Talk:Randy Quaid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
This article is part of the WikiProject University of Houston, an attempt to improve coverage regarding the University of Houston. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Greater Houston area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project where you join the group and contribute to the discussion. |
 |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
