Talk:Rob Reiner: Difference between revisions

By /

I just made an article for the Death of Rob Reiner. Based on the reporting, I think a death article is warranted. Thriley (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wait, there aren’t a lot of celebrity deaths that have their own article, even Christina Grimmie, who was also murdered, doesn’t have one. Cahlin29 (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m surprised there isn’t a whole separate article about Grimmie, considering her tragic demise got huge attention RayKVega (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed… Phil Hartman’s murder by his wife (and her suicide) didn’t meet the criteria for its own article, either. Amyfrushour1971 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And neither did Natalie Wood’s death! This kind of article just is not standard practice. ChimaFan12 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not notable enough to deserve its own page. EnSingHemm (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an article talking about the murder, and it must be called “Killing of Rob Reiner”. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably wait before updates arrive, per responses above. Many murders of famous individuals do not have a separate article. I’m guessing, though, the only time it would be, is if it was a murder related to politics or ideology (assassination), or if the person or murder was very notable, of course. GuyMan529 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably gonna need more than two sources before we start making an article on this. – K-popguardian (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The People article says that Reiner’s son Nick is the culprit for the crime. Is it wise to keep this as a legitimate source? TOAK19054 (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels very premature. Rusted AutoParts 04:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veeeery premature. Maybe make a draft or something, the mainspace one should be a redirect. jolielover♥talk 04:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s worth noting to put his death place as Brentwood and not Los Angeles.. Brentwood is its own Incorporated city. Mrwonders2 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Brentwood is hundreds of miles from the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles, where the death of Reiner occurred. Xray88 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody add an image of the home where Reiner lived? I feel like it would be fitting next to the paragraph that talks about his home. Mikedhamellpress (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried! Will organize a draft. Thriley (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is here: Draft:Death of Rob Reiner. Thriley (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would make it into an article, its a pretty big deal VLWABC (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in the police statements that verifies that they died on December 14, or only that the bodies were discovered that day? We need to be careful and not jump the gun/make assumptions. Even proclaiming a cause of death at this point is presumptuous. Connormah (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

press conference soon. ~2025-40868-82 (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still the 14th in California now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)5″[reply]

Or did you mean they could have been killed earlier?… Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that’s exactly what they meant Roger44477 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They were at Conan O’Brien’s Christmas party the night before the murders.
https://people.com/rob-reiner-son-got-in-a-big-fight-conan-obrien-party-before-murders-sources-11869272 RayKVega (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there are now two draft article for this

Draft:Death of Rob Reiner
Draft:Murder of Rob and Michele Reiner

Neither of which are in any state to stand alone as an article yet, not least given the event doesn’t yet have enough separate coverage or notability to merit its own article, but they would need to be merged if that ever happens either way. Mfield (Oi!) 05:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added “found dead” to the date “December 14, 2025” in the first sentence, but it was reverted saying it is “against MOS”. I can’t find anything in MOS:BIRTHDATE against it. Why not add it to indicate that the date of death is yet unknown? In my opinion, giving the date the body was found without indicating that it is not necessarily the date of death is misleading. —Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Idle apparently spoke to Reiner earlier in the day, so that confirms their bodies were discovered relatively quickly assuming all details are accurate. Roger44477 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was the night before as per Idle’s X account. Coasterghost (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we verify the age of Michele Singer Reiner? Current page has her at 68, but NYT cites 70. Guardian cites 68. Amyfrushour1971 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that every famous person, who has their own article, and is murdered, even by a relative, has a separate article about the murder. If the murder case gets complicated, or involves other issues (which are covered in other sources) then maybe a separate article will be warranted in the future.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the section makes it seem like Tracy was the murderer ~2025-40636-53 (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-40636-53 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I think this is very notable. Sorry that I missed this earlier discussion. I had already created a page at Draft:Killing of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner (note that we need to refer to it as a killing, as a conviction has not yet been made), and I have moved the article back to the draft space. Given the amount of edits that have already been made to the page, I feel that it is ready for mainspace where we can all work together, but please advise. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn’t take into consideration the number of premature edits when deciding whether a draft, with 100% the same content that this page has, should be spun off into its own thing. We don’t have articles for more oft-discussed murders like Natalie Wood or Butch Hartman, and nothing about the murder is anything that doesn’t just belong in the death section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true: multiple people were killed. Not just Reiner but also his wife Michele who is notable in her own right. The article also allows us to go into detail about their son Nick, who probably does not meet GNG in his own right, but would not be appropriate to include in Rob Reiner’s death section. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Also – to be clear, we’re in agreement, I am more concerned with the considerable amount of sources, not the quantity of edits, when discussing a move. I just think this page absolutely warrants its own. We could also name oft-discussed murders that do have Wikipedia pages…) Veggiegalaxy (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth mentioning that she did not have an article before the murder. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m in favour. The Trump stuff alone has generated a lot of coverage, making it unusual even by the standards of most murder cases. At the same time it would probably be a stretch to *only* give his comments their own article. In addition their deaths have already been discussed from the perspectives of the alleged killer’s addiction, and comparisons have been made between their murder (Rob’s in particular) and that of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I think the range of coverage makes it notable. AndyENy (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was that article created? There were plenty of valid arguments brougt here not to do so. Editors cannot just ignore discussions they do not like.

Can we decide on a lead image before an edit war happens. Here are probably the most viable options.

Executive20000 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could you reduce the size manually, it’s filling up my screen and making it hard for me to edit jolielover♥talk 04:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Image A, it is the second-best quality after D, but I’m not fond of D as it is not a clear, unobstructed view of his face like A is. The fact that his head is tilted, and his lower half of body is blocked, make me not want to pick D. jolielover♥talk 04:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a fifth image for anyone to consider. Executive20000 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image E, higher quality than Image A, pretty much perfect. jolielover♥talk 04:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image B as the highest quality most recent colour image, or Image E as the highest quality image overall, despite age and B&W image. – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the photo (E) of him is best for notability as a lead picture. He’s 23 years old, this is even before All in the Family, and with his distinguished career as a director, I think photo B is better served here. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Photo B makes more sense as the lead image, in my opinion. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it’s before his distinguished career, I still think it’s best for the quality. And I know this is treading the line of sentimentality, but B&W feels appropriate, no? Michael Jackson has a B&W image in the lead. jolielover♥talk 04:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Twistybrastrap (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image B or C. I don’t really see much of a reason to change it. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Image B or C. E makes no sense at all ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree, image-F could work but I see nothing wrong with current photograph. PeachyBum07 (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like image A or E Agnieszka653 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say change it back to a recent one. being old is not bad and this tendency to change people’s images to a younger one as soon as they die looks ghoulish. LamentForIcarus (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose E and A. He is best known for his directing and later work as a “personality”.
Support B, looks exactly like my mental image of him Mikewem (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support E – his face is better known from All in the Family. Number one show every week for five years straight. Kire1975 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
F might be better than B. Higher resolution, the Spinal Tap hat is a nice touch Mikewem (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image should be image C. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image E per trend. If it gets deleted however, I advise Image C based on both time and resolution. GuyMan529 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a seventh image Option G. This also depicts him when he became mainstream, but there are no copyright issues. Minermatt122514 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image B. It’s high quality, in color, face-on, plus it’s relatively recent and reflects the individual’s image better. Phoeromones (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add my own opinion as the proprietor of this discussion, I think that the newly added Image G, which has proof of being taken before 1978 to qualify for the public domain, is a PERFECT image as it is during Reiner’s role as Meathead Stivic. Executive20000 (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image B – I do think image-B has the most relative image when thinking about Reiner and it it was recent enough to give a good idea of what he looked like, I do understand he might have been more “famous” in his early career but I don’t think he had enough drop-off and was still relevant in his older age for the most common readers purposes. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original image was fine. I feel like if we’re going for notability here, Rob Reiner is probably known more globally as a director. Also helps that this photo includes him with a Spinal Tap hat, which is one of his most well known works as a director.

–K-popguardian (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the photo from the same event currently used in the Filmography section, as he’s smiling and looking to the left (toward the page content.)

Funcrunch (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one’s perfect. – K-popguardian (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added it as Option F to the gallery at the top of this section. Funcrunch (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer E. When I think of what Rob Reiner looked like, I think of around the time he was on All in the Family. The fact that it’s high quality and well framed makes me prefer it slightly more than A. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option E Depicts Reiner when he first became mainstream and the quality isn’t that bad either. —TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I don’t understand is why a person’s death even warrants this discussion?
On Friday, when Mr Reiner was still alive, why were people not discussing what better image to use, the current one was fine. Why does the fact that he has died require this change in photo. Option E to me is too obscure, given that his greatest fame as a director not a fledgling actor as that photo depicts. I vote for Photo B and C ~2025-40879-37 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While someone’s alive they prioritize using a recent photo, but once someone dies they try to switch to a photo that best matches the most popular public image of the person, such as during a role they were famous for. When David Lynch died the photo was changed from a current one to one from the 1990 Emmy awards when he was entering the prime of his career. Sometimes that instinct can be overzealous though and the initial attempt at a good pick can be wrong, which is what looks like it was the case for Reiner. ~2025-41032-34 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going with Option G because it also depicts him when he became mainstream, but there are no copyright issues. I would cut out the border if it was used. Minermatt122514 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His face here is also a little less obscured by his hat & its shadow. Twistybrastrap (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are we using a picture of him from 55 years ago, for when we have one of him from this past Summer? I mean, come on. CNC33 (. . .talk) 22:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, 100% ~2025-40879-37 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Option E in the gallery at the top of this section has been nominated for deletion. Funcrunch (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTA A and C are low resolution, B and F are low quality (B is blurry as a result of cropping too far, and F has poor lighting which creates a sort of unfocusing effect on his face), D is an odd angle, and E is currently nominated for deletion. Of these, C is the least bad, but do not take that as any sort of endorsement. Are these really the best on offer? Curbon7 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rob Reiner in 2016

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found this image, how about it? It is in a higher resolution and, to me, perfectly represents the director. I think it is a piece of photographic art. Look at the eyes, how much sorrow and thoughtfulness is there… All the tragic love and life of this man of Art is depicted in this portrait… and the misty and dark blurred background creates such a tragic philosophic feeling, it makes to think of the fate of this creator and the tragedy of life and evil— Preceding unsigned comment added by K. M. Skylark (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any pictures of him in the 80s/90s we can use? The typical custom is to use a picture of the subject in their prime after their passing, and since the 80s/90s is when he directed his most famous works I’d think that would be the best option. Of the Images presented, though, my vote’s on G. Thethincontroller (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rob Reiner at the 1988 Emmy Awards

    Rob Reiner at the 1988 Emmy Awards

    • There is this one, but the quality is not good. Minermatt122514 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide some examples of this? Did some surface-level checking and usually the lead image seems to be aimed close to their death, not their prime. Phoeromones (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some examples of articles that I know of which do this:
    Norman Lear
    James Watson
    Leonard Nimoy
    Sean Connery
    Michael Jackson
    Ozzy Osbourne
    Hulk Hogan
    Paul Newman
    Elizabeth II
    Do you need more, or is this enough? Minermatt122514 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my opinion, but when I think of Rob Reiner the image that comes to mind is of his portrayal of Mike “Meathead” Sivic. His portrayal of the character was so iconic that people called regularly called him “Meathead” in real life. It makes sense for the infobox picture to be of him at the part of his career that is the most iconic. Minermatt122514 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I see it as analogous to Ron Howard as Richie Cunningham on Happy Days. The character is iconic, but for both of them their large body of work as a director has overshadowed their earlier TV work,and they’ve made numerous public appearances in that capacity over the decades. I suspect the average person off the street nowadays visualizes them more as directors than as TV actors and the main image should reflect that. An image of him as Meathead should certainly be included lower down in the article however. AndyENy (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option G We should be using an image closer to the subject’s appearance at their peak, which is central to their encyclopaedic merit. MB2437 02:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How is Option G even close to Mr. Reiner’s peak? He was just 24 years old here, and way before he reached acclaim as a director. I absolutely think this is the wrong image to use as a lead, and I echo what @AndyENy has said. An image of him as director in middle age to later years is better suited.
    As an example also, let’s think of composer John Williams. Are we really going to use a photo of him at 24 years old, when he passes away? Does that make sense? ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it some sort of Wikipedia policy to change a persons photo to a younger one in black and white when they die? Genuinely curious. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that’s not a particular policy, but there is a discussion happening above; we’re deciding on which image should be used in the infobox. Please leave your thoughts on a particular image to be used, if you’d like! – Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Gotcha, thanks. ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @~2025-40616-72 Often when someone dies, their picture is changed to one where they are in their prime, but I don’t think there’s a specific policy or anything that says that. Like UmbyUmbreon said, feel free to take part in the discussion. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 04:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, I gave my opinion in the discussion 👍 thanks ~2025-40616-72 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unofficial policy. You will usually find a talk page discussion shortly after someone’s death trying to determine which image is closest to a person in the prime of their notability, though that definition isn’t always consistent between articles. —Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This. While there is no official policy on it, consensus has a strong tendency to favour an image closer to the subject’s peak. The article is about his life and career, not his final decade. MB2437 02:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The most relative policy for changes like that one you just stated could most likely be attributed to a policy that states the imagebox info picture should reflect the most prominent time of the notable persons career/life. Hense why it might be changed to a more popular/renown image of the subject matters life. Thats the best way I could try to describe it. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @MaximusEditor Can you link to that policy? Thanks. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 18:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    my best friend just said the line to me, and yes, I know he was known for so much more, but his genuine down to Earth demeanor was so treasured. I’m sure someone would like to add that credit from the 1987 film. He played “Joel” ~2025-40420-53 (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @~2025-40420-53  Done. It looks like someone has already added it. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something? Ping me!) 18:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I add the article to the Current events page or under “In the news”? Can someone get this done please? Henderson Barbara (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can weigh in on the nomination discussion here. Funcrunch (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I did! Thank you for the referral. Henderson Barbara (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, @Henderson Barbara! One thing you can do to make this possible is find and add references. ITN won’t post it if the article is full of unreferenced claims. One of the easier places is the various awards, many of which are unsourced but are probably easy to find via google. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ITN Mfield (Oi!) 07:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Henderson Barbara (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only is it a recent death, it is also a murder investigation.MyGosh789 (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey guys, I’m adding sources, how to get rid of the extra column in Rob_Reiner#Awards_and_nominations, specifically the film awards? Thanks. jolielover♥talk 13:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @MyGosh789: I’ve removed the line you added about Nick Reiner. Yes, People has reported he is under investigation, but it’s been around 12 hours and no one else has reported that; even TMZ stops short of confirming this. That’s a very very telling silence; the fact that most publications aren’t even reporting on People‘s claims in a distanced “People is claiming…” way (which usually is fairly well-insulated from defamation suits) suggests that they have serious concerns about those claims’ veracity. As such, and keeping in mind WP:BREAKINGNEWS, we have to treat the People article as an unreliable source for the time being, which means that per WP:BLP it must be removed and cannot be restored without consensus. I’ve left a hidden comment in the article to this effect, and I’m going to drop a note at WP:BLPN about this as well. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We can wait a week or 5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the severity of the claims, I’m guessing we’ll see either widespread confirmation in the next 24-48 hours, or a retraction and ensuing lawsuit. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that a single source isn’t enough for a BLP issue this big. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hollywood Reporter is also reporting this. Carlstak (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not quite. The headline (which is not a reliable source) says it, but the body of the article only says that People said it. Likewise USA Today only quotes People. Those are potentially points in favor of us reporting on People‘s claims as claims, but the fact that major publications like The New York Times and CNN seem to be avoiding third-party coverage of the claims at all makes me think we should hold off. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 14:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not suggesting that we shouldn’t hold off, just noting that another media outlet (with heavyweight lawyers) felt confident enough in People’s reporting to pick it up. Carlstak (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s likely those lawyers told them, “You can say People is reporting this.” Valereee (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC and NYT are now reporting that the individual in question has been arrested. So People has not proven unreliable. — Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Valereee (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it now seems that there’s no question he’s the suspect, which moves this to the more subjective question of whether to name or not name under WP:BLPCRIME. For now I’d still say no. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it doesn’t look like anyone has 100% confirmed he’s been charged specifically for their deaths, just that he was questioned and then booked on a felony charge, so we should definitely hold off. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think don’t name, for sure. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-removed for now per rough consensus here. I could see the case for inclusion once the police/DAs actually say he’s been charged with the killings, but till then it would be premature. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Los Angeles Times just said the son has been arrested: [[1]] although we should still wait I think. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    LAT with four bylines ought to do it. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Associated Press now has more information: “Rob Reiner’s son Nick Reiner has been taken into custody after deaths of the director-writer and his wife Michele, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.” —Giacomo1968 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    And the Associated Press has a list of tributes/rememberances which oddly includes Donald Trump’s unhinged screed. —Giacomo1968 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see a problem with adding “a family member has been taken into custody” that is not specfying anyone in particular because people are going to keep adding the detail anyway, I have seen on a source that he has been charged but they don’t know what with specfically yet. ItsShandog (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If people keep adding a contested BLP statement without consensus, the solution is some combination of blocks and page protection; we don’t ignore policy just because enough people violate it. That said, I’m less opposed to the “family member” version. — Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the “family member” wording earlier because I know we do not include Nick’s name unless he has been formally charged. While protections and edit filters can be applied, there will always be some editors with access who might try to add his name. Keeping the neutral “family member” phrasing helps prevent repeated attempts to insert Nick’s name prematurely. I think failing to acknowledge on the page that someone has been arrested will make people keep adding it repeatedly. ItsShandog (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it’s not actually true that there will always be some editors with access who might try to add his name. I would be shocked if an admin edited through full protection to add the name of a non-notable BLP; that would end up at WP:XRV. That said, I would not want to full protect, as the article needs editing. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair point. ItsShandog (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT reports Nick Reiner arrested 100W bulb (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LAPD Official Statement regarding Nick Reiners Arrest: https://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/detectives-announce-arrest-in-the-murder-of-robert-and-michele-reiner-nr25238kt/ Coasterghost (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hollywood reporter is citing not People, but Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department records which are public records. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CBC news has also mentioned Nick Reiner. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should be added to the Reaction section when the President reacts to a celebrity death, regardless: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crk78nx2y6pt ~2025-40997-18 (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh… Trump seeks attention, even in the aftermath of the death of others. Let’s not feed his bottomless ego and tarnish this tragedy with his ramblings. —Giacomo1968 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Like him or not, he is the President of the United States. His comments are important, even if unhinged. PhummyLW (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don’t decide on whether or not to inclue such comments, based on ‘who’ the US president is. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It will feed something else, namely the revulsion that so many feel at Trump’s narcissism and self-centredness. His remarks are in character. He always has to make everything about himself. Nonetheless, I support the inclusion of his remarks because their very nature is notable. How often does a president do something like this? Kelisi (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that Trump’s comments should be in there, and at the end. I’d suggest putting a paragraph break prior to it, because it is such a contrast in tone and content to the other comments. Woogawoogawooga (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have come around to accept that the comments by Trump should stand. They are so out of proportion to the tragedy of their deaths, and they are made by a standing President? Let him own his own words. Feh… What a horrid reaction to someone’s death. —Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    if the comments of governor of California and the former vice president as well as the president and first lady from 9 years ago belong on the page, then so do the comments of the current president Sixagilefingers (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m not sure if those should be kept either, though that is a whole different discussion. PokémonPerson 19:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I know it’s a slightly different case, but there were people saying on the talk about the Sydney shooting that international reactions that mourned the event were routine and the only things that would stand out would be if another country celebrated the shooting. I don’t support saying things like this, but it’s certainly unusual that anybody, let alone a murder victim, has their death mocked by their country’s president. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. It is very unusual for a US President to make such comments, hence they are noteworthy. The comments by Obama, Harris etc. are perhaps not even worth including.–A bit iffy (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments seem noteworthy in their extremity and self-centeredness. Perhaps give time, there will surely soon be reactions to Trump’s reaction, which seem to have discomfited even right-wing commentators by its grotesque viciousness. Revisit after the news cycle.–Varavour (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve removed the Trump comment for now. If there are reactions, I’m fine with readding it. PokémonPerson 17:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we also remove comments by Obama, Harris, Newson etc. unless there are reactions to those?–A bit iffy (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe PokémonPerson 19:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the trump comment is still there. The context paraphrasing trumps comment is confusing and unclear Normana400 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve removed it again.PokémonPerson 19:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Trump comments are a top news story in and of itself, covered by USA Today, AP, Hollywood Reporter, and others that are considered the highest quality sources. Our opinions and analysis do not matter, we don’t get to decide what is included in articles, sources dictate that. I’m seeing a lot of personal analysis in the above comments, which again should not matter. Our opinions on this matter is irrelevant. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this. I initially felt opposed to adding it, but I think it boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT because the comments are so reprehensible. That’s not a valid reason to exclude it. We’ve got analysis by NYT, AP, Politico, NPR, Reuters, The Guardian, and a lot more. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn’t aware that this was being discussed. Should be included but kept short; no need to go into “TDS”.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree – I was going to add a sentence like “President Donald Trump mocked Reiner’s death and suggested he died due to his criticism of Trump. His reaction was widely criticized.” until I saw the comment at the top of the section.
    I think a brief sentence on it warrants inclusion – a president openly mocking the homicide of a citizen is surely noteworthy. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I likewise support inclusion of Trump’s response, given the number of news articles specifically devoted to it. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The disgusting nature of Trump’s reaction makes it all the more important that this article mentions it. As someone who voted for him last year and now regrets it immensely, I believe that he should be held accountable. Pretending he didn’t say what he said helps him. TorahRight (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there’s enough consensus here to reinsert it. I added one sentence for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m late to this conversation, but adding: yes, if a sitting President of the United States comments on a murder, and large numbers of respected media outlets release articles specifically about those comments, it is noteworthy enough to include a paragraph. CAVincent (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS.” Is Trump claiming the murderer is a Trump supporter? Mercer17 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We’re not here to analyze or give our own opinions, just summarize sources. Make what you will out of Trump’s sources as you will. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The very first sentence in the section regarding Trump’s comments frame his remarks as a mockery — not only imposing a transparent bias towards the ongoing matter, but also presenting the comments dishonestly. Prior to Trump’s comments, there were several reports that Reiner’s son was motivated by opposing political views in the hours following the murder (all of which now overshadowed by the narrative of Nick Reiner’s substance abuse upon my attempts to retrieve and cite the specific reports.) It can be inferred that said comments were made with those reports in mind.
    At the very least, even just reviewing Trump’s comments reveal that they’re in no way “mocking” the tragedy, however misguided they may be.
    This framework serves very little purpose other than to perpetuate an attitude of anger in the reader, and further politicizing a tragedy (just as unnecessarily as Trump’s comments have) with opinions wherein readers are seeking facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMacadamianSalt (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that the Trump stuff is so prominent that its almost its own story at this point MinnesotaNiceGuy (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reiner was a huge Kennedy assassination buff. In October 2023 he released a podcast with award winning journalist Soledad OBrien, ‘Who Killed JFK?’ ~2025-40946-79 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, I really think that we should mention the Hugo win in the lead somewhere. It’s basically the Oscar or Emmy of the sci-fi/fantasy world. It’s a pretty major award and he won it for arguably one of his best known films, beating out some stiff competition. I mean, it beat “Encounter at Fairpoint”, which has been argued as one of the best TNG episodes of all time.

    It’s also one of the few awards where he actually won. So given the notability of the award, the film he won it for, and that it’s one of his rare wins, it should get mentioned alongside the nominations. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I went ahead and added it. The award is pretty major, so I feel like it should get included. If he was more well known for fantasy and sci-fi films, this would have been a no brainer to add. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I, for one, wasn’t aware of this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    @ReaderofthePack You’re referring to the TNG series premiere, Encounter at Farpoint? Who has argued this was one of the best TNG episodes of all time?? (sorry I know this is off-topic but I’m genuinely curious if this was true, a mistake, or sarcasm) Funcrunch (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of the people I’ve known have praised it up and down, but aside from that the article for the episode quotes The Hollywood Reporter and Den of Geek as saying just this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, it’s one of my favorite episodes… ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I’d start piling up some sourcing to cover legacy for him and his films. I’ve just dipped a toe in, but here’s what I’ve found so far. I have not really looked into the book side of things.

    When Harry Met Sally

    General

    activism

    ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Found a great one for This is Spinal Tap: The Routledge Companion to Popular Music. The following sentence is good:

    “The influence of the film is so profound that for many, the “fake” defines its parent genre, the rockumentary.”
    I’m at work so I can’t really do more, but wanted to toss this out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The current “Tributes and reaction” section includes politically charged statements that may not meet WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Some reactions also appear to be unverified or given undue weight. Requesting review and cleanup. ~2025-40924-73 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request (WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE):
    Please change the following portion of the “Tributes and reaction” section:
    “President Donald Trump was instead critical and wrote on Truth Social that Reiner had ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ with a lot of anger towards him, while ending with ‘May Rob and Michele rest in peace!’ Reiner had been a frequent critic of President Trump, such as an MSNBC interview in October 2025 where Reiner said that the United States risks becoming an ‘autocracy’ under Trump.”
    To:
    (Remove this paragraph in its entirety.)
    Reason:
    This material gives undue weight to partisan commentary and includes evaluative political framing that is not encyclopedic in nature. Per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS, social-media insults and detailed political disputes are not appropriate for a “Tributes and reaction” section and are disproportionate compared to other reactions. ~2025-40924-73 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. This is once again part of the hateful ideology of wikipedia editors. The president’s reaction does not justify this much detail and dedication added to the article ~2025-40886-36 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    One sentence about the president’s response seems fair, reasonable, and WP:DUE to me. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. Please participate in the Talk:Rob_Reiner#Trump comments section, above. meamemg (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I also removed political responses to Trump’s statement, primarily because there is no statement on the page. Wyliepedia @ 22:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently made an article for the murder of Rob Reiner and his wife but it got quickly taken down without much explanation. I feel like his murder deserves an article especially if his son is involved which could potentially lead to one of the most notable legal cases ever. Yessyesss (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It 1000% needs its own article. WP:DUE will limit how much we can include in his biography, and it’s clear the murder has been and will continue to be the subject of attention in reliable sources, likely for years to come if this goes to a trial. Consider also the “reactions” so far, which right now are far too much for this bio. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, in case you missed it, see the topmost section on this page right now which was for a separate Death of Rob Reiner article which was quickly redirected here. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 23:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    could potentially lead to one of the most notable legal cases ever seems like serious hyperbole to me. See also: WP:CRYSTALBALL.
    Since you’re very new to Wikipedia editing, you should consider learning more before rushing to create articles on prominent news stories or other controversial subjects. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have created a draft at Draft:Killing of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve submitted that draft for review, to me it looks ready. PokémonPerson 17:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it looks ready also (good job!) and I’ve checked in on the draft a few times today and it says it’s “under review” which I don’t think I’ve seen before. If it’s still in that state by later tonight (I’m in US Eastern) I’ll see if I can’t nudge it along. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like now it’s being blocked by a redirect, will require an admin to fix that. Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have completed the move Mfield (Oi!) 04:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This sentence is stylistically terrible. Too many commas and “by their daughter” is immediately preceded by “stabbed to death”.

    Reiner, 78,[60] and his wife, Michele, 70, were found, stabbed to death,[61] by their daughter Romy at their home in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles on Sunday, December 14, 2025.

    It should read

    Reiner, 78,[60] and his wife, Michele, 70, were found by their daughter, Romy, on December 14, 2025. They were stabbed to death [61] at their home in the Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles. ~2025-40989-44 (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done my version is slightly different, but the central concern is handled Mikewem (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Change “were found, stabbed to death,[61] by their daughter Romy at their home” to “were found by their daughter Romy, stabbed to death,[61] at their home” ~2025-40915-97 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done dupe with above Mikewem (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying to quell my subjective gut reaction of “well of course an unsettling photo suits him, he’s a murderer” because I think it would be valuable to choose a photograph that more clearly highlights that at that time nobody suspected that he had this in him. ~2025-41032-34 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sort of, see Category:Nick Reiner which has 1 other. There may of course be photos we can use that Commons doesn’t currently know about, but if so, someone needs to find them. And put them on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this picture been touched up with AI or similar? It looks incredibly off.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His pose looks incredibly normal in the other photo [2] though he’s barely visible unless you blow it up. I think the disturbing photo was just taken at the wrong milisecond, though it is foreboding. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I agree the new photo is not great either. But it is better than the previous one. And as far as “foreboding” goes, that really is not fair. Every photo of a person who is suspected or has committed murder will be overly-scrutinized, since us humans always want to make sense of things that are threatening to life. I think the previous photo was more of a “deer in the headlights” moment than anything else. Still, I like the newer photo where he is avoiding eye contact. This is all truly a tragedy for all. Even Nick Reiner. —Giacomo1968 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent some time looking at this, the image looks fake especially with the weird second hand on Nick’s shoulders. But it’s a crop of a group photo, with an artificial backdrop, so the shadows and edges are natural and the hand was not a disembodied artifact. No objection to changing to the other photo unless there’s something wrong with it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 02:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Nick Reiner at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 2016 Voice Awards
    I have changed to this picture. Still not great, but I think, better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    It’s significantly better. Thank you. Jessamyn (my talk page) 23:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Early life
    Reiner was born in The Bronx, New York, the son of Estelle (née Lebost), an actress, and Carl Reiner, a comedian, actor, writer, producer, and director. As a child, Reiner lived in New Rochelle, New York, where his family resided at 48 Bonnie Meadow Road, similar to the fictitious address of 148 Bonnie Meadow Road, as the Petries on The Dick Van Dyke Show, the 1960’s CBS sitcom created by his father. (It may not be a coincidence that lead character on that show was named Rob.) When Reiner was about 13, the family moved to the Los Angeles area, where Reiner attended Beverly Hills High School and the University of California, Los Angeles. He also has a sister, Sylvia Anne (Annie) Reiner (b. 1947), who is a poet, playwright and author; and a brother, Lucas Reiner (b. 1960), a painter, actor, and director.

    Piñanana (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Reiner was a huge Kennedy assassination buff. In October 2023 he did a podcast with award winning journalist Soledad O’Brien , “Who Killed JFK”. They named names. ~2025-41094-74 (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide reliable sources claiming this to be notable information? drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 16:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone has already added a Variety article about it. Kire1975 (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Very well. I trust their judgement. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 16:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A professionally produced podcast is fine to add to External links. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    “Reiner was known for his liberal political views and activism. He and his wife, Michele Singer Reiner, were stabbed to death at their home in Los Angeles on December 14, 2025.”

    In my opinion, placing these seemingly unrelated sentences together in one short paragraph where it’s just these two statements by themselves could, to a reader, imply a connection between the two.

    “On December 15, Los Angeles police arrested the Reiners’ son Nick, stating that Rob and Nick had an argument at a Christmas party hosted by Conan O’Brien on the evening of December 13.”

    Again I think there is a wording issue here that could be misconstrued by a reader. The flow of this sentence implies that the reason that they arrested Nick was because he argued with Rob. I think common sense dictates that this was not the only reason he was arrested, with other evidence available to LAPD, but the way this sentence is constructed makes that implication anyway.

    I would implement changes to refine the sentence flow in these two areas, but I’m not sure how the first point should be rearranged in the article and its lede. I would be happy to hear feedback. Engineeringest (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, per WP:SYNTH. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve removed “Reiner was known for his liberal political views and activism.” we already mention his activism in the lede, and it adds little. There is also a full section later on. This could be modified further in the future. The second issue has been addressed by another editor. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Riener should be changed to the correct spelling. ~2025-38309-43 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Where it says that Nick Reiner is not medically cleared to appear in court, it should say something more like,

    “As of December 6, Nick Reiner had yet to be medically cleared to appear in court.”

    Reason: the current wording might give the impression that there is something that has caused him to fail to be medically cleared when the reality is that, as his own lawyer has said, this is a standard procedure for all prisoners as a requirement for transfer from one place to another and it simply hasn’t happened yet.

    An alternate suggestion: delete the sentence altogether as it is likely to become outdated very soon and does little to increase the reader’s understanding, and might even muddle it. ~2025-41238-39 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I have removed the sentence entirely as I agree it is potentially misleading and likely to become outdated quickly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Day Creature (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Because of the murders, can we add some information about Rob’s son Nick? Such as his DOB (September 14, 1993) and early life? ~2025-40635-59 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    it’s highly likely more information will be added in due time given his court appearances. —~2025-40615-45 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we have a Wiki page about him or no? ~2025-40635-59 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Too early to say. It’s likely that there will be an article about the killings and a section about the lead suspect or perpetrator. This may or may not be Nick. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    I think a separate Wiki page on the killings might actually be a very good idea. But still, too early to tell at this time. ~2025-40635-59 (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if she’s the best person to begin this sentence. It’s only very recently she’s been opposing him, for a vast majority of her political career she has been pro-Trump. ~2025-40615-45 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The sentence is about Republicans who criticized Trump’s remarks, and she is currently one of the most prominent anti-Trump Republicans. I see no issue. Day Creature (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this needs to be mentioned, and linked, twice in the article. ~2025-40615-45 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the redundant second mention from the “Legacy” section. Day Creature (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In the personal life section, do we have nothing to say about Nick other than his illness and addiction? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 02:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    As a reader of Wikipedia, I would like to see more about Nick Reiner, more than just than his role in the murder but also what are the characteristics that make him a flawed human being. TOAK19054 (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t mind mentioning his struggles with addiction/homelessness since that’s public and they made a movie about it, but we don’t know him personally, we don’t know the characteristics that make him a flawed human being. jolielover♥talk 09:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We go with sources, and that’s what sources talk about. He did several podcast episodes of Dopey and he also talked about that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe he worked with his father on film projects. I’m too busy right now to search for sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    I fully support not saying “December 14” as long as that’s uncertain, but the current “December 2025” is perhaps overly broad. What about “December 13 or 14”? Moncrief (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s literally not uncertain though, despite what editors @Neveselbert: is asserting. Eric Idle is on record saying he had only spoken to Reiner hours before Reiner and his wife were discovered. The investigation being diligent is one thing, it doesn’t counteract however other’s statements. There is no valid reason to discredit Idle’s input since timeline is currently important. Rusted AutoParts 05:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Neveselbert: stop edit warring. That’s not very civil. Rusted AutoParts 05:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric Idle having spoken to Reiner “hours before” discovery does not, by itself, determine which side of midnight the deaths occurred on. Idle is not a forensic authority, and using conversational timing to infer a calendar date would amount to editor synthesis, which WP:OR cautions against.
    The Chief of the LAPD has stated publicly that investigators are still working to determine whether the killings occurred late Saturday night or early Sunday. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we limit the discussion here to whether the best wording is “December 2025” or “December 13 or 14, 2025”? The LAPD (and/or LA County prosecutors) have specifically said that, at this time, they are unsure if the Reiners died on Saturday night or Sunday early morning. I’m sure more timeline information will come out soon enough, but that’s where we’re at now. Obviously the Reiners were alive up through much of Saturday night, so I’m not seeing the relevance of Idle’s vague “hours.” Another data point is that Nick Reiner checked into a hotel room at 4 a.m. with bloody items, so it’s not as if Idle spoke to Rob in the late morning or something. Moncrief (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Infoboxes generally don’t list alternative dates unless sources themselves present a range in that form. Where uncertainty exists, the usual approaches are either c. or a broader month/year formulation. Using {{circa}} is the more precise of those options. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes sense. Moncrief (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Idle’s quote, from a tweet early Monday morning Sunday night L.A. time, is “I spoke to him last night for over an hour.”[3]. (Idle was presumably also in Southern California, where he lives.) I’m honestly not sure what that’s meant to prove here, or why it would supersede the authorities’ statements, but that’s the quote. Moncrief (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your topic involved the date of death, there was a dispute about the date of death, I elected to use the current thread about the date of death instead of a superfluous second thread about the date of death. Rusted AutoParts 06:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think “December 13 or 14” works personally. jolielover♥talk 09:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per CNN, they died in the “early morning hours of December 14”; their source are officers. I think we change it back to Dec 14. jolielover♥talk 16:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Los Angeles Coroner Office has his date of death as December 14th. https://me.lacounty.gov/case-detail/?caseNumber=2025-19480 Coasterghost (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s both tedious and and annoying that this squabble rears it’s ugly head everytime a celebrity is “found dead”. Other examples are Steve Ditko, Gene Hackman and Peter Greene. In cases like this, I wish someone could totally protect the death date so that no one could change it until it’s been properly verified. This bickering just gives me a headache…
    ~2025-41127-32 (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If the reality is that the date of death is uncertain, I don’t understand what is “tedious and annoying” about it. We’re doing our best to reflect reality here, and that’s the reality. Moncrief (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Its the bickering that is tedious and annoying, not the subject. ~2025-41323-46 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop with the WP:OR. The question isn’t when he died, it’s when the sources say he died. Now we’re saying it’s the 14th but I don’t think the sources support that. The source (CNN) says “Officials allege Nick Reiner fatally stabbed his parents in the early morning hours of December 14′” which isn’t the same as “he died on the 14th”. CNN cites the DA’s office as its source, and they say “In approximately the early morning hours of December 14” which also isn’t the same as “he died on the 14th”. I think we should change it back to “ca. 14” until we have a more definitive source. This isn’t the newspaper and there is no rush to put in an exact date. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How does “early morning hours of December 14” mean anything other than “he died on December 14”? Does the former imply he died on the 13th? On the 12th? 15th? No, and it’s ridiculous to insinuate that. Why change it to ca. 14 when CNN has already confirmed it’s the 14th? jolielover♥talk 17:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    “early morning hours of December 14” doesn’t mean anything at all. It’s not a sentence. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    CNN hasn’t confirmed anything. The key word here is alleged. That’s not definitive. It could just as well be right before midnight on the 13th. The coroner is working to establish the exact time of death which can take a couple of days. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason sources aren’t clearer on this is that it doesn’t matter. 14th is fine. We are not confusing or deceiving readers by suggesting he was killed at 12:10 when it was really 11:50. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Things in an encyclopedia shall not be “fine”. It should be correct. Sometimes we can’t get it exactly, like with Gene Hackman. DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed 100%. Moncrief (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think debating “December 14th” vs. “circa December 14th” is the best use of your time, I am in no position to disagree. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    so his wife was named michele with one L and they named their daughter romy shortly after the “romy and michele” movie came out. that cannot be a coincidence.

    have the parents ever commented on this? statistically speaking, the daughter must have been named after the movie, but i cannot find a source to state as such. anyone? ~2025-38061-76 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be cute if true, but tbh not relevant in this article. jolielover♥talk 17:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    i don’t see why not. whole article doesn’t have to be abt their death. ~2025-38061-76 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:OR. If you find a reliable-source citation that this is why she was named thusly, you can bring it here for discussion. Moncrief (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    i said that already. mathematically, it seems obvious (both very rare names, at least in the US; their pairing is likely unique in a nation of 340 million), but i haven’t found a source. hence my line “anyone?” above. (meaning “does anyone else know of one?”)
    thanks for repeating it. ~2025-38061-76 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I’m looking to update Rob Reiner’s portrait to something newer than 2016, in this Newsweek article, I found a picture of him from 2019: https://www.newsweek.com/2024/02/23/rob-reiner-sounds-alarm-rise-christian-nationalism-1869693.html. What do y’all think? TheEditorFromNJ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If you mean the image captioned Rob Reiner attends the “This Is Spinal Tap” 35th Anniversary during the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival at the Beacon Theatre on April 27, 2019, note that it also has credits for the image, Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images. Getty Images are subject to WP:Copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh ok. thanks. TheEditorFromNJ (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose that we change it to It is higher quality than the 2016-er ~2025-41605-94 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the cause of death back to Sharp force injuries and have removed the wording of “apparent” of the article. That is the official determination of cause of death by the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner with the manner being declared Homicide. This infomation is in the public record and easily accessible from the Medical Examiner’s office online.[4]

    I think its pretty cut and dry to keep this information as the de facto information but if there is a clear majority to include “by Homicide” in the infobox. As of now, the only speculative wording should be with the any mention of Nick Reiner as he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Coasterghost (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Coasterghost, you bring up a good point about the cause of death. I should note that murder and homicide are legal terms regarding the modes of death, not the actual medical causes of death. Thus, I would also say sharp force injuries or penetrating trauma is the best way to summarize this subject’s cause of death. Just my two cents on this one. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 00:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The reported circumstances of Rob Reiner’s death are horrific and very sad. But I do think there are currently a bit too many names mentioned in this section. For the tribute by Howard Stern, the reference is currently a primary source YouTube video. For the tribute by Jerry Mitchell, the reference is currently a primary source tweet on X (formerly known as Twitter). Secondary sources would be preferable to establish notability.

    There are currently over 40 names of people listed in the section as paying tribute. I think this number could and perhaps should be trimmed as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.

    My view is also that the comments by Donald Trump and the subsequent reaction to his comments should be kept as concise as possible, as this is an article about Reiner, not Trump. In my view it does not need to be stated that Trump “mocked” Reiner’s death. It is sufficient to state the words that Trump used and a concise reaction to those comments. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Must Read

    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Scroll to Top