Talk:Randy Quaid

Quaid game

Do we have any citations for the Quaid game? It seems dubiously notable. Even if it is notable, I'd suggest it be moved to its own article, with only a brief reference here. john k 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It exists. I've played it at least 3 times.

I've removed the Quaid Game content, Google had nothing on it and seems only superficially related to the actor Randy Quaid. Maybe spawn a new article if it can be verified? lemworld 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a commonly played game, maybe you should try it someday. I felt that detailing the game's rules provided one with a poignant reflection of how the star persona of Randy Quaid is received in the contemporary cinematic landscape. Bigbigtom367 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove some of the following sentence (the later part): "He is suing for $10 million plus punitive damages even though his perfomance was unremarkable (three other actors were nominated for Academy Awards, while Quaid was not), and despite the fact that virtually no-one in America even knew he was in the film until after they went to see it." The strength of his claim does not seem to have anything to do with the claim that his performance was "unremarkable" or that he was not used as a star attraction. Sure, ten million dollars sounds over the top, but surely it's either a fact or it isn't that the nature of the film was misrepresented to him to get him to take an exceptionally low fee. Why should we express any point of view on this or suggest that the above matters are relevant to his claims? Any responses to this? Metamagician3000 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I take specific issue with the claim that Quaid's performance was "unremarkable", as his character in the film expresses an initial attitude that the protagonists are defined against. Without the presence of Randy Quaid - in his element portraying a redneck - one could be led to believe that the homosexual behaviour was acceptable to the represented society, which is obviously false as the intolerance provides the film with its conclusion. For me, he was at times the film's highlight. Perhaps one should edit the article to simply reflect the facts rather than portraying Randy as some sort of money-grabber (which is clearly false, aside from anything else). Bigbigtom367 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've referenced and used quotations from an Entertainment News article, and changed the article to read in a hopefully more objective fashion. Bigbigtom367 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence has been re-added "Quaid is suing for $10 million plus punitive damages even though his perfomance was unremarkable (three other actors were nominated for Academy Awards, while Quaid was not), and despite the fact that virtually no one in America even knew he was in the film until after they went to see it." I disagree with it personally for the above reasons (it seems to be vehemently anti-Quaid in stance), does anyone else have an opinion? Bigbigtom367 00:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as no-one has replied, I will remove this sentence for the following reasons:

a) "even though his perfomance was unremarkable (three other actors were nominated for Academy Awards, while Quaid was not)" - this is insufficient evidence for this claim, there is not an Academy Award that would suit Quaid's minor role and for the reasons outlined above his character is crucial to the film's plotting. b) "and despite the fact that virtually no one in America even knew he was in the film until after they went to see it." - this is empirically unverifiable without waiting outside a cinema asking everybody if they knew Quaid was in the film. provide this evidence and it can go into the article. Bigbigtom367 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sued for oddball behavior

What exactly is oddball behavior? In an oddball industry, oddball behavior would be the opposite, which would then be conservative, normal, and low–keyed behavior.Lestrade (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The article makes it clear that it is quoting the litigants in the current lawsuit, therefore there is nothing really to discuss here. As per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FORUM, it is not our place to speculate what the litigants might have meant by "oddball behavior". --Jaysweet (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely, this is an important legal issue. If "oddball" is not strictly defined, then many people could be sued for being oddballs. Maybe Peter Handke is an oddball. Jerry Fodor, Gary Busey, Dennis Kucinich, and Ward Churchill might be oddballs. If the word isn't defined, how would we know who is an oddball? Doesn't Wikipedia care about the words that are used in the articles?Lestrade (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

No, Wikipedia doesn't care. The litigants used the word "oddball" in their lawsuit. Wikipedia paraphrases the allegations, and puts the word "oddball" in quotes because they are directly quoting the litigants. If Wikipedia were to analyze what the litigants meant by "oddball" that would be original research, which is not what Wikipedia is all about.

Please refrain from forum-style comments on the talk page. This page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New additions

Recently, a series of single-purpose accounts has been adding the same largely unsourced, POV material written in a non-encyclopaedic manner. For reference, sites which mirror Wikipedia content cannot be used as a reference; hyperbole must be avoided without an explicit reference (citing a bunch of quotes is not enough), POV ramblings about why it's OK to not be a member of a union are not suitable; neither are arbitrary Shakespeare quotations. Oli Filth^(talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Filling an article with cherry-picked positive reviews and synthesising an explanation for the union stuff does not constitute encyclopaedic material. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Look here: A Visit to Anthony. 2601 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Midnight Express

Shouldn't his role in Midnight Express be given some mention in the article? It was a pretty powerful performance in a powerful movie which left an impression on me. Just a thought.--76.31.242.174 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

More bad news

More bad news on Quaid; not sure if it rises to the level of importance to belong in an encyclopedia article (someone else can decide that), but widely reported. See Prosecutor to Quaid: surrender in hotel bill case, Houston Chronicle, 2009-09-30. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

77.97.86.184 deletion of information about Quaid's arrest

77.97.86.184 deleted material about Quaids arrest and about the private investigator he and his wife hired.

The information concerning the private investigator, and the alleged mental instability of his wife should probably be deleted without the addition of good citations.

I don't see any reason for the deletion of the information about Quaid's arrest. --Davefoc (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have marked several statements in the paragraph concerning Ariel Investigations with citation required. Given the potentially defamatory nature of the claims and their lack of documentation I think that the deletion of this paragraph by 77.97.86.184 was probably correct and I intend to delete the paragraph again unless sources can be cited for the claims. --Davefoc (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith removed the paragraph that referred to Ariel Investigations. I think that was appropriate. --Davefoc (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

75.84.22.146 added the material deleted by All Hallow's Wraith back into the article. The material is completely unsourced and potentially libelous. It appears to have been added to the article as part of a personal vendetta against Randy Quaid. If it is restored again, I believe that a report to Wikipedia management over the kind of editing for personal purposes that seems to be underway in this article between 77.97.86.184 and 75.84.22.146 should be made.--Davefoc (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

459PC etc.

Someone has added these references in regards to the charges against Quaid. These are presumably references to California law, but don't mean much to the many of us who are not in California. Please expand this format where it first appears. Eclecticology (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the sentence in question. The sentence was quoted from the Sheriff's press release. The numbers probably don't mean much to most Californians either. They refer to sections of California penal code. Perhaps the inclusion of the specific penal code violations was excessive information or perhaps the sentence should be amended to make it clear that the numbers are sections of CA penal code?--Davefoc (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I made the first use of PC a hyperlink to California Penal Code. Perhaps this was the correct way to deal with this issue?--Davefoc (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's probably best. Also, it's a citation. I'm not sure what else you could want other than giving the legal cite. California Penal Code § 459. 70.191.80.19 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Source for latest Stunt

Amercian Bar Association Law Journal News Brief on Quaid The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

174.116.132.81's recent edits

174.116.132.81 has made several recent edits. Some of the edits caused large sections of the article to be deleted. Some of the other edits seem to have been done as a kind of joke. Regardless the edits are being done without explanation and with the apparent purpose of harming the article and I and others have undone them.

However, I am concerned that 174.116.132.81 may have legitimate concerns about the article and because of his actions his concerns are not being addressed. If this is so, I hope that 174.116.132.81 would consider posting his concerns about the article in the talk section. --Davefoc (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

174.117.82.41's March 24, 2012 edits

174.117.82.41 made two edits to this article.

1. Change of first sentence
Was:

Randall Rudy "Randy" Quaid (born October 1, 1950) is an American actor perhaps best known for his role as Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon's Vacation movies, as well as his numerous supporting roles in films, including his Oscar nominated performance in The Last Detail, Independence Day, Kingpin and Brokeback Mountain.

Is:

"Randy" Quaid (born October 1, 1950) is an American actor who does not like his role as Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon's Vacation movies, as well as his numerous supporting roles in films, including his Oscar nominated performance in The Last Detail, Independence Day, Kingpin and Brokeback Mountain

Part of this edit seems correct. Randy Quaid's full given name is Randall Rudy Quaid and "Randy" is a nickname and a stage name I believe. As such 174.117.82.41's edit of this seems correct.

174.117.82.41 also added a comment about Quaid's personal view of the cousin Eddy role. Even if 174.117.82.41 were Randy Quaid this edit is problematic because a source was not provided and while the information is interesting it probably is of insufficient importance to justify its placement in the lede. I believe it should be removed.

2. Removal of the text which links to an image of Randy Quaid to "File:Copyright Evi Quaid.jpg"
The copyright status of the image in this article has been questioned before. It is listed as in the public domain in Wikimedia, however the image was uploaded by Boston24 and the provenance and other details about the image are not provided. I think it is possible that the image is not actually in the public domain. I am going to leave 174.117.82.41's edit with regard to this in place for the time being. If 174.117.82.41 has information that the copyright to this image is held by Evi Quaid, the best place to contest the copyright status of the image is on Wikimedia. As it stands now the image is widely used because it is located in Wikimedia and contesting the copyright of the image here would only effect its use in this article. Perhaps somebody could post some guidance here on how to contest the copyright status of an image on Wikimedia. --Davefoc (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was confused:
174.117.82.41 edit changed the text about Quaid's name from what I thought was correct to what I think is incorrect. So I changed the text to what it was before 174.117.82.41's edit. I looked at the Wikipedia articles of two actors that used a variation on their real names as their stage names to see how this was handled there. The Gary Cooper article lists Gary Cooper's real name followed by a phrase indicating that his stage name was Gary Cooper. The Tom Hanks article uses the same form as this article. Perhaps something like Randy Quaid (legal name: Randall Rudy Quaid) might also be acceptable. I like the idea of emphasizing the name the individual is most commonly known as by placing it first in the article, even when that name is not the legal name. But I also think consistency is a good thing and based on a limited sample the article before 174.117.82.41's edit treated Randy Quaid's name in a way consistent with other articles.--Davefoc (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of image
I added a tag to the image in Wikimedia questioning the copyright status of the image. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RandyQuaidShot.jpg --Davefoc (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the text for the Evi Quaid copyright claim from the infobox. The tag on the image in Wikimedia requesting source information has not been responded to by the uploader of the image at this point. The infobox states that seven days after the request for source information has been posted the image can be speedily deleted. If 174.117.82.41 has information that the image copyright is actually held by Evi Quaid he might contact her for a release that would allow the image to continue to be used with authorship credited to her. If he has information that Evi Quaid does not wish to relinquish any of her rights to the image, a statement to that effect on the Wikimedia page for the image would be helpful. As it is, the source information for the image is dodgy and I suspect it will be deleted if better source information is not provided. --Davefoc (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruption from 174 IPs

Three IPs from this range have been temporarily blocked--looks like we're dealing with the same business that was discussed above, earlier this year. Perhaps indefinite protection is in order.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits in violation of WP:BLP

I have removed two items that violate WP:BLP. The first is the reference in the lead to Quaid being retired. According to media coverage of his Canadian residency denial, he was making films as recently as 2011 and the article here contains no reference to Quaid having retired from acting. Related to this, we cannot have a notation of "final role" in a filmography as long as the subject of the list is still alive. It's like listing Terminator 3 as the final role for Arnold Schwarzenegger and listing him as retired in 2008 when, oops, he's back making movies again. If Quaid has officially announced retirement, then let's have a source and have it indicated clearly in the article. Otherwise such a statement is in violation of BLP and has to be removed. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Both these edits look appropriate to me. Unless somebody objects I think this issue is closed. Davefoc (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to bump this issue, because the sidebar still says "Years active 1971–2009" but then his filmography lists his 2011 unreleased film. Also, on that film (Star Whackers) it says "Screened in 2011, but not yet commercially released" and I think that is misleading original research. Specifically, the word "yet." That small word implies that there is some sort of plan for commercial release, and I don't think that is a valid claim. If indeed there was such a plan at some point, I think we will need a current reference that says it is still the case, given his legal situation. Also, the text of the article does not say that there is a release plan and that it has not been released "yet;" rather it says "the film screened at least once, but has not been commercially released."

Also, a very recent edit says "Quaid has been living in Montreal since 2013 under immigration detention in Laval, Quebec[40] until his conditional release by the Immigration and Refugee Board on 8 Oct 2015 under the condition that he return to the US within two weeks." This needs to be cleaned up. I'm assuming it means that he "had been" living in immigration detention. But perhaps he had been living in Montreal before his detention. It isn't obvious to me if it is a one-word tense typo, or a missing sentence fragment/paste error. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Edit name to Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. Picture of birth certificate from Evi Quaid's twitter as proof. https://twitter.com/EviQuaid/status/565192244597366785 Micklamode (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: We can't use a Twitter post about someone else as a source. See WP:TWITTER RudolfRed (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

Please change 'Randall Rudy "Randy" Quaid (born October 1, 1950)' to 'Randy Randall Rudy Quaid (born October 1, 1950)' per Evi Quaid https://twitter.com/EviQuaid/status/565192244597366785/photo/1 Videoeraser (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: We can't use a Twitter post about someone else as a source. See WP:TWITTER RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The info on the pic in the tweet

Before anyone else posts this twitter pic it should be noted that actual "Birth Certificates" are not usually signed by the governor of the state that a person is born in (doctor and hospital information is far more the norm) and even if they were Rick Perry was not the governor of Texas in 1950. IMO this is a mock certificate and cannot be considered a WP:RS for any changes to this article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That logic sounds sensible but is mistaken. It's a special "Heirloom" birth certificate designed to look pretty, show pride in your state and to be used as a keepsake [1][2]. It's not your original certificate but is instead one that you have to order, and as such it has to be signed by someone. They obviously can't get your original delivering doctor to sign it (he's probably dead by now) so it's usually the Governor and state registrar that sign it. Here is an example of the state of Washington version where they say "It is signed by the Governor and the State Registrar" [3] and the Colorado version where they say it may be signed by the Governor (PDF) [4] and also says that it has the same status as evidence as an original birth certificate (not true for all states I don't think), and the Ohio version which has recent Governor Ted Strikland's signature on it (PDF)[5]. I'm not saying it should be included, just pointing out that reasoning that says it's fake because it has the current Governor's signature on it is untrue. Suchmaterial (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Mock or heirloom. In either case it is not an official birth certificate and it cannot be used to determine Quaid's full name. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

While it can't be used on Wikipedia because it's a photo on Twitter, it's a legal certified copy of a birth certificate. To quote from the Texas state website and the legislation I linked above "To celebrate this heritage, the Texas Legislature authorized the creation of an "heirloom" birth certificate, a legal birth certificate celebrating the unique heritage of being a native Texan" and "An heirloom birth certificate must contain the same information as, and have the same effect of, a certified copy of another birth record". Suchmaterial (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Birth Name of Randy Quaid

Randy Quaidand his wife Evi have, through their youtube channel, see Evi Quaid on youtube, that his authentic natural name be indicated on Wikipedia. His honorary birth certificate he brings forth in his videos, two on April 19, 2015 were authenticated by the signatory having viewed the original registered birth certificate. MarnetteD continues to assert otherwise and changes his actual name to one that is not his. That editor states my entries were not WP/V, yet she provides zero documentary proof of her entry/edit. The individual himself has indicated this and provides the visual and oral confirmation that his full legal birth name is Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. Caura (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Caura

A youtube message is not a WP:RS. His statement is a WP:PRIMARY source but WikiP needs WP:V WP:SECONDARY sources to make changes to the article. You will also want to read WP:COI before making any further edits to this article. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS team has received a document verifying the legal name "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid". The OTRS ticket is 2015042110003976. Nakon 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the consensus here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#RfC - should we allow primary sources sent in to OTRS documents sent to OCRS are not verifiable (along with violating several other policies) so the previous version of the name is the one that the article should bear. MarnetteD|Talk 22:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the birth name since the source did not confirm that the Ranall Rudy Quaid listed there is this actor. I rather doubt FamilySearch meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability anyway. In fact there's more unreferenced and unreliably referenced content on Quaid's personal life that should also be removed. Huon (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The info there comes directly from the "Texas, Birth Index, 1903-1997" so it is reliable. Of course you are free to ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. MarnetteD|Talk 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And where does it say that the birth certificate belongs to this person and not someone else? Huon (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:RSN#Genealogy websites as sources for birth names. Huon (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? Nice jog on the AGF BTW. By that criteria there isn't a single birth certificate anywhere that is reliable. Again fell free to take this to RSN and whatever is decided there is fine. MarnetteD|Talk 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I did take it to RSN, providing the link immediately above, and WP:BLPPRIMARY indeed says birth certificates should not be used. I don't see an AGF issue - I fully expect you to honestly believe that the source in question correctly reproduces Quaid's birth certificate, but the source does not actually say so - at best this is synthesis. Huon (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Birth records should not be cited per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but if Quaid publishes the information himself via social media, it can be cited per WP:ABOUTSELF. Gamaliel (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Gamaliel here and Meatsgains at RSN agree that genealogy websites and birth records should not be cited, I'll once again remove that reference and some of the content based on it. Huon (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is more OTRS discussion at ticket:2015042110003976. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This person's representative wants these names used or not used -

• Randy Quaid - acceptable
• Randall Rudy Quaid - not acceptable
• Randy Randall Rudy Quaid - not acceptable

I am removing everything but "Randy Quaid". I am not sure of what every source says, but at least most sources say "Randy Quaid". If anyone wants to re-add a name, please provide documentation. Currently documentation is mostly not used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note I changed it back to the full name, before having seen this discussion. I fully expect to be reverted, but whatever. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Better citation for fullname

Resuming discussion

First of all the Gazette Review citation is to an apparent clickbait/fake news site.

Here are sources supporting "Randall Rudy Quaid" (without the Randy) as his given name:

• Biography.com
• LA Times
• Infoplease

Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: - what would you say regarding my comment? I heard from @Ronhjones: that Quaid/his people "insist" on the "Randy Randall" form, but your comment indicates otherwise. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arbor to SJ: See this YouTube video made for Wikipedia and also ticket:2015042110003976. There are sources which seem to be from the subject of this article that this person's stage name is "Randy Quaid", so per WP:Commonname, that should be the title of this article. This person's birth name is said to be "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid". I forget what the issue was here, but sometimes Wikipedia includes birthnames but often not. Usually Wikipedia reflects the name by which a person is known in the media, but per MOS:Identity, sometimes Wikipedia presents both the common name and the name which a person requests that they be called. If a person is known by multiple name in reliable sources then Wikipedia might mention all of those. What is the matter to be decided at this point? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The matter is if "Randy" is to be listed as his birth name as opposed to a nickname, like "Randall 'Randy' Quaid". Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I seen lots of tickets at OTRS (and answered some of them). In a nutshell (from the last ticket:2017032810012844) - the subject shows that his full name is Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. The version he does not like - and always generates an e-mail is Randall Rudy "Randy" Quaid. He claims it is not a nickname. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line here is 1) it should not be this hard, in the USA, to determine what a person's birth name actually is, regardless of how it's been modified since. If it has been legally modified, that should be easy to trace, too. 2) if his birth name is really Randy Randall Rudy Quaid, that, in and of itself is worthy of some investigation and commentary. It's too unusual to just be ignored. In other cases where people have unusual names, Wikipedia articles discuss it to the extent appropriate.Venqax (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Invalid source

I was reading about the whole "Star Whackers" incident, and I noticed that this article mentions how Quaid was arrested in 2011 for burglary charge. This link, however, failed to mention anywhere about burglary. I just wanted to bring this to attention. Thanks. New User Person (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

I have currently been notified by Randy Quaid, he has a Texas Birth Certificate with the name Randy Randall Rudy Quaid and that subsequent name changes by 'WayBack Machine' and Ancestry.com are incorrect. I refer this Youtube statutory declaration by Mr Randy Quaid >> youtu.be/9TWUjmtbpcI << for you consideration.

Please change X Randall Rudy Quaid for Y Randy Randall Rudy Quaid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grog 5mith (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Regards G Smith

Grog 5mith (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: There is active discussion regarding this issue 3 sections up. Wait for consensus to be determined. Cannolis (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Film section

Fireflyfanboy, why do you keep adding the paragraph on Jack Nicholson's role in The Last Detail? This seems irrelevant to an article about Randy Quiad.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it kept being deleted by vandals without any discussion or justification, so I was undoing it to stop that. If we want to start a formal conversation about whether or not it should be in the article, that's fine!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that removal vandalism, but I do think it's irrelevant to the article, after all the article is about Quaid, not the film, and not Nicholson. No comment on the full name in the lead. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits from anonymous editors, and semi-protected status- April 2016

Hey everyone, I've noticed a lot of edits from anonymous IP editors, and the edits don't seem all that constructive. That's why I've requested protected status, which was granted by User:Widr earlier today.

Starting March 3 until today, April 21, the vast majority of edits seems to have been by anonymous editors. While there are some edits that could be perceived as constructive (including the issue of whether to talk about his role in The Last Detail), a lot of them seem like vandalism in nature, and do not go through the proper process for making these edits. Of particular concern are strange edits of syntax and grammar (removing formatting, deliberate misspelling, etc.), and the constant disruption and rewriting of the intro paragraph. Beyond that, a lot of these edits are big ones, and there is no justification for them given by the editors on the article's history, nor here on the talk page.

So, my reason for opening this up for discussion is two-fold:

1) Would someone want to go through the edits made since March 3, to account for what has been done to the article, and make sure no major changes have been made that have yet to be corrected?

and 2) do we want to make the article's semi-protected status permanent, due to the disruptive nature of these anonymous editors?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add my stand: as someone who has dealt with these anonymous editors, whoever they are, and their disruption to this article, I think permanent protected status might be necessary, but I think we should only act if there is consensus.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Does OTRS really outweigh verifiability and reliable sources?

Regarding this protection request - I wonder if it's really appropriate for subjects of articles to be able to control content of their articles like that, in spite of WP:RS and WP:V. Plus, there are credibility issues given his years long criminal case.

Addressing specific claims made by KDS4444 on my talk page in the request:

• "...Mr. Quaid has repeatedly asked that his name in this article be shown as "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid", which is his birth name...We have seen ample evidence at OTRS that his name is Randy Randall Rudy Quaid, and it would be nice if the article could finally and more or less permanently reflect that."
  • That is easily contradicted by Texas birth name public records, and other reliable sources have just used "Randall Rudy Quaid", including: Biography.com [6], TV Guide [7], The Oliver Stone Encyclopedia [8], a 2015 Los Angeles Times article quoting the Santa Barbara County district attorney who addressed Quaid as "Randall", and Santa Barbara County's press release describing his criminal case as People v. Randall Rudy Quaid and Evi Hellena Quaid. If it's the case he legally changed his name to "Randy Randall..." at some point, a reasonable compromise would be to keep the birth name at just Randall but keep the "Randy Randall" form as what he's known as now.
• "However, a number of other editors (not IP users, but users with logged in accounts) insist on changing it to "Randall Rudy Quaid" (as though "Randy" was short for "Randall"). "
  • See WP:QUOTENAME - "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial..."

Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Enigmaman: Any responses/counter arguments? Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's have a look at these. The first source you've given is an electronic record at Familysearch.org. I have done a lot of research on people's names on such sites, and cannot tell you the number of errors I have found—- if we are going to rely on something for an official record of a person's birth name, I don't think familysearch.org or spokeo.com, or zabasearch.com or peoplefinders.com or intellius.com or ancestry.org is going to be one we can consider definitive or reliable (and am a little surprised that anyone thinks it should be). That other venues like the LA times have used other versions of his name does not make their use if it his official legal full name— they may be using a version of the name given to them by an Oscar committee or by an attorney in a lawsuit or even by Wikipedia itself, which is obviously its own problem. On OTRS we DO have a photograph of Mr. Quaid, taken just for this occasion, holding up a document (he states that it is a Texas birth certificate) that states his name is Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. I have looked at birth records from Harris County, Texas, and they do not look like the document that Mr. Quaid is holding up, but such documents are often distributed in different formats for different purposes (an official vs. an unofficial birth cert., etc.). It appears that the version Mr. Quaid is holding up is what Texas refers to as an "heirloom" birth cert., and it is meant to be just as legal as any other birth certificate issued in the state. There are no quote marks on the birth certificate.

I think that an image of the subject holding up a copy of his/ her birth certificate and coming from an email address that we have no reason to doubt in fact belongs to the subject should be treated with a pretty high degree of certainty as to its authenticity, probably a higher degree than any version of that name published in a newspaper, referenced in a lawsuit, or appearing in the results of any Internet database search. In fact, I am not sure I can think of anything more convincing. But I am open to suggestions here, and if you believe any of this has been conducted fraudulently, I'd very much like to be told so that I don't make an ass out of myself. I have been led down similar paths by other Hollywood personalities in the past, and my willingness to help them out has on at least one occasion made me a tool. I have no desire to do that again. So please comment on the above. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that the subject has done enough to verify this that his wishes regarding his name should be respected. Enigma^msg 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I happen to share MarnetteD's view, based on the primary sources to OTRS RFC. KDS4444 acknowledges: "I have been led down similar paths by other Hollywood personalities in the past, and my willingness to help them out has on at least one occasion made me a tool." To me, as an outsider, Quaid's requests seem like WP:AXE. If Quaid were genuine about correcting the record - he/his people would've asked the same for TV Guide and Biography.com rather than trying to change reality via Wikipedia.

Are you seriously suggesting the Santa Barbara County district attorney's office used "a version of the name given to them by an Oscar committee or by an attorney in a lawsuit or even by Wikipedia itself" (Of course that isn't what I am suggesting, please don't misconstrue what I am saying there, it isn't helpful, come on, I am not an idiot! KDS4444 (talk) ) in its press release announcing it was seeking an arrest warrant for him? Quaid is a US citizen, so it shouldn't be too hard for a US district attorney's office to verify his real name.

So it's basically Quaid's(?) word vs. that of the Santa Barbara County DA, Vermont State Police, TV Guide, Biography.com, Infoplease, and multiple other sources. If Wikipedia caved to everyone's OTRS requests - pretty soon Donald Trump is gonna abuse it to demand everything he doesn't like be excised. Plus, Quaid has serious credibility issues ranging from his legal problems to his "Hollywood star whacker" conspiracy theories, and I'm not even sure OTRS verified that "birth certificate" he kept holding up. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

All good points. Re: Santa Barbara, my guess is that the Santa Barbara County DA's office (and probably most others in the country) take down an arrested person's name according to whatever is listed on that person's driver license/ state issued ID card (if that is the document the person has on hand), another form of government issued ID (if a d.l. or ID is not available but that other document is), or, at least at first, whatever the person tells the DA their name is (and then augmenting the official arrest record with AKAs as they are discovered, including, perhaps, the addition of middle names, jr., III, etc.). Birth records and driver licenses do not necessarily match, of course, and sometimes the official original birth record won't even have the child's first name typed in (my own official original birth cert. gives my first name as "boy", lower case "b"). The Vermont record shows that on that record Mr. Quaid's name was entered as Randall R. Quaid— this only means that this is what someone entering his name into a fugitive-from-justice form in Vermont typed in, it doesn't mean that this is his full real name (we can't even tell what his middle name is from that record, only that he seems to have only one— again, according to that record). Also, I don't think Quaid is saying that the Santa Barnara County DA has his name wrong so much as that the record they have issued with his name on it is not actually a complete record of his full birth name, which I suspect is not something the DA's office or Mr. Quaid considers problematic, so long as the other details (D.O.B., place of residence, SSN, etc.) add up.

Much of the RfC mentioned above had to do with problems with verifiability— that the general public is asked to "take OTRS's word for it" that the identity or the information was checked, but may not access that information themselves. Although us OTRS agents have signed a confidentiality agreement not do disclose the content of the emails we receive and process, there is no certainty that we cannot be duped, hence the importance of verifiability. I don't know that I have an answer to that, other than that being duped about a date of birth is very different from being duped regarding an official or "birth" name. (Also: I am very aware of the possibility of forgeries and of the ways that an e-mailed-in ID can be faked— but I will also tell you that such a thing is very difficult get past a person who examines that document carefully these days unless you are a professional counterfeiter! In which case, what hope have we, really?).

Which leads me to my own question: can someone explain the resistance to having the actor's name written in the article as Randy Randall Rudy Quaid? Is it because it sounds silly somehow? Is it because you think he is interested in propagating a new false name for himself using Wikipedia? Is it because he wants to make Wikipedia look stupid by having his name as basically "Randy Randy Rudy"? Do you think someone other than Mr. Quaid is attempting to do this? Do you have any sense at all as to why? Can you help me out with a motive? Ultimately, it seems like the "real" Slim Shady/ Mr. Quaid is more or less allowed to call himself whatever he chooses, and that Wikipedia should do its best to match its content with something as personal and amorphous as a name when that name is credibly coming from its primary source (dates of birth, absolutely not; places of birth, no way; names, though? Names are social, fluid things, names can change— dates of birth cannot). I am writing too much. I will stop now. KDS4444 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(Almost: I just did a search on my own name on Familysearch.org. While it got the name correct several places, in one instance it has my name and my SISTER'S exact date and year of birth associated with it!!!! Exact! This is why we cannot consider such Internet searchable "databases" to be reliable sources of complete information, and certainly not ones we can "cite" as being accurate! My sister's date of birth! Off by three years, two months and 20 days, exactly. KDS4444 (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC))

@KDS4444: All those personal information search sites are unreliable. I've searched myself and sometimes it switches my age or location with that of one of my sisters. Enigma^msg 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the OTRS ticket, and I'm unclear whether the claim is that his current name is "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid", or his birth name is that. I believe the only claim is that his current name is that; as noted above sources (as well as common sense) suggest his birth name was "Randall Rudy Quaid". Power~enwiki (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to take me on good faith here, as an OTRS agent, when I assert what I have done above. And while common sense may suggest his birth name is Randall Rudy Quaid, if we have a copy of a birth certificate that says "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid", and if we believe that this certificate is authentic (and so far, I do), then I think we have established the name to be used in bold font in the first sentence of the lead paragraph, which is really the only issue that has been at stake here (since in all other contexts he is simply "Randy Quaid"). If no one can make an argument that Mr. Quaid is trying to mess with us, nor that all of this is being done by an imposter in order to damage Mr. Quaid somehow, then I am not sure I see an argument to view any of this as problematic. KDS4444 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on [9] I'm not certain I'm willing to assume good faith. I trust court records more than any self-provided birth certificate data. That said, there's no reason provided to adjust the lede sentence from its current form. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(Er, the "good faith" request was with regards to me, the OTRS agent, not with regard to Mr. Quaid, who, as you've noticed, is rather "colorful", and in whom I don't expect you to place all that much faith. Do I have this right? KDS4444 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC))

Yes. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And here's a federal court record listing Quaid's family name as "Randall Rudy Quaid" and noting he's also known as "Randy". Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: From an ABC News article in 2010: "Eventually, the Quaids, listed in their 2000 Los Angeles bankruptcy filing as Randall R. Quaid and Evzenya H. Quaid, accumulated the $3.5 million of debt, with listed assets of $3.4 million in personal property." Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically states that we are not to use court records as references for information in BLPs. That same page has WP:BLPSELFPUB which says that we can use material derived from the subject himself for information about the subject himself so long as that information is not self-serving, involve claims about third parties, involve claims about events not related to the article, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Mr. Quaid has now sent additional electronic records into OTRS that are connected to the bankruptcy, leins, etc.— the electronic versions of these documents only say "Randy and Evi Quaid", but as we are not supposed to be relying on such documents anyway, they don't make much difference. What I still have not heard is an argument from anyone as to why Mr. Quaid would have any stake in messing with his name here in his article. If the subject has provided ample evidence that he is who he says he is, and has claimed that there is a technical mistake in the Wikipedia article about him regarding his full name, and that claim does not contradict any other information we so far have on him (those sources stating his name as only "Randall Rudy Quaid" do not necessarily conflict with a claim by the subject that his name is "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid"), then why can we not have the article reflect the subject's desires in this respect? There is no source we have that states his name is NOT Randy Randall Rudy Quaid, only different sources giving variations on the names we know about and the subject asking that the lead sentence contain his given birth name along with a published image of the subject displaying a birth certificate containing that same name. I do not understand the resistance to allowing the article to have Randy Randall Rudy Quaid, and I have not seen any evidence (yet) that this cannot be his name. KDS4444 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Randy Quaid. He isn't exactly reliable. Unless you can find an actual, verifiable source that has his name as Randy Randall Rudy Quaid, the name should remain the article article, Randall Rudy Quaid. The only possibility is that Randy Randall Rudy Quaid is his current name that he possibly changed legally, or just likes to refer to himself as. No proof that that's his birthname, though Dpm12 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you trust him or not. He sent in a picture of him displaying a birth certificate. This is settled. Enigma^msg 04:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this never was settled, and everyone seems to agree that the name should read "Randall Rudy Quaid". "Settled" my butt. I won't change the name, but I am hoping you will be responsible enough to change it, yourself. Dpm12 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this was settled. I don't know what your butt has to do with anything. Enigma^msg 03:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The better image

• 
  A - Quaid being interviewed by Canal+, 2008
• 
  B - Quaid, 29 June 2017

Arbor to SJ, you may be right, my friend. Hmmmm, one is old and one shows less face. Let's hear what the community thinks. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The 2008 image shows Quaid during his acting career, the period when he became notable. It's preferable to one uploaded from a user who's made questionable edits to this article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point about how he appeared during career. I didn't think of that.

Your second point: Not sure why the uploader of B has anything to do with the image B. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's do this proper-like! How about an RfC?? KDS4444 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on which image of Randy Quaid should be used in the lead of this article?

The consensus is to use image A, File:Randy Quaid.jpg. RfC participants recommended cropping the photo.

Cunard (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

---

We have two images of Mr. Quaid on Commons, as shown in the talk page section directly above. Which should we use in the article on Mr. Quaid? KDS4444 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Details: Image A is a reliably sourced freely licensed image of Mr. Quaid from 2008 during a time period when he became notable. Wikipedia articles often use images of notable people from their most notable periods to illustrate their articles. However, there are a host of exceptions (from Eva Gabor down to the article on Dennis Quaid) that use more recent photographs of such people. Image B is a much more recent image of Mr. Quaid, and is a cropped version of a photo of him holding up his Texas birth certificate. The uploader has no history of uploading images to Commons, and is claiming "Own work" as the source— we have no reason to doubt the claim (no evidence of copyright infringement has been brought up). According to VRTS ticket # 2017062610021476 it appears that the subject himself is requesting that image B be the one used in his article. Although the ticket's language is a little irregular, we have as yet no reason to doubt is authenticity (it is possible, even likely, that the subject had the photo taken by his wife and uploaded it under a pseudonym, but I do not think this matters so long as the image has been correctly licensed by the copyright holder, whoever that is— also, the original upload contains all of the original EXIF metadata, further suggesting its authenticity).

To the extent that all of the above is true, our choices are between an image that is older but of the subject during his notable phase versus one that is newer but is preferred by the subject himself. Under that premise, I am willing to support Image B, but since there has been some difference of opinion on the matter, I am soliciting wider input via this RfC. What do others think? KDS4444 (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral ...but leaning toward A per Arbor to SJ's "...shows Quaid during his acting career, the period when he became notable...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral (Summoned by bot) I like A because it appears more professional, however B is more recent and is a full on view. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• A. But it's a large enough photo which should be cropped as a close-up vertical portrait. --Light show (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. Favor A or earlier if available. Should illustrate the subject during his period of notability as an actor. Subject's alleged desires are irrelevant. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• A - per arguments noted above. Because both images would suffice so, let's use the one during the time he was most notable. Meatsgains (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• A, but only if cropped, per Light show. If A is cropped to really close in on his face, that would be the most encylopedic option, but uncropped, it looks like lower quality than what it really is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• A The arguments for A are well considered, and so I support choice A. Cropping will important, and for those who can do this, please do so. My only new thought is that a third option, one which is clearer than A, might be considered. Please note that I do say might. Thanks for the comments by all.Horst59 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• A, which stands out to me as the clearly higher quality image (not in and of itself a phenomenal photograph but certainly decent enough and heads and shoulders above the other option, whether cropped or uncropped). Some editors prefer images of subjects at the height of their notability, others prefer recent images; I tend to balance both of these factors against context and the quality of the images and all things considered here, I'm not surprised there has been such a one-sided response from those answering the RfC. Lastly, we do not accept requests from subjects of our articles wishing to tailor their image, whatever the direction. Nor could we be certain that the person making the request is who they say they are; given the...unconventional look of the subject in image B, I dare say it's at least a possibility that the request is an attempt to troll the article. Some might say, given the nature of the subject's notability in more recent years, it's entirely an appropriate image, but I am nevertheless going to go with the higher quality / more professional image. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Overweight legal sections

Quaid has been a professional movie and tv actor for close to 40 years, during which time he made over 90 films. However, the article devotes nearly twice as much text to his legal issues than to his career section. I think the legal issues should be no more than 10-20% as large as the career section, per guidelines. Or we can increase it to maybe 30% if WP starts selling ad space. --Light show (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's also interesting that a former Los Angeles prosecutor called the charges against them "fairly innocuous," another reason they shouldn't overwhelm the bio. --Light show (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason he is notable is because of his acting career. The other stuff ends up coming off as schadenfreude that we have no real use for other than to look at it and shake our heads. It is all true, which is important, but that doesn't also make it important! Please feel free to trim away, as far as I am concerned. KDS4444 (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Light show, I'm sympathetic to your general objective, but it seems to me that the removal of 12.5k of sourced content is perhaps a little excessive. The "Star Whackers" fiasco in particular garnered massive media attention and the erratic behaviour and highly public claims he and his wife made in relation to it is arguably Quaid's main source of notability over the last decade, and now those events are not even noted in passing in this article. Strange and silly Hollywood drama though it may be, I think we can safely presume a certain relevant portion of the readers of this article will come here looking for details on that affair, and as a matter of WP:WEIGHT, I think it's due for inclusion. Again, I agree that its reasonable to balance coverage of the career against the peculiar details of the subject's personal life, but given the sourcing, I think it would be more appropriate to reduce the section to about 30-60% of what it was, rather than 10%. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Light show, I think I screwed up the original ping here, so I'll give it a second shot, since I'm still curious about your feedback on this matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It turns out that it actually meets your suggested ratio. For the reasons I gave above I felt that the legal stuff should be no more than 10 - 20% as large as the career section. It ended up being 30% as large, which is still overweight. It's an immense section about incidences in his private life, all of which are unrelated to his career or notability per the lead. The legal section also has four times as many references as his career section and make up a third of all the references in the article. So combined, both aspects already satisfiy most of your suggestions. --Light show (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, elements of what you say there seem to be turning WP:NOTABILITY on it's head; the source of a person's notability follows from the sources, not from assumptions we make about what their "real" notability is about. I'm not saying that the calculus is as simple as saying "four times as many sources about his legal concerns = four times as much content", but I do think it is working backwards to the normal process to start from the assumption that "his main notability is X, regardless of what the WP:WEIGHT of the sources say". I'm also concerned that your cuts (again, a whopping 12k+) may have cut away far too much of the context. You reference this section as about his "legal troubles", but that seems like an oversimplification. This isn't just a question of civil suits, but of multiple counts of fraud and other serious crimes, as well as highly public attempt to flee to another country and claim refugee status all while Quaid and his wife were claiming that they were being pursued by a nefarious Hollywood conspiracy to kill them, and which ahd in fact already murdered multiple famous actors. That's pretty important context to have wiped completely out of the article, especially considering that the "Star Whackers" claims are undoubtedly the main crux of Quaid's notability, as determined by the weight of the coverage of the man in reliable sources over the last decade. I think at least some passing mention to the bizarre and public assertions that are the connective tissue of the story of numerous of the events mentioned in that section ought to be restored. I think it's quite reasonable to expect that a certain significant number of our readers may arrive at this article after having hear some part of this story an expecting at least a bare bones coverage of these public claims.

I don't want this one facet to overpower the article as a summary of an encyclopedic topic either, which is why I broadly approve of the pairing down, in principle. But removing any mention of the couple's own claims about this conspiracy theory, when their proclamations about it are so deeply entwined with their public image at present, and the focus of most reliable sources talking about them in recent years? That's not every encyclopedic either. Just my impressions. I'm not going to set about editing this particular article, personally, so it's at your discretion. But I do think what I am saying is worth considering. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I went back over the original text before it was trimmed and the current abbreviated version. But I couldn't find any support for your statement, "Star Whackers" claims are undoubtedly the main crux of Quaid's notability, as determined by the weight of the coverage of the man in reliable sources over the last decade. The "Star Whackers" term was made during a few interviews in Canada and was the news primarily in Canada, where most of the sources came from. Quaid was in the news for only a week or so, and then mention of him mostly died, until they got caught trying to return to the U.S.

The details about that incident are already in the current article in a summary form, less the catchy label: They then sought protection under the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, stating that they feared for their lives in the United States.[27]. The source mentions the "Star Whackers" term in the article briefly, but didn't sensationalize it. A news story by ABC during the Star Whackers week mentioned the phrase once, while it also quoted a Los Angeles prosecutor calling the charges against them "fairly innocuous." --Light show (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd take a look at the sources more broadly; most of the recent ones mention the Star Whackers angle, even in the present version--and the proportion only skyrockets if we include the numerous perfectly WP:reliable sources you removed when you paired down that section, which is part of the problem I was alluding to. And a cursory look at Google results on the Quaid's name suggest a very high focus on the Star Whackers claims, in connection with the criminal issues especially--even among just those sources which are reliable and secondary.

I completely respect that your changes here have been good-faith and in an effort towards encyclopedic tone, but if I am honest, I just don't think you've quite caught the right WP:WEIGHT of the sources when you decided to remove what you saw as a "sensationalist" bent on the man's representation in recent media. The thing is, whether we like it or not, those are the sources we have; Quaid, by virtue of his career and the nature of his notability, is covered more by entertainment press than anything else, and many of those are attracted by peculiar behaviour. But those remain reliable sources, for purposes of WP:V and WP:NPOV/WP:DUE. And it's not really our place to correct the tonal arc of the sources for the sake of classing up the article's coverage of oddball events or opinions or, indeed, claims of living under a death threat from a hollywood conspiracy. I understand and also embrace encyclopedic tone as an editorial value, truly. But looking at the sources collectively in this instance, and then considering the different versions of the page, I gotta tell you that the current version feels a little sanitized. I'm not saying these threat to their lives claims should dominate the article, but given their public nature and the degree of coverage, it doesn't feel balanced that the claims are not even mentioned in the article once; and this only becomes a more glaring omission when you consider that "Star Whackers" appears in the title of multiple sources, even in the current version. But if you're still unconvinced, I'll leave the matter there. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Cripes, I just came across this randomly at ANI: seems Light show has been topic-banned from biographical articles just today, which means we can't further discuss what extent of their deletions might be reverted. I'll think on it for a while before rushing to action; per the above, I think some degree of balance between the two versions needs to be made, to keep this article honestly consistent with the sources, but it'd be nice to get another perspective. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Quaid in 2017 image usage

I stuck it into the personal section because that section talks about him in recent times. However, recent times involved legal issues and that image is a teeny bit mug shotish. Pls revert if you wish. That might be best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely see your concern. This is one way to make use of the image, but I tend to agree that, given the aesthetics of that image, sticking it next to the personal life and legal issues section does kind of give the impression that usage is suggestive. There's also a question of whether it is an appropriate place for the image, given most of the salient details covered in those two sections cover events from 1980-1989 and then 2006-2010, respectively. I'm goign to leave it in as well, pending further commentary, but I think we may want to remove it, just to err on the side of NPOV. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow Rise. Removed. From this point on, consensus for inclusion into that section would probably be the best plan. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Full name of Randy Quaid

The consensus is to use Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. Editors noted that his verified Twitter profile at https://twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid says "Born Randy Randall Rudy Quaid" and that this self-published source can be used per WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Coretheapple wrote, "We can mention the other sources with regard to his name, including that Texas database, either in the text or the footnote." There was little discussion about this, so there is no prejudice against boldly adding this material to the article and then further discussion on the talk page if the material is disputed.

Cunard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Where should this article defer with regards to the full name of Randy Quaid, OTRS ticket 2015042110003976 that claims it is "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid" or the majority of reliable sources and legal documents as I documented in the section #Does OTRS really outweigh verifiability and reliable sources? that say just "Randall Rudy Quaid"? Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Randy Randall Rudy Quaid - the "legal documents" are useless and explicitly prohibited as sources in a BLP by WP:BLPPRIMARY. The only secondary source I see in the above is an ABC News article that says what Quaid was listed as in bankruptcy documents, not what his current, full or birth name is (I may have missed some; if they're pointed out to me I'll gladly reconsider). Conversely, WP:BLPSELFPUB allows use of sources self-published by the subject, which certainly includes their YouTube channel. Besides, this issue seems important to Mr. Quaid, and I see no reason to deviate from what he says his name is, other than exceptionally good sources (which we don't have). Huon (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If we are to follow strictly WP:RS and WP:V - the usually reliable website TVGuide.com uses just "Randall" [10] as does the 2013 book The Oliver Stone Encyclopedia [11]. As the essay on WP:V states: Verifiability, not truth. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • But on something like this we need to listen to the subject. We can say "also known as Randall Rudy Quaid" appropriately footnoted. And of course AKA Randy Quaid, as he is more generally known. OTRS really doesn't enter into it as we have Twitter, his own verified profile. Coretheapple (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Randy Randall Rudy Quaid(Summoned by bot) per BLPPRIMARY. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:51, 24 No*vember 2017 (UTC)

*Insuficient information provided in this RfC. We need to know more regarding the OTRS ticket: 1. Who is the ticket from? 2. Was that his name at birth or is it as claimed now? (Summoned by bot) Coretheapple (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) Per his verified public Twitter profile[12] it should be Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. Full stop. A subject is a reliable source for his own name. If this is some kind of gag or whatever, so be it. That Twitter profile is a reliable source and can be footnoted. It is unheard-of for Wikipedia to disregard what the subject says about basic biographical information, and WP:SELFPUB permits sourcing of this kind under these circumstances. OTRS is a red herring, really not relevant as there is a public, footnotable, source that we can and should use.Coretheapple (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Randall Rudy Quaid This is obviously a joke and is as admissible as dubious claims made by actors and comedians on talk shows where just because they say it doesn't mean it's the case. There've been numerous instances where someone adds a facetious statement and sources it to an interview but cooler heads have prevailed to remove it. Compromise we can add a note and mention this at bottom of the page? JesseRafe (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• It may well be a joke. However, I don't see what choice we have. Coretheapple (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• He may be following this discussion and laughing at us. (Hello Mr. Quaid.) But when a notable person provides a basic fact on a personal website or twitter feed I don't think we can just shrug it off. Coretheapple (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. The actor is a reliable source for his own name. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Randy Randall Rudy Quaid - As stupid as the name sounds if he wants to go by that then we don't really have a choice but to include it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Randy Randall Rudy Quaid - I don't see how this is a debate. Very cut and dried. Enigma^msg 03:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a very interesting RfC as it raises thought-provoking issues relating to how we interpret our rules and deal with BLP subjects. We have reasonably good sources, and one Texas data base, saying one thing, and the subject saying something else, via a UTRS ticket and his own verified Twitter feed. There's a reasonable chance that the subject added "Randy" to his birth name even though it's not true. But that's not our problem, in my view. The subject is a reliable source on his own name. We can mention the other sources with regard to his name, including that Texas database, either in the text or the footnote. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Extended confirmed still necessary

Even people meeting the extended confirmed criteria have been changing the name despite instructions not to. Enigma^msg 02:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2019

Beneath the heading "Legal issues" is written "Quasiedly." What is this supposed to mean? 100.38.10.46 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. Someone edited the Legal issues section and mistakenly deleted portions of two paragraphs. I have restored them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

In the section Personal Life, change family to family" i.e. add the closing of the quote marks (= solely a correction of punctuation). Trainspotting Mike (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

remove 'known for his roles in both serious drama and light comedy'. It reads like publicity material. Devgirl (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The statement is supported by sources in the body, but it could be improved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

"change voter fraud to electoral fraud" Dilljl248 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 Election Fraud

Extended content

This is pretty simple in your description of Randy Quaid‘s physical views you stated that he was very outspoken and his claims about election fraud without any evidence. I’m getting so sick and tired of hearing that. Because usually when people hear that they never want to see the truth! There is all kinds of evidence of foreign interference as well as Democrat and Republican interference.But if you don’t go look for it of course you won’t find it. And you don’t have to look very hard. There is documented evidence from our military. But no problem because all this is coming out in the weeks and months to come and then what will be your excuse? If there is "all kinds of evidence of foreign interference" and "documented evidence from our military" as you claim, then it's odd that in 60+ court cases, Trump's army of lawyers couldn't provide or present a single shred of that evidence. You should look up something called the Sunk_cost_fallacy. At some point in the future, you may have to actually acknowledge reality. Just saying. If anyone has a link to any video of any evidentiary hearing of any election fraud trial following the 2020 election, please share. Evidence is presented at an evidentiary hearing. Cases dismissed for lack of standing or other grounds without an evidentiary hearing never afforded an opportunity to present evidence. It does however provide Marxist propagandists an opportunity to manipulate the weak minded with phrases like “claims without evidence” or “unproven claims.” When you see phrases like these, you are reading propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:6551:DB6:BEA0:BD08 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources for political swipes

Currently this page says "He was among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence that the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud."

There's no source for that sentence. There are two sources further down that seem focused on other claims, like that Trump retweeted Quaid's Tweet.

1. What did Quaid actually say, and where is the text? 2. Is the "without evidence" claim true? It's an oddly biased thing to say about people's normal communications, since they don't usually furnish evidence for everything as though they live in a courtroom. But I'm concerned that he actually did refer to evidence, since there's no source for this claim. 3. It's remarkably biased to smuggle in the much broader claim that he was "among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence..." That's just a swipe at unnamed Trump supporters, and an unsubstantiated claim about their claims. It's completely unnecessary and biased. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for political partisans to embed their ideologies and narratives. BlueSingularity (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You might be right, in that he may well have said "there was widespread election fraud" and the "without evidence" is a kind of wp:synthesis. Would "falsely" be better [[13]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Personally, I think this section:

"After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump. He was among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence that the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump used his Twitter account to thank Quaid for making these claims and highlighted another post by Quaid which urged fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."

seems a little biased and harsh. I would change the wording to:

"After 2016, Quaid became a supporter of Donald Trump and believed the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his claim and highlighted a post by him which requested fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."

Scratchu90 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Change wording of section

Hello, as you can see right above I feel as though the "Political views" subsection has some wording that can be seen as biased.

This is the subsection's text from the article: "After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump. He was among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence that the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump used his Twitter account to thank Quaid for making these claims and highlighted another post by Quaid which urged fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."

How I would reword it: "After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and believed the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his claim and highlighted a post by him which requested fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."

Scratchu90 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Randy Quaid also starred in 'Mail to the Chief'

Randy Quaid starred in movie 'Mail to the Chief' as the President in 2000. 65.89.208.4 (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

FROM:

After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and believed the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his claim

TO:

After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and believed the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud, without any evidence. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his unverified claim. 2A02:C7C:6511:B600:ED8B:20E7:171B:2FE2 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:NPOV, I'm sure this change is a POV-pushing. Lemonaka (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

change "Randy" to "Quaid" in Personal Life regarding Canadian citizenship

FROM:

Quaid's wife Evi was granted Canadian citizenship in 2011, based on her parentage, and Randy sought permanent resident status as the husband of a Canadian.[39]

TO:

Quaid's wife Evi was granted Canadian citizenship in 2011, based on her parentage, and Quaid sought permanent resident status as the husband of a Canadian.[39] Nina Gulat (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done small jars tc 14:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the lead say something about... you know

Something like "Quaid's acting career faltered during the 2010s amid professional sanctions and a series of arrests." These events had a dramatic effect on Quaid's career and have shaped his current image. 98.248.84.55 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The article already says "Quaid's legal troubles prevented him from working for almost a decade." RudolfRed (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Randy Quaid's Filmography left out his movie called Evil In Clear River released in 1988 69.158.246.4 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've found a source and added it, but next time, please include a reliable source to support your request. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing Dissonant (two voices) statement

Please note that this edit, although under the Political Views section, has no political purpose. The original language -- "[Trump] thanked Quaid for agreeing with his false claims” -- was slightly unclear. Perhaps, not to us today who would know what the writer meant, but to someone removed from these events (either by time or distance) this might seem to say Trump was admitting his own claims are false. As a remedy (and upgrade) I replaced that statement with the actual quote. That clears up the dissonance within the statement, adds explicit information (ie. he didn't just thank, he retweeted), and hopefully would give an outsider a sense of the intensity of the rhetoric. A simpler solution to most of the above issues would be simply to use brackets: “. . . agreeing with his [false] claims”. But since the same paragraph cites both the “Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election” Wikipedia page and the “2020 United States presidential election” Wikipedia page and uses the language “disproven conspiracy theory”, adding leaving the redundant word “false” might seem like piling on, and therefore a signal of bias. Paugus (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paugus (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

Remove the red links in All You Can Eat (2018)! 2804:7F2:6A8:9B18:83F:841F:8442:E893 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Starkillers" Conspiracy!

I'm surprised there is no discussion about Randy and his "starkiller" conspiracy that he was using to claim asylum in Canada. It wasn't an off thing - i have heard interviews where he has declared this a number of times. He claims this is when someone gains "too much power" that it threatens the Hollywood elite or something. I have no idea - personally think it sounds like the rants of a raving lunatic but it sort of what was I came ot the page to read abut and didn't see a single word about it. 2600:6C56:6900:9BF:5171:C422:AFE2:3A12 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor grammatical error

I gather the page is experiencing difficulties, but assuming it stabilizes at some point, please fix this error in the first section: “Quaid also tried to portray what he learned were Johnson's political attitude:” (attitudes, it should be plural). Victimofleisure (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

filmagraphy

I don't see Five days to Midnight in the list of films. Mjhkarter (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)