`  ::Well, maybe if we delete the whole section and ban any mention of it at all, we can hope that everyone will forget about it and it won't be a problem anymore.  Here's my take: 1) If the only trivia/cultural references being mentioned in some separate section are related to the incident, they are not about Michael Richards, they are about the incident.  2) Those two media references were about the incident.  We are not adding emphasis nor an editorial by listing pop culture parodies to the incident. By that same logic, any pop culture references to Martin Luther King's ``I had a dream`` speech should be kept in the main ``Martin Luther King`` article and never mentioned in the same context as the speech, lest we run the risk of an editorial.  Those references ARE an editorial, and any references, positive or negative, to the incident should be kept in the context of that incident.  Mentioning that he worked with African Americans on a show that bombed 7 years ago is just an obvious attempt to build up his character after the incident without seeming partial.  But if we mention any FACTS about his previous work within the context of that incident, we are not creating an editorial, we are showing a full picture, one that, in the utopia that is supposed to be wikipedia, others could add to get any even more informed picture.  But instead, out of an attempt to be politically correct in the name of impartiality, this page has become a mine field.  You can't protect this page forever, it's not even worth it.  It was a newsblip that upset people and possible ruined a man's career, but in the end, it was hardly the holocaust or the Taliban.  I agree, the section IS getting too big and it's getting ridiculous to protect it or keep things in their ``impartial`` place.  Honestly, the only reasonable solution is to move all relevant information related to the incident to its own article and have a two line summary and a like on his page.  If people are that eager to vandalize it or show an impartial side, at least it would be on the proper page rather than protecting Michael Richards' entire life.  I noticed that his military service wasn't brought up until after the incident, doesn't that suggest an editorial as well?  Suddenly he's a great guy and a loyal American now that his image has been tarnished?  This entire section needs its own page, and I think we'll quickly see how much people are interested in reading about his early life or his work on ``The Michael Richards Show``.   `