. Stop disrupting the RfC to try and argue back the points. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a point AND guideline for you --WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. —Mike Allen 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

point of information "If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page" It is completely appropriate and within the scope of an RFC to do what I have done.- MM 4.158.222.99 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Your intent is to disrupt responses and continue to argue something about which you have been soundly defeated. Please stop disrupting the responses. The time for arguing points has long been past here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the article and I think it's probably too long already. His death got extra attention due to the extended search. But before that the article was only 1/10 of its present length.[15] With no disrespect intended, he was a fairly minor child actor who did some guest starring parts as an adult. By Wikipedia standards he seems barely notable, so dwelling on his death seems excessive.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Andrew Koenig. Uncontested. Favonian (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Andrew Koenig (actor) → Andrew Koenig – Primary topic. Page views: 9,976, 790, 86. Marcus Qwertyus 09:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• Andrew Koenig → Andrew Koenig (actor)
• Andrew Koenig (disambiguation) → Andrew Koenig

– He got the popular views because probably he's (well, was) the son of Walter Koenig. Yes, his suicide was tragic, but, as far I'm reading the article, he did nothing groundbreaking or major that would have made him famous as an actor, except Growing Pains? —relisting—ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)--George Ho (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Knight (actor) is active and alive, thankfully, yet he does not achieve "long-term significance".

There are other two with the same name: policitian and engineer. They could achieve long-term significance more than Walter's son did, although they failed usage because the statistics from previous discussion proves that they are not popular enough to be primary. The politician is the two-time winner of Missouri election as a Representative, and he could do something to contribute for the people, and he could be the President or the Senator in the United States. The programmer wrote books about computer programming. Walter's son.... tragic. Nevertheless, someone used this ambiguous name for another policitian's biography, so I disambiguated it into (politician). This indicates that the actor is not that well-known enough for that editor to be significant for a long time. What are your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment what would you do with the undisambiguated form? Would you move the disambiguation page into its place? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Although I am neutral, I do find some of these reasons fallacious. First, you seem to make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison to Christopher Knight (actor). The situation may not necessarily be the same with the Andrew Koenig (disambiguation) page only three listings while Christopher Knight has 13. Second, you say we should rename the pages because the politician and engineer could achieve more long-term significance – that seems to be blatant unverified speculation, which never, ever should be a basis for a page move or any decision here on Wikipedia. And lastly, so what if the actor is not that well-known for one editor? And so what if you had to repair the link for that editor, as you mentioned? [16] The thoughts or actions of one single editor should not be the overriding reason to warrant a page move. And whether there is a primary topic or not, it still does not prevent mis-directed links like the one you had to repair. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Crossed out the second paragraph for you. You know what? Maybe you can lecture me on how to make a valid proposal next time, so I don't look foolish. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• If I understand correctly, the other articles in the disambiguation page have way less views and their subjects have also done "nothing groundbreaking or major". If I understand correctly, most people searching for "Andrew Koenig" will be looking for the actor. The current title seems to comply nicely with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no need to move the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Weak nomination that doesn't really address why the actor isn't the primary topic. In my book, the actor is the primary topic – he has significantly more page views and, like Enric, I don't see that either of the two people listed on the dab page are more historically significant. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batman

Koenigs supporting role in a short fan film takes up almost as much room as his entire acting career, including reviews of the films. Seems to give undo weight to something fairly insignificant. BoosterBronze (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC) BoosterBronze (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The material deleted by the edit in question consists of two sentences:

Directed by commercial director Sandy Collora, the short received its first screening at the San Diego Comic-Con International.[7][8] Director Kevin Smith called it "possibly the truest, best Batman movie ever made".[9]

Neither sentence is about Andrew Koenig, the subject of the article, and they impart no information about him. Especially in context ("the critically successful 2003 fan film"), this reeks of promotion. More or less the same text is in Batman: Dead End; that's plenty. TJRC (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo?!

Is the photo an Internet meme making fun of his suicide? That's not very nice. Equinox ◑ 23:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from not being nice, it was a copyright violation of the underlying photo used in the poster, used in the meme, and has been deleted. TJRC (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Death date inconsistency.

The infobox lists date of death as Feb. 14th, 2010 but the article states both approximately Feb. 25th, the date his body was found, and that the last he used his cell phone or did any banking on Feb. 16th. If there's no evidence anyone else used his phone or accessed his bank account on the 15th or 16th, his date of death couldn't be the 14th. Bizzybody (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Koenig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522212533/http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5514&IssueNum=105 to http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5514&IssueNum=105

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)