Talk:David Carradine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Family tree

"He is the son of actor John Carradine, the half-brother of Keith Carradine, and of Robert Carradine." Looks like he has two fathers. Perhaps someone can clean up the grammar who knows the family tree?--Rbeas 22:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, and this is mostly just worked out from the IMDb so far, David and Bruce are brothers, and Keith and Robert are brothers, and all four are the sons of John (therefore presumably by two different mothers). Michael Bowen is also their half-brother [1], although since his father is apparently the artist Michael Bowen and not John, I presume he is actually only half-brother to two of them, and unrelated (or step-brother) to the other two. This is one of those family trees that you can spend hours following around the IMDb — try it with the Jacksons, it's fascinating. — sjorford++ 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancestor in a blender

"...Born of Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, German, Spanish, Ukrainian, Cherokee and Italian (and maybe chinese) descent..." What is he, some kind of mutant? But seriously, isn't that taking genealogy a bit too far? It looks absolutely ridiculous. 130.225.54.2 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to write that he has no jewish and african ancestry but everything else instead? 87.162.4.189 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

laugh - extremely narrow view of "everything" there. For one thing, you managed to miss every part of my own entirely. Most of us are mongrels, after all. But if you want shortening, my first choice would be to drop the sentence entirely. If not (some might find it interesting that he has no East Asian ancestry), try this for the entire paragraph:

Carradine was born in Hollywood, California, the son of Ardanelle Abigail (née McCool; 1911-1989)[6] and noted American actor John Carradine,[7] half-brother of Bruce, Keith and Robert Carradine, and uncle of Ever Carradine and Martha Plimpton. In addition to a diverse European ancestry, he is also part Cherokee.[8] He attended Oakland Junior College[1] and later studied drama at San Francisco State College[1] before working as an actor on stage and in television and cinema. After starting his career, Carradine changed his given name to David."

Shorter by 10% and a bit less choppy. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.226 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Genealogy?

Some people do actually believe that a multiracial Earth, multiethnic Earth, is a very important process & goal. Hopiakuta 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case it should be immaterial from what races one decended. But descent is an American thing! With that many parts in him, one could just say he's nth generation American - or not ? TinyMark 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What about Yellowpages commercials?

Hopiakuta 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

With a questioning voice and, to me, comical facial gestures and body movements, the words "A good plumber?" highlight the YellowPages TV ad.68.13.191.153 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but those ads were actually for YellowBook, a specific yellow page company.

Wording on this: "In 2006, he became the spokesman in the commercial for the Yellow Book" seems awkward eh?

Sex with a minor scandal?

Wasn't he charged with a sex with a minor scandal around 1976? I can't find it in google, but I remember this. ~~Ruth E.

Are you thinking of Roman Polanski? I think you have Carradine and Polanski confused. JGKlein (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

It may have been very difficult to believe that a full blooded Chinese man would be able to walk from town to town in the American West in the 1800s.
Weren't there thousands of Chinese railroad workers in the American West in the 1800s? They're a pretty common sight in most Westerns. --NEMT 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bruce Lee/casting story in the Kung Fu article contradicts the one here, which seems to be written based on the Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.157.98 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed dumb mistake

he wasn't in Deadwood. That was Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.74 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

White Crane

Hey guys, Did I overlook the film White Crane in which Carradine played White Crane ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.81.181 (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Silent Flute

Wasn't Carradine in a pre-Kung Fu film called The Silent Flute, which was based on Bruce Lee's idea for Kung Fu? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

The Importance of Bill

I think it's strange that the career section only mentions Kill Bill in the opening sentence but then gives quite a large paragraph to his cameos on Lizzy McGuire and Medium, and a small paragraph about King of the Hill. Kill Bill is more important for a couple reasons; he was nominated and won awards for this role and because it's the best (only?) example in the last couple decades that he's had more than a cameo in a big, popular blockbuster. Will it be reverted if I add something? Kansaikiwi (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Death

Have you coroner's reports that prove it is suicide. Put "presumed suicide" or something. I don't say he didn't do it, but how are you so sure about what's still speculated? Major news sites are not calling it suicide, why should Wikipedia? Are you that infallible? --190.77.36.90 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree (Wiki's love to jump the gun- gossipyu little hens they are :) ). I came across a photo the maid took on her phone of Carradine in the closet, evidently dead. Can I post it here? Yes, no, maybe? Will it be enough?65.215.94.13 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RIP: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/big-Hollywood-Star-Kills-Bangko-t270582.html

I have yet to see any major newspapers reporting his death, only thai webpages with poor english, making it hard for me to take it seriously. Should we find better sources before posting it? Lilduff90 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC are now reporting it, so we have reliable sources. Rodhullandemu 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC a reliable source? Come on be serious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has lightyears of reliability ahead of Fox noise, I'll tell ya that much bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.199.143 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In the larger context. What does this mean about the goals, rewards and the peace of the Tao?

What does David’s death suggest? -oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suicide?

This comment about him committing suicide needs to be changed immediately. There was no police report that claimed that he had committed suicide yet. The article says that, "The Nation, cited unidentified police sources as saying Carradine was believed to have committed suicide and had hanged himself with a curtain cord" and until that's actually confirmed, it's hearsay. OlYeller^Talktome 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been locked in order not to allow ayone other than policy violating admins to make any changes. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no policy violation here, so you're tilting at windmills. Just use the {{editprotected}} template to suggest any changes that need to be made. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles now say "neck and other parts of his body," and any claims of suicide come from unidentified sources repeated by one newspaper in another - unreliable in other words. It'd be jumping the gun to call it autoerotic asphyxiation, but it's also jumping the gun to call it suicide. zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the reports of 'other parts' means he died having a wank just like the guy from INXs. If it was innocent they would name the 'other parts'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.139.163.153 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Date

The infobox states 3 June, the lead and Death subsection state 4 June - which is correct? Best name (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The report at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31103217/states: "...his body was found by a hotel maid at 10 a.m. Thursday morning." and "It cited police as saying he had been dead at least 12 hours..." Wouldn't this make the date of actual death June 3rd, not the 4th? Rackham (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Death-section only mentions the date he was found, so the 3rd is supported by sources. Rackham (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just changed a good faith edit which moved 4th to 3rd. Of the sources given, one stated he was found on the 4th and had died "not less than 12 hours" earlier, and the other gave no time or date as I remember. Unless/until it is announced otherwise, the 3rd is the date that makes sense to keep for now. Sky83 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the edit moved 3rd to 4th. My bad. Sky83 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did he die on June 3 or June 4? The first says June 3, but the Death section says June 4. Which is it? Or is it the work of vandals? Klonk (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The death section says he was found dead on the 4th, not that he died on the 4th. Apparently, he was found at 10am and it was supposedly ascertained that he died "no less than 12 hours earlier", which would put his time of death at or before 10pm on the 3rd. Hope that makes sense! Sky83 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also timezone issues to be considered. 10am on the 4th Bangkok time is 8pm on the 3rd LA time. CS Miller (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very true, either way though, it seems that the 3rd is correct as far as current information goes. As for a permanent time of death, it would go with local time I imagine. Sky83 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also the problem with Wikipedia simply being a poor source for anything these days anyway. I thikn I'll keep my CNN bookmark after all.65.215.94.13 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two different dates of death on the page.June 4 and June 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.59.195 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Death section correctly states he was found on 4 June. Lead and infobox correctly state 3 June as death date. Best name (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put hidden notes in the info box, lead and death sections to try to prevent a change being made. Hopefully this will be enough to solve any confusion potential editors of the date may have! Sky83 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fetish death?

According to AP the rope was around his neck and body. Far be it from me to sully his name but it sounds like a good old fashion case of Autoerotic asphyxiation gone too far. It's just a wild guess but it does make sense. Sixthcrusifix (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do people always do this sex game thing in the closet? Seriously, is that part of the rules? Proxy User (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If rumor is to be believed Carradine was a victim of his own acting stereotype. Supposedly he was into rough sex based on martial arts role playing. So it may be possible that some hired fan/prostitute overestimated the old geezers current ability to escape bondage. No hotel surveillance footage? Maybe the fan was playing a Ninja whore and scaled the exterior. But most likely its is just the common Thai practice of being tourist friendly to sexual fetishists and leaving the recordings and even the entire cameras off.

In the end we do not know. Given the way Thai law enforcement operates we probably never will. Due to their tourist orientation, Thai officials generally tend to brush over anything but the bare facts for deaths not falling into publicly committed murder or criminal or politically motivated serial or mass murders. One off murders and accidents are generally not profitable for the Thai government to pursue. In way Thai's have it right -- dead is dead and no insight into circumstances undoes that. And in Carradine's case anything but suicide is unlikely to tarnish his legacy. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering Carradine is supposed to be "edgey" I would have thought that it would be suicide that would "tarnish" his rep, that some "extreme" sex thing would be right up there in the "Carradine Mysique". All in all, a great actor... Proxy User (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Foul play?

According to TMZ, his manager says that his hands were tied behind his back meaning that someone else may have been in the room at the time of his death. It's speculation and not exactly from the most reliable source so I won't add it to the article but I thought it was important enough to mention here. As more evidence becomes known about this speculation, it may need to be added. OlYeller^Talktome 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone went ahead and added the comment with TMZ as the source. Seriously? TMZ as a source? Do I need to explain why that's a problem? OlYeller^Talktome 04:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Carradine's representative and family members told the press that they believe the death to be accidental, not suicide

Let's see... He was found in a closet hanging from a nylon rope while completely naked. How could this be an accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoerotic fatality Evan1975 (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... "accident" ... as opposed to suicide or foul play. Being found in a closet hanging from a nylon rope while completely naked could easily fit any of those three categories (accident, suicide, foul play). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

When a person mastubates whilst asphyxiating themself, he doesn't intend to kill himself. Therefore, when a person dies as a result of auto erotic asphyxia, though the asphyxia was intentional, the death was unintentional. Depending on the jurisdiction, such a death would be ruled accidental death or death by misadventure. Best name (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Upped to full protect for now

There are unreliable sources being added to this page - let's please be careful for now. Ronnotel (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So why is someone still editing? This full protectio is such a bad idea. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's only for a day - give the reliable newscycle time to catch up to the blogs. Ronnotel (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it's locked...there was some bizarre vandalism going on and it was annoying to read the stuff coming from here (due to vandals) and making it to Twitter. Thanks for the lock, Ronnotel! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.110.41 (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a day? This is the most important day for this article as people are interested in editing it due to him having passed away. This is the worst possible day to do so. And with what end? To make sure the article doesn't get improved. Admins making a mockery of our policies by editing do not help. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the article for some hours now; about 80% of edits prior to protection were pure vandalism or poorly-sourced speculation. Are you sure you are aware this is an encyclopedia? Rodhullandemu 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind of comment is that. Of course I am aware its an encyclopedia. There is a long tradition of not protecting recently died articles for the obvious reason that people are interested in editing at this time, and that will be lost forever if the article is locked. How is that building a good encyclopedia. I hope you are not implying that this should be a 20th century encyclopedia in your comment, people want their information updated and live nowadays. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the full protection was a tad premature, but I do agree with the sentiment of it. As this news filters through to people, there will inevitably be those who think it's funny to come here and vandalise this article because their mindless edits will be visible to more people than usual. That said, there will also be information coming through that needs to be going in to clarify and correct certain details. There's no perfect solution, the info will just have to be collected here and placed in the article when it is deemed acceptable to edit again. Sky83 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have requested unprotection at WP:RFPP. There were no malicious edits after User:Rodhullandemu semi-protected the article. Protection is not supposed to be used prophylactically. --Elliskev 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if "malicious" is the correct standard. In particular, there was this edit that is clearly inappropriate, although I won't comment on motives. Ronnotel (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article should not be on full protect. Whatever little vandalism occurs after a semi-protect is very easily reverted. That's especially so when an article like this has a lot of eyes. The major news sources (which are reliable) have been carrying this story for a while now. Please let the editors continue to work on the article. Thank you. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been unlocked now, so the point is moot. But, admins, please be aware "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia," per WP:NO-PREEMPT. Also, please note that "Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum)," per Wikipedia's protection policy. Thank you. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi should always be fine in a case like this where the issue is vandalism as any account older than 4 days that vandalizes the article can and should be blocked as it makes sense to temporarily withdraw editingprivileges rather than not allow anyone to edit the article in order to allow one or 2 mischief makers to edit the project. Truly a no-brainer. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientologist?

NNDB claims he was [2] Best name (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Ronnotel (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but was he? If not, what religion was he? Best name (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno - but we would only mention it if it can be established by a reliable source. Ronnotel (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The best answer is that Carradine has said "I went down and took a couple of classes,... I'm no kind of Scientologist, but I've been around it enough to know it's a very intelligent thing." - according to this. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps NNDB said this due to close association-- in his ex-wife's divorce filing, she mentioned the woman who became his next wife, Annie, and said Annie was a Scientologist.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

"..he married his wife Annie.."

As it turns out, he was also the father of his kids. --Helt91 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It should say 'he married Annie Bierman'. Married his wife is not correct, as she only became his wife once the marriage occurred. Best name (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot improve the article as somebody has decided only admins ca improve it in defiance of all our basic policies. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This article states he lived with Barbara Hershey from 1972-1975, her article states 1969-1975. Best name (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC link

This is probably going to be modified in the next hours and days as better information comes in but the BBC article says that the actor was "found naked by a hotel maid in a wardrobe with a cord around his neck and other parts of his body" and not "with a rope around his neck and body." The latter sentence found on the wiki right now is somewhat misleading. In Pace Requiescat and all that but based on the Santa Claus article, I can see that Wikipedia doesn't censor or hide away from unpopular or uncomfortable truths. But what do I know, I'm just an anon IP.--72.1.222.61 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Movie not listed in credits

David was the villian in an 80's or possibly early ninties in a "Barbarian Brothers," movie. (There were several, they had a small following, its in the one where they are a babysitter or bodygaurd or something.) He is in the movie, it needs to be added to the credits, awful as is was! Somebody find out and add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.222.64 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean Double Trouble (1992 film), which has no Wikipedia page at the moment. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to remove that last bit of the section titled "Death". Its unsourced and very inappropriate. 72.27.163.117 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish or Italian are not an ethnic group

Hi there,

It is written : "Carradine had Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, German, Spanish, Italian, Ukrainian and Cherokee ancestry".

Excuse me, but Spanish is not an ethnic group (not a language too as the majority of people thinks it). In Spain, if the castilian identity is predominant, there is also the Catalan, Basque, Galician identity. You make the distinction between Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh with reason. Made it also for other geographic sectors (Spain, but also Italy or France) !

Thanks for the respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.75.166 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure people with Spanish nationality or ancestry from the country can choose to recognise their catalan, galician etc heritage but they can also choose to recognise Spanish ancestry (the word Castilian is not widely used in English) and if this is what Carradine did the it should e in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The right one would be Spaniard, not Spanish. Easy.--190.77.36.90 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, standard English usage has "Spaniard" as a noun and "Spanish" as the adjective, if one doesn't get more specific than nationality. So a person would be identified as "a Spaniard" or as having "Spanish ancestry." As to the original issue of "Spanish" as compared to "English/Irish/Welsh," there is the small point that Ireland, Wales, and England are all distinct nations, as is the Cherokee Nation within the U.S.; while Catalonia/lunya/luña, Galicia, et al., are historically nationalities, for the moment they are (in terms of political geography) autonomous communities within the nation of Spain. The more relevant comparison, to me, is that we wouldn't say one has Texan ancestry, even though Texas was once a distinct nation, although one might mention that someone's U.S. ancestors were from Texas. Lawikitejana (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A person who had ancestors from Spain can be correctly said to be of Spanish ancestry. If specifics are known, e.g. that the ancestors were Galician, that could be stated, but if it isn't, then it is not incorrect to state Spanish. Best name (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You people really have nothing better to do than talk about Spaniard and Spanish as nouns and adjectives?!? Wow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.80.26 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Who conquered who is still a big obsession for some Europeans (WWII is an extension of over 1500 years of post-Roman warfare). Claiming pure Castellian blood is sort of like white power movements in the USA (pure Aryan blood being best) except it has specific historical relevance from the middle ages until the early to mid 20th century. And of course an IRA born person might still have a problem with simply being identified as a citizen of the British Isles/UK.

But here the relevant aspect is genetics, not cultural or political. This is the way the Carradines described themselves genetically. But for many modern citizens, particularly Americans, they simply do not know all the specifics of their ancient tribal background or blood may have been quite mixed (gasp!) before ever leaving Spain. With the exception of the Basques most of Spain does share some genetic similarities even if distinct subtypes exist. Some families sat in Castille for 2000 years and other families would have considerable history of moving about and mixing blood even within Spain...if that history was accurately recorded. The commentor's sensitivity here is symptomic of the fact that Spain still has some hardcore addicts to political strife among its provinces.

So the relevant point is that often people DO refer to their ancestry as being simply European, British/English, etc when they do not know or want to detail such specifics as Welsh, Irish or going farther back more specifically Anglo, Saxon or Norman. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

My first choice would be to drop the ancestry sentence entirely. Why so much detail in family while not in his work? If not dropped (some might find it interesting that he has no East Asian ancestry), try this for the entire paragraph:

Carradine was born in Hollywood, California, the son of Ardanelle Abigail (née McCool; 1911-1989)[6] and noted American actor John Carradine,[7] half-brother of Bruce, Keith and Robert Carradine, and uncle of Ever Carradine and Martha Plimpton. In addition to a diverse European ancestry, he is also part Cherokee.[8] He attended Oakland Junior College[1] and later studied drama at San Francisco State College[1] before working as an actor on stage and in television and cinema. After starting his career, Carradine changed his given name to David.

Shorter by 10%, a bit less choppy, and sidesteps this ethnic debate without venturing into details that some readers might be intimately aware of and others not at all. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.226 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Welsh, Irish and English are split into three ethnolinguistic groups. The English are Germanic, the Welsh are Brythonic and the Irish are Gaelic. The Scottish are more complex and split down into Inglis (East Lowlands), Gaelic (majority of Scotland) and even Norse (Orkney for example!).

Spanish is an ethnolinguistic group though I do agree that Basques are (they speak a non-Indo-European language for a start) but I do not know enough about Galician or Catalan people other than they speak a seperate but similat Romance language. 86.132.5.6 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing movie

Please add "Crime Zone" (1988) directed by Luis Llosa and Produced by Roger Corman to his filmography. 190.41.150.72 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeared in 100 films?

Shouldn't it be "Appears in 100 films"? I realize the first reaction may be to change to past tense due to his unfortunate death, but he still appears in those films. It isn't as if the films have magically "poofed" out of existence. I know this is trivial, but its a slow day at the office, and I was just browsing the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.105.1 (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your point ... but I say that it could go either way. "Appear" could be taken to mean (A) "Today, in 2009, his likeness is there appearing in the film as I sit here and watch it on TV." ... or it could mean (B) "Way back in 1972, he went to the Hollywood set that day and performed in this film." So, either verb tense is fine, I think. I myself would go with past tense (i.e., "he appeared" means "he performed"). That is, the use of the past tense ("appeared") is owing to my second definition (B) for the word "appear" ... it is not owing to his death (such that all of his activities at this point are now in the past tense). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

"Appeared" is more idiomatic when the topic is the actor, not the film. If you're referring to what the actor did, past tense is appropriate (even when he is alive). When you are describing what one sees when viewing the film, present tense may be acceptable. Bongomatic 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Flamboyant" forensic pathologist?

Why is that one pathologist investigating his death is described as "flamboyant"? Completely irrelevant, in addition to being unreferenced. BradHD (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See her Wiki article — Pornthip Rojanasunand — and see this photo of her and also this one. She wears her hair in a spiked, punk-rock style, dyed purplish red. She wears eccentric clothing, glittery eye makeup, and platform shoes. She fully admits she dresses in an unorthodox manner for a doctor, but she loves the media attention it brings her. See the external references in her Wikipedia article. I think it would be safe to say she is flamboyant ... she is quite a colorful character. A great humanitarian, though - read about her tireless efforts in helping to identify the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. She is very well respected and quite a wonderful person. JGKlein (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP reminder

Folks, just a reminder that the consensus is that WP:BLP applies to the recently dead so please exercise the same caution with this article as you would with that of a liviing person. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, show us where it says that. It only applies to living people, but that includes anything said about them anywhere on Wikipedia. The blp notice has been replaced with the blpo notice. Best name (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just use WP:V, which is a clear enough guideline that only properly sourced information should be in articles, and that's true for all articles. The "special caution" applied to BLPs is not a measurable quantity. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Dealing with articles about the deceased rootology (C)(T) 07:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That section isn't fully clear. It states that bios of dead people should follow Wikipedia policies, but does not state that BLP rules apply, nor does it make any distinction based on how long ago the subject died. Best name (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Relative length of sections

The Death section is now half the length of the Early Life/Career/Personal Life sections put together, mostly because of the extreme focus on a detail lacking elsewhere. Seems a bit out of proportion. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.226 (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point—why don't you expand some of the rest of the article? Bongomatic 14:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Or cut short the Death section by a lot of unnecessary detail? But either will have to wait. Despite the message you just sent me (did I guess right?), I am not a registered editor, nor intend to become so. I am just a person with a disproportionate number of Carrodine films and books, too many of which are temporarily packed away. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.226 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting a consensus to remove the currently topical information will be quite difficult. Getting agreement that something that has been so intensely covered is WP:UNDUE just doesn't seem likely. However, if you have information that belongs there, I'm sure if you provide some here, a registered ed. will incorporate it into the article. Bongomatic 22:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

David Carradine's martial arts background

I remember when I read this article a few months back, it said that after finishing the series of Kung Fu, David Carradine became an active kung fu practitioner. I noticed however that this is no longer mentioned in the current article. Does anyone actually know if David Carradine practised Martial Arts or knew Kung Fu at all and if there are any sources that can clear up this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.73.101 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, another Wiki editor removed that because a reliable source could not be found.

The sentence said: "He had no knowledge of martial arts prior to starring in the series Kung Fu, but developed an interest in it after this experience and became an avid practitioner". However, it was not supported by a reliable source. I noticed when it was deleted. (I didn't remove it, honest!) To maintain Wikipedia's reputation for citing reliable sources, I think it should stay out of the article unless and until a reliable source for that is found. However, the statement sounds suspiciously to me like studio publicity. The Hollywood publicity machine is famous for that. They exploit the psychology that something told over and over so many times eventually becomes accepted as fact. Actors often play along with that game because it helps their careers. That's show business. That is why it is sometimes difficult to separate fact from studio-manufactured publicity. JGKlein (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness, I remember back in the day about 10 years ago, when I was in 5th year of high school, I ran across an Inside Kung Fu (or was it Inside Taekwondo?) magazine, where the center pages were dedicated to him being the codeveloper of a new style of Kung Fu called 9 hands. Now, being a 16 years old kid back then, I could not afford the cost of such an expensive high quality martial arts magazine, so I had to leave it at the store, but I am sure that anyone with enough links to that magazine's staff can verify this. And scans about that memorable mag would be welcome, by the way.Kim Kusanagi (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Investigating assassins?

CaN SOMEONE remove the nonsense about him investigating an anceint guild of kung fu assassins. His famliy made no such claim, nor did his attorney, nor did the cited article from the bangkok post. This is embarrassing. Have some respect for the departed and edit out that sort of garbage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk • contribs)

Suggest you read http://www.nypost.com/seven/06072009/news/regionalnews/whacky_kung_fu_172948.htm . While the allegation appears to be ludicrous, it has been reported. – ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite that it may be WP:UNDUE. Also, since when did the New York Post become a WP:RS? Bongomatic 05:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We have out pick of sources.[3][4][5][6][7] etc.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Subject fits in Category:Deaths from masturbation

Unless foul play's plausibly established .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechAndEthicsIn (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't, since the category is meaningless, inaccurate and redundant. I've deleted it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of deaths from autoerotic asphyxiation, it is the asphyxia, not the masturbation, that is fatal. Masturbation itself cannot cause death. Best name (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough citations about ex-wife Marina Anderson?

I think this article has enough references about David Carradine's ex-wife Marina Anderson. She appears to be talking excessively to the media because (surprise!) she has an upcoming book to sell. There are currently five citations that suspiciously appear to be drumming up advance publicity for her forthcoming book. I think we are giving her too much free advertising, and the Carradine family would not like this. They have enough grief to deal with right now. Can we delete some of references about her to give this article more balance? Can we concentrate more on Carradine's career and positive achievements? He was a very talented person who made some wonderful contributions to film, TV, stage and martial arts. I think we should concentrate more on those rather than the sensationalistic circumstances surrounding his unfortunate, untimely death.

Thanks!!! JGKlein (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Portland, not Stretch?

everywhere else ive seen it says that David was working on filming Portland, not a movie called Stretch. Maybe he was doing both, i dont know. but even imdb was saying that it was Portland. the imdb site is edited now so it doenst say it anymore, but it was def there. BlackDragon2213 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Children

Are any of them actors? Best name (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Son Free / Tom

HE HAS A SON, FREE (NOW NAMED TOM) WITH BARBARA HERSHEY BORN IN 1972 THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.33.148 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotta have a source. The only source I found that states Hershey and Carradine have a son named Free is (surprise) Wikipedia. The article on Hershey mentioned it, but doesn't have a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.109.110.41 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Carradine and Hershey's NNDB pages and her IMDb article state the existence of their son, but I believe neither of those sites are reliable enough to take info from to put on this article. Best name (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is used extensively as a source / reference at Wikipedia. If it's not "reliable", there's a LOT of clean-up to do! Proxy User (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IMDb profiles are routinely added to WP biographies, yet it has been stated by many people on various talk pages and in edit summaries that it is not reliable. Can someone clarify the situation regarding IMDb? Best name (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that IMDB is acceptable as a reference for film and television appearances, but not for biographical details that are listed on there. I'm not 100% certain, but that's the way I always understood it to be. Sky83 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Four more

Does anyone know any details regarding the additional son and three daughters that have been added to the Personal life section? When were they born? Who are the mothers of each? Best name (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

According to my research, the names of his stepchildren are Amanda Fraser Eckelberry (born in November 29 1989), Madeleine Rose Bierman (born in April 4 1995) and twins Olivia Jane and Max Richard (born in 1998). All four are children of Annie Bierman (born Anne Kirstie Fraser in December 1960, mother is Betty Adele Lively-Fraser) from husband Dana Richard Bierman (born in September 8 1952 and died in December 9 2000 at age 48, was son of Howard Richard Bierman, a doctor currently living in Beverly Hills). However as Amanda's last name was Eckelberry, it is thought that Annie was once married to Marc Duke Eckelberry in 1988 (born in 1954, in California) and divorced in 1991 before marrying Dana in 1992. The only member of the Bierman family to have a MySpace account was Amanda. Search in MySpace for Amanda Eckelberry, she has two MySpace accounts. Madeleine has an e-mail account, you can find that on Intelius, a people search/public records website. Annie lives in Tarzana (which is in San Fernando Valley, in Los Angeles, ZIP code is 91356). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.117.216 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

TV Shows

What about?

"Wild West Tech" (22 episodes)

  1. Six-Shooter Tech (9 November 2004) - Host 
  2. Vigilante Tech (16 November 2004) - Host 
  3. Alamo Tech (23 November 2004) - Host 
  4. Deadwood Tech (30 November 2004) - Host 
  5. Massacre Tech (7 December 2004) - Host 
  6. Biggest Machines in the West (14 December 2004) - Host 
  7. Freak Show Tech (21 December 2004) - Host 
  8. Disaster Tech (28 December 2004) - Host 
  9. Shootout Tech (25 January 2005) - Host 
 10. Saloons (1 February 2005) - Host 
 11. Law & Order Tech (15 February 2005) - Host 
 12. Gang Tech (22 February 2005) - Host 
 13. The Road West (22 March 2005) - Host 
 14. Civil War in the West (24 May 2005) - Host 
 15. Revenge Tech (13 September 2005) - Host 
 16. Freak Show II (20 September 2005) - Host 
 17. The Unexplained (27 September 2005) - Host 
 18. Massacres 2 (4 October 2005) - Host 
 19. Bounty Hunters (11 October 2005) - Host 
 20. Vices (18 October 2005) - Host 
 21. Grim Reaper (1 November 2005) - Host 
 22. Gadgets (8 November 2005) - Host 

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New Film

Any word on whether the film he was shooting at the time of his death will be released, and if he'll be featured in the said film? I'm not sure how far along they were in shooting, but I think at some point it might be worth adding to the article. 98.221.133.229 (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

2005 movie role

Mr. Carradine also starred as Rob Driscoll, a "ruthless town boss" in the 2005 Jean-Claude La Marre film titled Brothers In Arms in.~The Black Megadeus —Preceding unsigned comment added by The black megadeus (talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary at top of article is badly worded

There is a problem with the wording of the summary at the beginning of the article:

is best known for his work in the 1970s television series, Kung Fu,
the sequel of the 1990s television show, Kung Fu: The Legend Continues,
and more recently in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill.

When it is worded like this, it literally says that Kung Fu: The Legend Continues is the sequel of a (mysteriously unreferenced) "1990s television show" when it is actually the sequel of the 1970s television series. On the other hand, I struggle to word it better without using parentheses. I personally prefer the wording:

is best known for his work in the 1970s television series, Kung Fu,
its sequel, Kung Fu: The Legend Continues (a 1990s television show),
and more recently in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill.

I am not totally convinced, however, that this is the best way to improve the summary, so I post here first to hopefully get some feedback first. TheGoblin (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• As of 2009-12-06, 99.240.215.252 has fixed the wording to my satisfaction. If no one adds anything to this thread. and the page heading is correct, this talk page thread will be automatically archived in 30 days. TheGoblin (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope I am adding my suggestion the right way. I think the entire sentence (which is very long and has a ton on information in it) needs to be broken into smaller sentences, like this:

David Carradine (December 8, 1936— June 3, 2009)[4][5][6] was a popular American character actor of stage and screen. He was also a director, martial artist, spokesman and musician. In his four decades of acting he was best known for his portrayal of Kwai Chang Caine in the 1970s television series, Kung Fu, and it's 1990s sequel series, Kung Fu: The Legend Continues. More recently he received critical acclaim for his role in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill. He appeared in more than 100 feature films[7] and was nominated four times for a Golden Globe Award.[8]

--DorothyBrousseau 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not of Cherokee descent

The article says that David Carradine was of Cherokee descent, but in his autobiography he said he was not. He said that his brother, Bruce, is (they had different biological fathers) and that he was jealous of him because he wished he had Native American heritage.(Endless Highway pgs. 34-37) It might also interest you to know that he gave the fact that he had discovered that Bruce was not his full biological brother as the reason for his attempt at suicide at the age of five, not his parent's divorce as the article states.--DorothyBrousseau 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs) 02:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the right "Sonny Boy"

The movie "Sonny Boy" that is link to David Carradine's filmography is not the correct one. A new article for the very cult movie that Carradine played in should probably be made as the theme song is now quoted on his gravestone. I might do that but, until then the 1929 movie should not be link to Carradine.--DorothyBrousseau 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

Changes I made (long)

Because I am brand new to wikipedia and I am still trying to figure out how things work, I have been remiss in my obligation to include edit summaries. This post is an attempt to explain what I have done so far and a promise to be more careful in the future.

My general purpose is to help raise the classification rating of this article.

I reorganized the first sentence into four sentences, because it had too much information for one sentence.

I added his relationship to Will Foster and Beverly Carradine because I think it is interesting.

I took out the mention of the Cherokee heritage because it is not factual. I replaced it with an explanation, because it is widely misreported that he did have Cherokee heritage. I question the Ukrainian heritage and the source where all this is from. It appears to me from an entry in the IDMD trivia section.

I added context to the suicide attempt in 1942, although I do not think that I would have even mentioned it as I think it is irrelevant. Although, it is interesting that the suicide attempt is, in fact, related to his own discovery that he had no Cherokee heritage and for a time I included it, but I discarded it because the story is rather complicated and one should read his autobiography rather than have me rewrite it on wikipedia.

I added more information about his early life, including context to his Army stint.

I took out a number of television credits because the paragraph read like a long list and I think that the filmography already serves that purpose. I feel strongly that if too many credits are mentioned in the text they become irrelevant, makes the article unreadable, and subtracts from the significance of more important works. I also think that each credit that is mentioned should be accompanied with context.

I changed the wording a little regarding "Boxcar Bertha" because Carradine and Hershey were not "co-stars". The fact is that She "starred" and he "co-starred" with along with three other actors.

I completely re-wrote the Kung Fu section because it was poorly written and did not give any explanation as to what the show was about and what its impact was.

I rewrote the Kung Fu: The Legend Continues part because it was poorly written and its purpose was not clear. Personally, I would have only given the matter a sentence or two at the end of the Kung Fu section. I left it in because I am not from Canada and may be biased because the show had no impact at all in the United States, so my point of view maybe clouding the issue. I'm not sure why his relationship with Chris Potter is more noteworthy than other friendships that he had that are not mentioned here, but I left it in.

I inadvertently took out the mention of the Lipton Tea commercial as I sought to find more appropriate context for it. I still have not found that context, but I do think that the information is interesting and quirky, I just don't know where to put it.

I added information about his directorial attempts and combined it with other roles because the part about Americana's failure segwayed (sp?) nicely into the success of Bound for Glory.

I added information on the Long Riders because I feel it is significant and interesting.

The next paragraph was an attempt to summarize a period of decline in his career during which few credits needed to be listed (IMHO). But I'm not sure I accomplished this goal and the ones I did mention may only be a matter of my own personal taste and may have overridden the personal tastes of others.

I edited the paragraph about North and South for clarity and conciseness.

I took out the part about The Queen of Swords because I thought it was irrelevant, but put it back because the original contributor convinced me that it was clearly a case where my tastes overran the tastes of others.

I think I took out some other credits at this point that I also thought were irrelevant.

I added a paragraph about Kill Bill because there wasn't one there, even though it is mentioned in the summary as important.

I gave the section and his career a conclusion.

I added a section on his musical career because it is significant

I rewrote his personal life because it read like a list rather than a narrative. And I added some interesting facts (like the Playboy spread).

I think that the paragraph about Marina Anderson's claims belongs in the "Death" section rather than his "Personal Life".

FYI, I have no plans to edit the section on his death, but I do have plans to improve my citations and to add a little more in his personal life, especially regarding his repeated scrapes with the law.

I hope this clears everything up and I hope I have not stepped on too many toes.

Take Care, Merry Christmas, --DorothyBrousseau 19:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

opinions wanted

In addition to the changes I have made, I have a few other things in mind that I think should be changed.

In viewing the history of discussion on this article I see several suggestions that the statement in the summary regarding Carradine's heritage be removed. I agree with others who think that list of western European nationalities is pointless and appears as if it was taken from an unreliable source. Does anyone agree?

Also, I think that the paragraph in "Personal life" regarding the quote from Marina Anderson should either be removed or put in the death section, which I think is too long, but I'm not going to touch it.

Finally, I am contemplating putting in a sub-section in the "Personal life section" about his repeated scrapes with the law. There was a strange incident where he, high on peyote, broke into an neighbors home and bled all over his piano. There was also a drunk driving arrest and a conviction in So. Africa for pot possession, while he was filming Safari 3000. It is part of his life-a part he had no problem talking about in his autobiography-but is its inclusion encyclopedic? Any opinions? --DorothyBrousseau 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

PS if you want to see how I would change the "Death" section, see it on my user page and feel free to comment. I think that that section is filled with minutia but I think I have left in too much minutia and replaced other minutia with more minutia. Opinions please. I'm signing this now, even though it will say that I did not.--DorothyBrousseau 15:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Death

I tried to stop myself, but I could not and I rewrote the death section. There was and still is too much minutia in it. I say take out the 2cd and 3rd paragraph and just leave the first and last. I think that way the encyclopedic integrity of the article will be saved.

But on the other hand, his death was sensational. Should the sensational details be preserved? signing now...--DorothyBrousseau 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

They are notable and sourced so I think they should be there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm Done

I'm ready for the re-evaluation process now. I hope this article gets GA status. I put a lot into it, but I think I am done. I'm going to try like heck not to touch it, at least for a while.Oops--DorothyBrousseau 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this. – ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Accidental death

Since an edit war is brewing over this point I want to make something clear. By definition autoerotic asphyxiation is an accidental death. There are 6 or seven citations (not mine) that state that the death was accidental asphyxiation. I added another, from a widely accepted credible source after someone took the sentence out. The sentence is there because it is a cited fact and it concludes the paragraph. If it really needs to come out, then the paragraph needs another conclusion. In my opinion, the current wording is the most logical conclusion for that paragraph.This ones for you "sinebot"--DorothyBrousseau 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs) See, right here is a good example. My signature is there, but so is the sinebot message.--DorothyBrousseau 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs)

Canadian Cult Series Comment

Deleted the Canadian cult status bit for the second Kung Fu series as there's no reference. Being a Canadian, I can say I've never ran into anyone who considered the remake a cult series, maybe the first but not the second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.173.19 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

age at parents divorce

Some quick math told me that he was 8 when his parents were divorced, but I stand corrected. He was born in December 1936 and his parents divorced in March, 1944 so he was about 7 1/2. The last edit on that subject was mine, but I was not signed in so it appears anonymous. --DorothyBrousseau (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Images tagged for deletion.

Several of the images that I have recently added to this article have been tagged for deletion. If you are interested in getting involved in the debated to save them please go to discussion. These are non-free images that I rationalized could be used under the policy of "fair use". The basic argument is that I feel they are important to the understanding of the subject of the article, while the person wishing to delete them feels that they are merely decorative.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Army

David Carradine served 2 years in the US Army.—This unsigned comment was added by 198.81.26.47 (talk • contribs) .

A web page about the United States Marine Corps, the USMC Hangout, claims that David Carradine served in the United States Army and was never a Marine. Here is the external link: [Marine Page] —This unsigned comment was added by Scott Haley (talk • contribs) .

This was long ago resolved and can be archived. --Ishtar456 (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yellowface

Recently this article was under attack by vandalism, followed by what I consider unnecessary editing. The person that was doing it wasn't just trying to wreck the article, but he had a point (that I think would have been better made in discussion, but a point nevertheless). The fact of the matter is that there are a number of acting roles in which a Caucasian has portrayed an Asian. Carradine's part in Kung Fu is definitely one of them. Some people, understandably, view this as racism and refer to it as "yellowface". Formally, the Kung Fu part of the article, as written by me, addressed this issue with the statement,"The choice of a Caucasian to play Kwai Chang Caine upset some in the Asian community..." The new editor added "...and some in the white community..." now I don't object to the message or the content of what was added, but I do object to poorly written sentences in this article. So I changed it to "The choice of a Caucasian to play Kwai Chang Caine cause controversy..." to which the other editor added .."all over the world". Again, it is not a matter of the point that the person is trying to make, but just that it now looks poorly written, in my opinion, and I don't want it to be poorly written. SO, I am going to edit that darn sentence again in hopes that if there is any further unhappiness about it that we can discuss it rather than having an edit war. I would like all parties to be satisfied with the information conveyed without sacrificing the quality of the writing. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Snake Kung Fu

Dear Noah, If you have anything to say about "Snake Kung Fu" being used in the Kung Fu series, please add it (with citations) to the Kung Fu or martial arts section of the article. To link the term martial arts to "Snake Kung Fu' does not make sense. Although related, they are two different terms. The thing about links too, is that only one is needed, therefore if you add a link to the "martial arts" in the first paragraph, you really should remove the one that was put in further down in the article. I actually prefer the way it was written before, leaving the in depth discussion of martial arts for later. I think that if anything should proceed the name of the character it should be "Shaolin monk"-which sort of says it all, including martial artist. I understand that you are a new editor, I am rather new myself. I hope that you are trying to help get this article reevaluated for "Good Article" status. If so, you will understand that over linkage, incorrect linkage, and lack of citations will hamper the effort to make that happen. Carradine's status as a B-film actor is cited. In fact, the article actually calls him a "B-movie legend", so lets keep it there. Also if you give me a good reason to change the word "often" to "primarily" I will think hard about supporting the change. Take Care--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, well I took out "martial artist" entirely because in the same section it already said "Influenced by his most popular acting role, he studied martial arts." which is sorta like saying Kwai Chang Caine was a martial artist. Like I said, though, if you have sourced information about Snake Kung Fu being used in the series, please do add it in one of the appropriate places already mentioned. Take care--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself again?BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour toward this user is becoming abusive, verging on hounding. Stick to comments aimed at improving the article. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits to summary

In regards to the edits that were done in the lead summary today. 1. David Carradine was a "B"-movie actor. The reference that is cited there called him a "B-movie legend". There is a citation so please just leave it. 2. His name was Jack when he was a child. He did not change his name to "David" until adulthood, as the article explains. Therefore it makes no sense to refer to him as "David" when speaking of his childhood. 3. By changing the sentence the from way it was written, you remove the allusion to his father's frequent marriages which impacted his childhood (Since this is going to be discussed later, using his original handle, Jack, it needs to remain in the summary) and foreshadowed his own marriage history-which is mentioned in the very next sentence. Also you removed a citation that is used twenty more times throughout the article when you removed this fact. 4. You don't have to add the gory details of his death in the summary-that is what the death section is for. Please read it and see that nothing has been left out. Also the sentence "David had an unstable childhood" nearly replicates the sentence in the Early life section: "Jack had a turbulent childhood" which is just poor writing style. I'm going to edit it now. Please discuss the changes you want to make here before making them as we need to reach a consensus if this article is going to be elevated to "Good Article" status.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop pestering me on my talk page, Dorothy! Ishtar! Whatever your multiple account names are...BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, see above. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

His Death

There is nothing more controversial or sensational in this article than Carradine's death. I think that there are some people that contribute periodically that believe that most of the article should be devoted to the details surrounding his death. However, given the man's 72 years on this planet, 5 decades of contributions to stage, television and cinema, not to mention martial arts and music, I think that it is important to keep his death in prospective. It may come as a surprise to some that his death was NOT the only thing that makes him noteworthy. As a principal contributor to this article I want to state that I believe the article, as it is currently written, balances the sensational details of his death with the rest of his life and contributions. These details have been regulated to the death section. The opening lead is not a place to put these details. The statement that he died under unusual circumstances is cited, accurate and all that is necessary in the opening lead. There are plenty of sorted details in the death section that those obsessed with them should be satisfied, imho.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Acting dynasty

In the lead section, we find that "He was a member of a productive acting dynasty that began with his father". According to Ishtar456, "dynasty" is in italics because the word "actually refers to rulers. It is used figuratively here". I have three objections to this rationale:

• According to Strunk & White, "If you use a slang word or phrase, simply use it; do not draw attention to it by enclosing it in quotation marks. To do so is to put on airs, as though you were inviting the reader to join you in a select society of those who know better". So no quotation marks, and definitely no italics, according to a leading authority on style.
• Webster's gives two definitions for "dynasty", the second of which is "a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time". In the English language, it is perfectly acceptable standard usage to refer to certain families as "dynasties", even if they do not govern a state.
• Browse through Google Books to see how the phrase is actually used in published works. I wager you won't find a single one putting quotation marks around it, let alone italicizing it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of research for a small point. Have it your way.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

multi-ethnic heritage

The line "Carradine is of English, German Italian, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Spanish, Ukrainian and Cherokee ancestry." is taken directing from IMDB trivia, which is not considered a reliable source for this type of information. I have done a ton of research on him and have found nothing to support anything but Irish and English heritage (which is not to say that most of the rest of it isn't so, but there is no source for it). The Cherokee is absolutely dead wrong as he devoted at least one chapter of his autobiography to his disappointment at discovering that he was NOT of Cherokee descent. He brother Bruce's natural father (he was adopted by John Carradine) is of Cherokee descent, but David was not.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I deleted it. – ukexpat (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I just don't want it to keep coming up.--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukexpat, If there are no sources indicating that Davis Carradine had these ancestries, then, where did you get the data seemed to indicate that it definitely had?

--Isinbill (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukexpat did not put the information into the article, some one else did. Ukexpat deleted it because it was unsourced. As I said above, the statement was a cut and pasted from IMDB, which is not a reliable source. There appears to be no other source that makes that statement, except for IMDB and anything that was cut and pasted from this article prior to when I deleted it back in December.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is it written that IMDb is not a reliable source? The Other Saluton (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources: "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Other Saluton (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

"Carra-deen" or "Carra-dine"? Could you include pronunciation in the article? The Other Saluton (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

+1 to request. Infovarius (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's the first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

missing some movies?

Maybe you guys are purposely leaving off his B-movies, but I happen to own this one and wished it was a lot better, but he did star in it and it's not in the list: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249840/

What else is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.166.156 (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that we do not list every single film and television appearance, hence the section title "Selected filmography". Unless a film is particularly notable or important to his career, we would tend to leave it out. Our guideline here is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and some criteria have to be applied. Rodhullandemu 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, most of his movies are "B".--Ishtar456 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

European?

I'm pretty vigilant when it comes to this article but I've got no clue when "Caucasian" was changed to "European". For the record neither Carradine, nor the character that he played in Kung Fu were European. Carradine, as the article states, was born in California, and his character's father was from California. No doubt in both cases he was of European descent, but Caucasian is correct and appropriate in the context.--Ishtar456 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Shaolin Temple

Just added the declaration of the Shaolin Temple´s abbot . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.89.107 (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Skip Sherwood - Producer and partner of David Carradine's 3 independent movies of the 1970's

"You and Me" directed and starring David; "Americana" directed and starring David; and "A Country Mile" starring David and Robert Carradine directed by Michael Green. These were a work of love for both David and myself and took most of 10 years to complete. In 1980 we gained the support of Claire Tousend who help up gain entry into the Canne Film Festival where the film Americana was picked as the Director's Fortnight entry. We traveled to France, distributed to several countries and signed a Distribution deal with United Artists "Classics under Ned Quick who was hired by MGM to head up their whole distribution arm and the film was abandoned by his successor. None of his films got a decent distribution opportunity. While I have a 50% ownership with David I have never recieved one dollar return over these 30 some years. Lately I have had an interest in reviving these properties but have not been able to locate them. If anyone has information of their where-a-bouts please get in touch with me on Facebook at SkipSherwood. I also Produced and directed another independent film entitled: "Didn't You Hear" starring Dennis Christopher and Gary Busy. This film was selected as a favorite of the Unknown Movies Web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.44.66 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Children?

Any chance that someone can edit in his children to the Infobox? It seems a little odd, especially considering the fact that he's had roles with several of them in various movies.Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

About my Edit

I edited this page about David Carradine's last film and his last dialog from the film Night of The Templar. The year of release of the film on filmography page was also wrong and it was corrected.Angelina Quins 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Note about vulgar

In my response to this "vulgarity", let me say a few things. Be civil when you reference the death of a person. As much as I would want to say this discussion regarding his cause of death should be said in a civil manner, if you are to discuss it. What I recommend for a cause of death is for you to put it as Sexual asphyxiation. But in good faith, it is best recommended that we all be civil and use either my option for his cause of death or autoerotic asphyxiation for the choice. I'll accept either should you choose to edit.Vmkcheat (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

auto-erotic asphyxiation

Why oh why does this salacious allegation have to be in the lede? It is impossible to prove and needlessly provocative. So before its reverted can we be told why it should be in the lede in the first place? 66.65.175.121 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your change isn't exactly accurate. I've changed it to accidental asphyxiation with a proper source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah no thats why we have police, forensic investigators and pathologists.--Simon19801 (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No suicide

"Close friend Guthrie Thomas stated, upon hearing that suicide was the cause of Carradine's death"

It was not suicide so her ill informed guesses at the non suicide are worthless

"There had to be a second individual on the scene." Maybe and maybe it was asphxy play gone wrong during prostitute visit

"Thomas also is convinced that this tragedy appeared to be murder." Who care what some person believes, not to mention no ref.

--Simon19801 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ex-wife claims murder

But there was no physical evidence of a struggle thus proving the claim false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon19801 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources discussing this conclusion? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on David Carradine. 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/20060516092202/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1976 to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/past.cfm?year=1976
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303204030/http://beatcrave.com/2009-06-04/david-carradine/David/ to http://beatcrave.com/2009-06-04/david-carradine/David
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/106064/Carradine-loved-deadly-sex-games-says-ex-wife
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-carradine-lawsuit%2C0%2C3371390.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117233412/http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2011/08/19/revista/70348 to http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2011/08/19/revista/70348
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050411165214/http://www.greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID=117 to http://www.greencine.com/article?action=view&articleID=117

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) 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on David Carradine. 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://archive.is/20120803114941/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/28656 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/28656
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225034113/http://www.biography.com/articles/David-Carradine-456272 to http://www.biography.com/articles/David-Carradine-456272
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607220737/http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/06/04/headlines/headlines_30104421.php to http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/06/04/headlines/headlines_30104421.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313112648/http://www.avclub.com/content/node/23019 to http://www.avclub.com/content/node/23019

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) 17:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Carradine. 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/20090122224028/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aPbN0_ikRnf4&refer=us
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=38&num=26440
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100502153951/http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2009/06/autopsy-report-david-carradine-didnt-kill-himself-more-info-needed.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2009/06/autopsy-report-david-carradine-didnt-kill-himself-more-info-needed.html

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) 18:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• David Carradine young.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• David Carradine young.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death

Causes of death found in the infobox over time have included asphyxiation, accidental asphyxiation, erotic asphyxiation, fatal erotic asphyxiation, asphyxiation by hanging, accidental (fatal erotic asphyxiation), and lastly autoerotic asphyxiation (there are probably more). Autoerotic asphyxiation is not a cause of death (it is a sexual act) and, additionally, the infobox is a quick summary, not a detailed description. As such, I have changed the cause of death to simply asphyxiation, and it really should stay there. All the details can be found in the article. Lexicon (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hikari Takano's interview.

Greetings. Regarding this interview’s date, at min. 36:30 Mr. Carradine states his age as 66 years old, which would place this interview at any date between December 8, 2002, and December 7, 2003. At min. 2:09:55 Mr. Takano mentions having seen Kill Bill's trailer. As the movie was filmed until March 2003, was still being edited by July 2003, and premiered on September 29, 2003, it can be hypothesized that this interview took place at some time between July and September 2003.
This interview is interesting for its lenght (2:25:17), because it appears to be mostly unedited and was recorded in a homely setting, for the variety of subjects treated in it, and because it is a source for the Disputed subject that comes next. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Disputed: Americana's "people's prize" at the 1981 Directors' Fortnight

Greetings.
The assertion “Americana won the people's prize at the Directors' Fortnight in Cannes, 1981” so far is not supported by any sources other than Mr. David Carradine's written and spoken testimony.
On pages 501-502 of his autobiography Endless Highway, he describes the events surrounding the presentation of the movie on that occasion in the following terms:

[... Mata Hari] "I fashioned a 14-minute product reel out of what we'd done and took it to Cannes along with Americana, which had been accepted at the Directors’ Fortnight, a competition for new directors.
We arrived in force: me, Calista, Dave Kern, Skip Sherwood, his new wife Sumiko, her two sons, Alison, our publicist, and Linda. We rented a cheesy little villa and slept all over it: on the floor, everywhere. We took a booth at The Carlton Hotel where we advertised all four pictures: Americana, You and Me, A Country Mile, and Mata Hari. We flooded the town with flyers. The festival had to outfit a theatre for us as our format was too technologically advanced for their facilities. We were a sellout. There was a riot on the street because people couldn't get in. They had to schedule an extra screening. We even outclassed the big studio pictures in the main competition. United Artists bought the picture."
[... Linda Carradine left Cannes]
"I collected my honors (Montenegro won the critics' prize, but Americana won the people's prize), stayed for the party, and flew home to Linda."

In minute 1:47:50 of the interview given by him to Hikari Takano in July-September 2003, he states: “[Americana] It won the people's prize. It didn’t win the critics' prize but it won the people's prize.”

And in this 2005 interview, this dialogue happens:
“You directed some movies in the seventies. They were poorly released…”
“Yeah, that was one thing I did not have together. I knew how to make them, sure didn’t know how to distribute them. I won prizes with ‘em…”

However:

IMDb’s list of his awards doesn’t register any for his filmmaking credits.
Mr. Carradine doesn't give the Directors’ Fortnight "people's prize" a name nor describe it. All sources that mention the award use the same words, sometimes capitalizing them.
The Wikipedia article about the 1981 Cannes Film Festival doesn't mention that award, nor do its links and sources.

I checked all the Wikipedia articles about the awards given by the Cannes Film Festival, the Directors' Fortnight, the International Critics' Week, and the websites of the awards that have no Wikipedia article. None of the awards that already existed in 1981 for feature films mention Americana or Montenegro as a winner. None of the articles or websites mention the existence of a "people's prize." I wrote to Illy, bestower of the Illy Prize, and to CICAE (Confédération Internationale des Cinémas d'Art et d'Essai), bestower of the Art Cinema Award, whose websites don't go as far back as 1981, asking whether they had any register about such an award given to Americana. Both answered they had none.

The Wikipedia article about the movie references an article by Kirk Honeycutt, a reputed critic who attended the Cannes Film Festival on several occasions.
However, there he says: “Americana” won an award in Cannes, but Carradine needed American audiences to see the film. When he told me about the project at a dinner party, I asked to see the film. That makes it clear that he wasn’t present at Cannes that year. Several attempts to contact the critic for clarification were unfruitful; he is retired.

According to their own website, the Directors’ Fortnight is a non-competitive event and doesn't bestow any awards by itself. A movie presented in it could receive the Caméra d'Or, an award for first-time directors, or L'Œil d'or, an award for documentaries, both given by the Cannes Film Festival proper. Also, since 2002 they have hosted the Carrosse d’Or award ceremony, a life-achievement award for filmmakers given by the SRF - Société des Réalisateurs de Films (French Directors’ Guild, creator of this event).

The page dedicated to the 1981 selection makes it clear that there was not a people's prize to be awarded among the participants.

The search tool on the website doesn't give any results for "people's prize," "popular prize" or "audience prize" / "award" in English or French. The only part on the website that mentions the “people's prize” for Americana is in David Carradine's biography, which is in English. It doesn't give a name to the award other than capitalizing the words. A Google search for the key phrases shows that the biography comes from the website (which launches a warning for privacy error in Chrome. It can be seen here: ). The other official website has a differently worded biography but also mentions the "People's Prize" award won at the Directors’ Fortnight.

The other movie mentioned by Mr. Carradine, Montenegro, wasn’t in the Directors' Fortnight selection, but in competition for the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival proper, and got no awards there, neither by the International Critics' Week (Semaine de la Critique). (But it did win an Audience Award at the São Paulo International Film Festival)

The organization of the Directors' Fortnight did not respond to inquiries by mail and Facebook/Messenger. (My spoken French is not good enough to contact them by phone. A request of information made through the Institut Français d'Argentine in late September 2021 is still pending response as of October 29, 2021)

Mike Malloy, who has researched the subject of Mr. Carradine's directorial efforts for an upcoming book, states in his detailed article about Americana's release: 'It's been widely reported that Americana won "the people's prize" at the Cannes Directors' Fortnight that year, even if no formal documentation is kept for such an award.'

For context, on page 500 of Endless Highway, Mr. Carradine says: “Americana was finally ready, so we took it to Robert Redford's USA Film Festival in Utah. Americana swept the festival and I came very close to making a distribution deal with Warner Bros.” This was years before that festival was put under the administration of the Sundance Institute. The Wikipedia article about the movie notices there are discrepancies between what he said that happened in Utah and what was reported by the press. The archives of the Sundance Film Festival don't register Americana as getting any award there, as attested by this local newspaper:

Regarding Cannes, as Mr. Carradine could have been speaking about an award bestowed by an entity other than the Directors' Fortnight itself, inquiries were made to the Cannes libraries network, looking for testimonies of the award registered on contemporary printed media. The libraries didn't respond.

The question was then submitted to the Bibliothèque nationale de France (National Library of France). It was also inquired whether the fact of being selected for the Directors' Fortnight is considered an award in itself. This is the nucleus of their answer, translated into English:

“After research, we could not identify a reference mentioning this prize.
Pierre-Henri DELEAU, in his book Les Réalisateurs de la Quinzaine, lists Carradine's film in the films selected in 1981 but does not mention a public’s prize. As of this date, the Caméra d'Or seems to be the only official award in this section.
A search in the Europresse database, which scans the local and national press, does not give any more results.
Finally, concerning your question on the assimilation of a selection to a prize, the Trésor de la Langue Française clearly distinguishes one from the other: "Prize = Reward awarded at the end of a selection, a competition or from a competition to the most deserving, to one that stands out among the competitors."
National Library of France”

And they added this:
"Here are some other references you might want to check out for further reading:
Michael HENRY reviews the film in Cannes in the magazine Positif, n° 244-245, July 1981, page 85, festival. He does not mention a prize.
Cinématographe n° 68, June 1981, page 46, festival.
Cinéma n° 271-272, July 1981, page 142, festival. Author: GÉVAUDAN Frantz
Image et Son - La Revue du Cinéma n° 363, July 1981, page 10, festival
Jeune Cinéma n° 136, August 7, 1981, page 23, festival"

The articles in Cinéma, Cinématographe, and Image et son, which ceased publication and have no websites, were checked by a librarian in their printed versions; they were good critiques, but had no mention of the award.
In all cases, copies of the articles can be bought to the National Library of France (links are provided):
Cinéma ceased publication in 1999.
Cinématographe ceased publication in 1987.
After changing its title to La Revue du cinéma, Image et son ceased publication in 1994.
Jeune Cinéma is alive and has a website, but the search tool gives no results for Americana or David Carradine.
Positif sells older articles; searches on their website by Americana and David Carradine gave no results.
(I bought photocopies of the critiques in October 2021, their arrival can take more than a month. Distance and Covid-19 pandemic. I'll add here the information they have about the award, if any appears.)

The existence of this award could still be proved by some contemporary publication that didn't appear in the National Library of France research nor the Europresse database, by one of the critiques that weren't checked by the French librarian, by the testimony of locals present at the event, or by the people who accompanied Mr. Carradine in that 1981 journey to Cannes, giving the specifics of the prize: name, date of reception, the entity that bestowed it, together with a photo of the item itself or photos of the event in which it was received.

By now, it appears that:
-Either Mr. Carradine did receive some award so outside the circle of the official critique and the mainstream press that a mention of it escaped from two researchers and a team of specialized librarians, or,
-He was speaking metaphorically and was taken literally, or,
-He wasn't accurate in his testimonies, for reasons known only to himself. Or unknown even to himself.
I would be glad to add that prize to Mr. Carradine's list of awards, which I completed myself, if someone can present proof of its existence. Meanwhile, the subject remains disputed.
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. An answer arrived from the Directors' Fortnight organization. Here it is in its entirety:

I've checked with a former member of Quinzaine who was here in 1981, he's got no souvenir of the existence of any public award or public prize.
The error in our website comes from a copy/paste of the English Wikipedia biography of David Carradine, we will correct it.

Maykiwi (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Date of finding vs. date of death.

Greetings.
The (Administrator's note?) itself says he was found on June 4, as all the section's sources do. It was Bangkok time. It was still June 3 in parts of the Western hemisphere so there can be some news reports dated that day, but in Bangkok, it was already June the 4th. This has to be stated correctly. Putting a wrong date for the finding is misleading; there are media that have quoted this section of Wikipedia verbatim and have included the same mistake. You can check that by googling "On June 3, 2009, at the age of 72, David Carradine was found dead". The (I presume) Administrator's note states the difference is "detailed below." Now, it is detailed.
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Barbara Hershey and other details.

Greetings.
With regard to the Administrator's note saying that girlfriends don't belong in the Partner section, the following facts must be pointed out:
There were almost seven years of them living together. They had a son, they collaborated professionally in music and several movies, the chapters in his autobiography Endless Highway from 1968 to 1975 mention her constantly, and he mentions her several times afterward. She is named as a "domestic partner" in the Carradine family article. Her Wikipedia biography defines Carradine as her partner, not a boyfriend, and mentions their relationship as one both important and detrimental to her; their relationship is also treated in the section "Personal life" of this same article.
Therefore, she was a long-term partner, not a girlfriend. The text was corrected accordingly. Without her here, one of his 3 children has no origin.
More on the subject (the start date of their relationship, their son's name) is explained in a note on Barbara Hershey's talk page.
And, the four stepchildren he acquired in his last marriage cannot be ignored either, even less when they are mentioned by name in the "Personal life" section, also in the Carradine family article, and one of them either acquired his surname by legal adoption or used it as an artistic name.
<https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6208780/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0>.
Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

About the unreliable sources, the point of the edition.

Greetings.
If you ask anyone on the street, "What do you know about how David Carradine died?" the most likely answer will be, "Carradine died by auto-erotic asphyxiation [or other more colorful words]. A famous Thai coroner said so, his ex-wife confirmed it in her divorce papers, and he was found wearing a wig and fishnets. The guy was a freak [let's forget him, let's insult him on social media, or let's celebrate him with heavy-metal death and sex songs]." Case closed.
But, when you separate what the investigation actually said from what the media said, all that is left is a description of the dead body, and a cause of death, without a manner.
In Wikipedia we don't use tabloids as sources, but the media is not Wikipedia, and in this case, they didn't send reporters to Thailand to ask the hard questions, but filled the vacuum with gossip. That's the point of this edition: differentiate the reliable sources from the other ones, and that is the reason it is necessary to cite both.
The famous Thai coroner gave an opinion, her involvement with the case was zero.
There were two ex-wives talking.
One gave interviews to gossip and tabloid media, maybe she was not sober when she did, and her ambiguous words, edited and interpreted to make her assert what she was (maybe) refuting, were reproduced by mainstream media.
The other one is an even more problematic source. The media ignored the leak of a sealed document from litigation for money -not the divorce-, believed everything she said, and she is still quoted, even if her interviews and autobiography demonstrate she has a weak grip on reality, to put it mildly.
The rest comes from a possibly fake photo published by a tabloid, misinterpreted by another tabloid, but you bet it was taken into account because in these cases erotic paraphernalia around a corpse is a lead for psychologists and forensic scientists.
So, the guy was a freak. Case closed, if you just cite mainstream media, not taking into account the reliability of their sources. Tabloid media aren't a source in Wikipedia, but they exist in the real world, and in this case, they became the main source to mainstream media, formed public opinion, and that became common knowledge.
So, I rewrote the section to state the issue even more clearly: an American citizen died abroad, many things were said by tabloids and reproduced by mainstream media, and very little is known. (And when Michael Jackson died, the media went en masse to the next ring of the media circus. And what about the Carradine family? Crickets.)
The edition is still ongoing, and the situation won't get better: the reliable media did a really lousy job, and the unreliable sources they used are even more unreliable when you add Thai media reports that went unnoticed in the USA, circular reasonings by professionals, money motivations, ignored ethical issues and public records nobody cared to check. And the possibility of a poor forensic investigation (scene contamination, leakage of photos) in a complex political context: Ever wondered why Dr. Rojanasunan's opinion was so esteemed and considered decisive?
If you really want to improve this edition, besides telling me how I can make the issue even more super clear, please find the definitive reports about the cause and manner of death, either the Thai or the American one, or both, from reliable sources that we can all happily cite. (Or ask Ms. Anderson for the Thai one, if you believe she got it by mail just because). Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

About the Death section edition.

Greetings.
Regarding this edition, first some technical details:
-There was a warning for a deprecated source, not specifying which one (probably, several ones) to see whether I could replace it, but that is part of the problem leading to this edition, the media reaction, as explained later in this note. Let's not forget that tabloid media are best-sellers, and in this case, they are crucial to understanding the issue.
-The exact addresses of the hotel, hospital, and police station were added because it's easier to find them on a map in that way than general descriptions such as "near this other street;" a note specifies Dr. Rojanasunan's possible workplace addresses, to differentiate them even more clearly from the Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital where the autopsy took place. If someone can find the exact address of Thailand's Ministry of Justice in June of 2009, it will be a welcomed addition or correction.
-The original Bangkok Post references (after correcting their format) were left as a testimony; the articles don't exist on the current website anymore and their URLs were "excluded" from the Wayback Machine. The current references were taken from copies in microfilm of the printed edition via the National Library of Australia; it is possible there are differences with the defunct online articles. As there are likely copyright issues, I won't upload them to Commons, but if someone needs to check them, I could share the articles privately through Google Drive or another way. Or, anyone can request copies from the Library; their fee is modest and they have a great Reference service.
-The many sources and long quotes in the sources are necessary because, given the elapsed time, online sources are disappearing, and sometimes not even the Wayback Machine can keep them. Also, as the actual words of the officials, police officers, Ms. Anderson and Ms. Jensen generally are not reproduced in current sources, showing how they were published and interpreted by journalists and interviewers at the time is not only interesting, but the main point of the edition, as it is explained later. And also, shows how the media mostly copy-pasted the reports from a couple of agencies (usually Reuters or The Associated Press) instead of doing some research.
-Expanded the Funeral subsection for balance. Let's not forget that David Carradine was a recognized actor, with friends and family who appreciated and loved him. The posthumous tributes and a better description of his funeral mark that.

Well. This is a complete rewrite of this section, with a more detailed structure for easier navigation. Some things are still pending.

The new main subsections reflect the two aspects of the subject: "Investigation" is about what was officially done, "Media reaction" is about what was said about the case or happened around it but did not pertain to the investigation itself, like Dr. Rojanasunan's involvement, in a chronological presentation so it can be seen when each event happened and how fast everything developed. This edition follows in part the model found in the article Death of Jeffrey Epstein. I will not upload or paste here Carradine's "death scene" photo nor the autopsy ones (unnecessary, they are everywhere), but the subject will be treated later with more depth (authenticity issues, ethical concerns) given how influential they were, especially the first one, on the media and for mental health professionals to reach conclusions. Also, what pertains to Marina Anderson's book was moved from "Personal life" to this section. It isn't Carradine's personal life anymore, but her vision of it in her autobiography, a continuation of her accusations from 2003, and aside from the sexual details and the murder hypothesis, is not cited as a biographical source for Carradine's life in no article on him that I have found so far, even if it covers a period of his life he didn't mention in his last book. You can check the book's subject is her and not him in the given sources and in the introductions and reviews on Goodreads and Amazon, both editions. If my description of its contents elicits doubts, the 2010 edition is available, according to Ms. Anderson, at the Johnny Grant Hollywood Walk of Fame Library; also in several brick-and-mortar libraries and online bookstores. The very similar 2015 edition is available at Hoopla (digital media service), Scribd, and online bookstores.

I present here the core of the edition. The final stage of its rewrite won't change the outcome, it will be just a little more detailed and there will be more context notes and some more sources, including Thai ones. For example, Dr. Rojanasunan's statement should be quoted in its entirety for a better assessment of its scope and meaning; that's why its reference was temporarily taken away. I didn't put everything in now because that would have needed an even longer note to explain the whole process, and some sources' reliability need specific comments. Also, it allows me to re-check the sources - again. Given how delicate the matter is, it's necessary to be extra careful.

I am aware this edition leaves the subject in a state of ambiguity. This isn't a kind of dramatic development towards a big reveal, but merely how the subject currently stands, as far as available online sources go. The research for it has taken about a year (not full time!) and the goal is to show what the sources actually said, assess their reliability, and put them in context.

I found a short video in YouTube in which the author, who apparently worked in sexual addiction treatment, showed this section of Wikipedia, June of 2009 version, and used it to prove that David Carradine was a sex addict. It is interesting to see how Dr. Rojanasunan's opinion was presented as a "statement," so much that the YouTuber took it as an official ruling, and Thairath's "death scene" photo was presented as "photographic evidence from the scene." The section was improved ever since, but still relied on tabloid sources and still Dr. Rojanasunan was mentioned in a way that implied she was part of the official investigation. The ex-wives' testimonies were not given under oath in a Senate hearing, but were taken as if they were. The YouTuber never clicked on the sources, he might have seen there were likely all tabloids.

The project page Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth states that finding "Truth" is not Wikipedia's mission. Having worked in bibliographic research evaluating sources for historians I am aware of how difficult finding truth is at the academic (or journalistic) level, even more so for us, modest Wikipedia editors. However, I don't think that all we have to do is to copy-paste from sources considered reputable, even less when one finds they have made mistakes (like taking Dr. Rojanasunan's opinion as an official ruling), or themselves rely on sources that are usually considered unreliable (like personal statements first published in gossip outlets, quoted, commented and believed selectively), and then leaving everything sitting there as a media consensus decided, until it becomes feedback of common knowledge - a kind of Wikipedia dixit that everyone accepts without checking anything anymore. This section has been offering wrong data for over ten years. Maybe Wikipedia is not about finding the "truth," but certainly it is not about spreading and consecrating misinformation.

There is no intention here of "cleaning" David Carradine's reputation; at this point, it is both futile and impossible. But it is interesting, and I think a case study or cautionary tale for Wikipedia editors, journalists, and even historians, how in this case mainstream media, news outlets one thinks are reliable enough because they have a notion of journalism ethics and standards, were caught up in the urgency of getting the scoop. They simply didn't stop to check their sources for accuracy, reliability, and context, so they used tabloids as reliable sources, spreading sensationalistic reports to which they gave credibility. All that this edition is about is checking sources for accuracy, reliability, and context. Now it offers a variety of them for anyone who may want to write yet another article about David Carradine's death, who will find that it isn't a matter of copy-paste anymore.

And no, this edition won't look away from the subject of erotic asphyxiation as a possible manner of death. I agree with @Lexicon about leaving the cause of death simply as asphyxiation, as it was ruled as such by the second autopsy, but the unclear and scandalous aspects cannot be ignored here as they have become an integral part of Carradine's biography as much as those of Jeffrey Epstein, Natalie Wood or Bob Crane. Even less when the article as it is now says about his last released film, "Almost like a foreshadowing, there are several peculiar and eerie references in the film that coincidentally relate to the circumstances of Carradine's untimely passing, which include auto-erotic asphyxiation," the article Autoerotic fatality puts him among the "famous cases," and every search you do in Google about David Carradine brings results relating him to that subject, even sponsored ones. The media circus has not stopped, and how much this section contributed to it through the years, is unmeasurable.

So, this is for general principles and the first big step of the edition. Adding the rest of the details will take some time. Please have patience.

References

Maykiwi (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is not a reliable source as per WP:RSP - Arjayay (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Rewrote the whole thing, and just added a note explaining the reason for quoting the unreliable sources. I hope it is clear now. Is it? Let's continue. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

About the National Enquirer, the worst of the unreliable sources.

Greetings.
The National Enquirer is an unreliable source; I know it, you know it, do the public know it?
If the whole edition I made had been just replacing the original paragraphs (and all its sources) with this one:

"David Carradine died by auto-erotic asphyxiation (AEA), as it was clearly and definitely stated by the Thai police on June 4, with no need to wait for the results of the autopsy scheduled for June 5.
Also, his ex-wife Gail Jensen stated that he practiced AEA all the time and she saved his life when he almost killed himself in 1984, and, he bought large amounts of S&M paraphernalia at the sex shop where he was a loyal customer, therefore, the case was closed without further investigation.
However, the autopsy photos showed injuries incompatible with AEA, and the testimony of Skip E. Lowe indicated that Carradine had a preference for transgender prostitutes, which gave credibility to the murder by ladyboys hypothesis."

I would see the point of deleting all citations to the National Enquirer and reverting everything. (If I had ever dreamt about editing the section with such a thing, you wouldn't need to revert anything, immediately after waking up, I would have run and jumped from the nearest tall building.)
The whole point of this edition is to state what the most reliable sources available said about the case, clearly separating that from what most of the media creatively said, both mainstream feeding on gossip and tabloids, and tabloids directly "informing" the public. In this case, the National Enquirer takes the cake (closely followed by the New York Post and Perez Hilton, with dishonorable mentions to TMZ, Radar Online, the Globe...) as the most brutal, despicable, piece of sh*t of a tabloid. Which also was the best-selling of American magazines (wonder why...). It had an influence on public opinion that can't be ignored, and in order to state what the Enquirer said, the "contribution" it made to that media circus, as the largest piranha of the tabloids' feeding frenzy, it is necessary to cite it. When a sentence in a Wikipedia article asserts that the N°1 tabloid of the USA said some misleading but influential thing about a certain subject, isn't required to support the assertion with a reference, as any assertion is supposed to be in Wikipedia? The National Enquirer was an awfully popular tabloid, not He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
The quotation of an unreliable source is accepted when the subject is the criticism or analysis of the source, which is the whole idea of the edition. Moreover, it is just a deprecated source, not a banned or blacklisted one; its use is discouraged, not forbidden, and as the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources page points, "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not."
Is it still not clear that saying "the tabloid National Enquirer said this" is not the same thing as saying, "this is true because the National Enquirer said it"?
At this point, I considered changing "the tabloid National Enquirer," to "sensationalist piece of garbage National Enquirer" in every mention to make my purpose crystal clear, but I settled with re-characterizing it as "popular tabloid National Enquirer" to give the reason for mentioning it, and adding a note to every mention to make it super clear to fellow editors and any innocent reader that it is cited as an example of the deepest abyss of bad journalism of the time (yet influential), not as a reliable source, for the full understanding of the case and for future/international readers unfamiliar with the publication and its effects (other than its appearance in Men in Black (1997 film) as a fundamental source...). And be warned, the tabloids thingy gets way worse when arriving at the photos issue. Is it all clear now? If not, I accept suggestions to make it really clear. Please give me some. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Maykiwi (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

About the Daily Mail, the primus inter pares among tabloids.

Greetings.
I must confess that I was not aware of the special place that The Daily Mail has among Wikipedia's pantheon of Deprecated Sources. It is obviously a tabloid, but, compared to the National Enquirer or the New York Post it appears pretty tame, at least regarding the Carradine case. It doesn't say anything too different to make it noteworthy, until it does.
The reason to return that citation to the paragraph is already explained in its rewording. There was a remarkable interaction between a gossip website, a reputed news agency, and a tabloid, the one that for once reported at the same level as the reputable media, and actually, better. It got Carradine's biological children right (pretty unusual), and remembered that Thai authorities had not released the investigation results, which begs the question, why the other media did not include that detail? Had The Associated Press forgotten it in its report, or the mainstream media didn't care to mention it? But, the main reason to cite the notorious Daily Mail again is, the article has a comments section, as I re-remarked in the paragraph and the citation itself. The media have an influence on public opinion, and popular tabloids have a larger presence than reliable media (wonder why…). The colorful comments of the readers show how the media's treatment of the case contributed to eliciting lingering hostility/contempt/scorn against a man who had been dead for two years already, and then, by omitting an important detail relative to the lawsuit, turned the public opinion against his widow. That's the power of the Fourth Estate for you. The Associated Press did a better job than TMZ, but not good enough, and/or sources more reputable than the Daily Mail did a poorer job than a tabloid.
I don't think it will be necessary to use another citation to the Daily Mail, but if that happens, I will add a more detailed note to all of them, the same as happened with the National Enquirer, to make very clear that it is an unreliable source, even when occasionally it informs the public better than more reliable sources.
(And, when I was re-checking to upload everything, found out that I can't reach the article at the Daily Mail website:
"This site can’t be reached
The webpage at
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027257/Kung-Fu-star-David-Carradines-widow-Anne-settles-wrongful-death-lawsuit.html might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
ERR_HTTP2_PROTOCOL_ERROR"
Which can mean many things. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine has a capture with all the comments. So, here we go again.) Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't use the Daily Mail, and its status as a Wikipedia source in an article not literally about that is almost certainly not appropriate either. If you can't make your point without the Daily Mail, your point probably isn't worth adding - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You're also doing a lot of straight-up WP:SYNTH here, leaning on ridiculously long quotes and your footnoted interpretations of them. Wikipedia is not an essay site - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that here we don't have a problem of my edition being wrong, inaccurate, or badly referenced in the parts where reliable sources matter (and where there are unreliable sources cited, they are clearly identified as such), but the problem is that you don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to delete everything giving not-reasons like the writing is "ridiculous" -in your opinion-, and even less leaving the section as if nothing had happened after the body was found, not even the investigation and the funeral. So, I am undoing all your edits, and improving the Daily Mail citation, which will be the only one from that tabloid. If you wish to improve the edition, do it so in a civil way, not in an impolite one. Please don't make this into a matter of an Administrator imposing himself over a fellow Wikipedian by force. Wikipedia is a place where information is given, and that's what the edition provides. You cannot take away relevant information from it, which you did recklessly, as you did not provide anything better, and left the article way worse than it was before, whichever defects my edition had. Maykiwi (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to deliberately add deprecated sources to Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked for disruption - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)