Talk:Rob Schneider/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

I tagged this article because it's terrible - I learned almost nothing about Schneider himself and only about a recent event which should be much further down the list and not in as much detail relative to the rest. I would fix it myself but I know next to nothing about the guy. Mithridates 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus this line: The films in which Schneider is the main character often involve him either being a certain type of person or thing. <-- a certain type of person or thing. Er, okay. Mithridates 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article gives no direction to the content of the man, his current relationships;name of companion, regrets, etc. I wish the article would have lead up with his opinions, and interests. Just to get a feel for the integrity of this man.

Adam Sandler!

Something strikes me as unnecessary as far as "Starring Adam Sandler" after every other movie goes. 66.82.9.68 02:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Academy Award???

The first line in the article says he won an Academy Award... Can anyone find out which award he won and for what? --Spundun 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• According to IMDB he won no such thing. [1] (He was not even nominated)--SomeStranger (T | C) 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and parody

User Pattyjohn deleted all the information regarding Schneiders' exchanges with Patrick Goldstein and Roger Ebert, and the South Park spoof, giving as his/her reason that it was "defamitory comments and misinformation." While the comment about Schneider's films being "lowbrow" are certainly NPOV, and were rightfully deleted, most of the material deleted was not "misinformation", since Schneider did have a public flap with Goldstein and Ebert, and was parodied by South Park, and did indeed win a Raspberry Award, for which I provided a source.

As to whether it was defamatory, that would be a matter of opinion, and not appropriate as a criterion for deletion. The flap involving Schneider, Goldstein and Ebert was not only public, but was one that Schneider freely chose to participate in. He took out a full-page ad, and called into a radio show, and thus, it’s noteworthy enough vis a vis his career to include it. How is it defamatory or “misinformation”? The only criteria for which the comments could be deleted would be if they were inserted by a WP editor. Since they were actually made by critics, they’re relevant. As for the South Park parody, how can this be either misinformation or defamation, since Schneider himself said that he loved it?

It seems that Pattyjohn herself did not care for the material, and deleted it for that reason. That is not appropriate. Nightscream 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

shouldnt it be at the start of the article? it makes sense and seems to be the trend for info on other actors141.168.46.13 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)sammy

"Schneider is a practicing environmentalist." What a sanctimonious epithet. Jamiem 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Public image, criticism and parody

This all needs to be divided into separate sections...It just doesn't read right. 66.15.146.252 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recurring SNL Chars. / Tiny Elvis

Tiny Elvis appeared as at least two standalone sketches, therefore meeting the definition of "recurring". If you want to disagree, this is fine, but I'm going to keep putting it back until you can give better justification why it doesn't belong. Nightscream, care to explain how you "restored" one that was already there (causing the list of recurring characters to go from six to three)? Bsharkey 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Deuce Bigalow.jpg

Image:Deuce Bigalow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Filmography: Deuce Bigalow

The Schneider's caracter in the movie Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo is Deuce Bigalow and not Tommy Hendricks as writen in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.198.242 (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Onorem♠Dil 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New movies

I added a source about 2009 movie starring Rob Schneider called Virgin on Bourbon Street The imdb.com pages is this:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1318044/

Wikipedia does not consider imdb to be a reliable source, because its content is user-generated, and it lacks editorial controls over it. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Elle Schneider

Elle Schneider, his daughter from his marriage to London King, has also appeared in her father's films, the most memorable role being the gothic girl in The Benchwarmers. She now resides in New York City as an aspiring actress and musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperlime (talk • contribs) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark: The New Beginning (2009)

is upcoming 2010! Noah's Ark: The New Beginning (2010) BA DUM TSS! vikings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.15.136 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want that added to the article, we need a reliable, verifiable source for it, per WP:RS and WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Grown Ups

Rob is starring in a movie with Adam Sandler called Grown Ups along with other famous celebraties. Why isn't this in his filmography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.102.223 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it yet? :-) Nightscream (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Schneider and Migrant Workers

The entry should at least give mention of the persistent rumor that Rob Schneider goes to Home Depot and hires migrant workers to come to his home and choke him in the shower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.31.48 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler a 'Celebrity'?

He is named here in the list of Celebrity Impersonations. But you know, perhaps that should remain. It may be the perfect comment on the nature of celebrity. Sergeirichard (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV issues

Devoting the majority of a BLP to a so-called "controversy and criticism" which upon further examination is either not notable or entirely manufactured for publicity purposes, isn't how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Director of "Grown Ups"

The director of Grown Ups, in which Rob Schneider plays Rob Noonan, is Dennis Dugan, who also directed Big Daddy (: Just thought I'd mention that, so if someone wants to edit it they can! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROE89 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cmw0081, 2 July 2011

Died July, 2nd 2011

Cmw0081 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see anything on a google news search, not gonna happen without a source. Monty₈₄₅ 17:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

I think this biography is biased. =) No point mentioning the part about his movie.

Another cameo

You might want to add he did a cameo (the you can do it guy) in "The Longest Yard" in which he states two things. "You can do it, get your old @$$ into the endzone, we gotta win this thing!" and "Group hug in the shower tonight! *everyone pauses and stares at him* .....Or not!" Just something you would wanna put in there.

Hard R with Norm MacDonald

Can someone get some info about Hard R, which is co-written by Norm Macdonald. I'd like more info about the Norm Part.

Edit request from Mleona, 4 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the movies section Rob Schneider stared in the movie Wild Cherry in 2009. He portrayed the father of a girl in high school. It was produced by redwood palms, rampage entertainment. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20193371,00.html Mleona (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Done, see [2]  Chzz  ►  01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)  Done

He is Jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.210.164 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Can somebody add the link to his new upcoming show ¡Rob!? There is an article about the show already available. Thanks.

69.62.200.187 (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Where should we mention it and how? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine conspiracy theorist

could someone add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies Benvenuto (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Environmentalist?

"Schneider is an environmentalist. He drives a Toyota Prius hybrid automobile, and served as host for the 13th annual Environmental Media Awards in 2004."

Wait... what? THESE are the qualifications of an environmentalist? Seriously, who put this drivel in here, his agent? This section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.64.185 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed this material. It was dead linked and not really that notable. If this has been widely covered, ect, then maybe revisit. --Malerooster (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Why was this removed? It is a very well-documented public campaign of his, and certainly relevant to any bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknyc (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Second Wife

The name of his second wife isn't complete. It should be Helena Skonieczny from Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber2015 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

The link http://www.ema-online.org/awards_general.htm in the External Links section is broken. Elekmathe (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done I've removed the link. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider clarifying sentence to indicate Rob's first child was not born in 2011?

"On April 23, 2011, Schneider married television producer Patricia Azarcoya Arce, in Beverly Hills, California. Their first child, Miranda Scarlett Schneider, was born in 2012."

For clarification, please consider adding a word to the bolded part of the sentence so it says "Their first child together," since this wasn't Rob's first child (as mentioned under his picture, his eldest child is Elle King).

Sorry, this is really persnickety of me and I'm sure there are far more important edits to make, but I was struck by the fact that his children were brought up in completely different sections and I think Elle should be mentioned again after this sentence, seeing as she's an up-and-coming celebrity in her own right, and I actually found out Rob Schneider was her father while I was looking at her Wikipedia entry because it's clearly explained. The reverse should also be true (Elle being mentioned on Rob's page with a bit of context, rather than just a link under his picture). If the 3 year old sister's full name is mentioned it only seems consistent to mention Elle's given name and birth date (per her page, her birth name is Tanner Elle Schneider born July 3, 1989 to Rob Schneider and London King, a model who was married to Rob at the time). It took me a while to figure out where Elle is mentioned on Rob's bio. Plus, it's noteworthy that father and daughter both work in show biz. Even if they aren't close, it's interesting to see the family link in artistic tendencies. I promise I'm not some king of Elle King super-fan.

Bull8807 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and noted Elle King as Schneider's daughter. It may require a bit of expansion given that she is a notable musician but anything more would be WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Censoring of controversial information

Can someone explain to me why all of the controversies surrounding Mr. Schneider have been stripped from this article? He has taken controversial public stands on issues, and many of his characterizations have been widely criticized. All these were posted here and are now gone. Is noting such public events now allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknyc (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a "Criticism" section, which I believe solves this problem. Hopefully this is not deleted. Lasalleexplorer (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've condensed the Criticism subsection for giving WP:UNDUE weight to one event. Feel free to explain why the content should be included. Meatsgains (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lasalleexplorer: Thank you for your recent edits to the criticism section - reads more neutral now. Prior to the trimming, the section was three paragraphs long, which is why I kept arguing WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Rob Schneider doesn't just have a SINGLE criticism. It seems to me that this article is being written and controlled by fans, as opposed to those trying to keep it accurate. Schneider is one of the best known celebrity opponents to childhood vaccines, a fad that is costing children their health and, in some cases, their lives. A quick Google search will turn up HUNDREDS of articles about his many interviews, articles, and public talks on this subject. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/29/makin-copies-of-antivaccine-nonsense-against-california-bill-ab-2019/

Anti-vax activism

I have just added a separate section to cover Schneider's anti-vax stance. This is a public health issue and warrants a separate section vs Hollywood gossip and criticism. RobP (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tagged for POV. It needs more sourcing and weight. I don't see where he has made this as a big part of his career or personal activism as with Jenny McCarthy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Meatsgains and Lasalleexplorer as recent editors over such topics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My addition has been flagged because it is "based mainly on single source article..."? I can add more citations for this incident, as well as other news articles about his public stance on this if you like. That banner is meant to avoid gossip and unfounded accusations, not this type of news which has been well covered. RobP (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Another example of coverage of his anti-vacation stance: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1641922 RobP (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to explain his stance and context like with Jenny McCarthy's article. When did he publicize this? What things has he done in his activism to promote his view? Has he created an organization for this? He hasn't really put this into his comedy acts nor written books about it like McCarthy, or has he? Going after a single legislator doesn't mean he has memorable quotes that need to be cquoted. The way it currently stands, it still has a biased view. Also how much weight does this have in his career? For McCarthy, it's a big deal as she has been on talk shows discussing this view. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I will certainly update the section later today to cover more of his statements on this issue. This is certainly bigger than "going after a single legislator." He has repeatedly used his fame in interviews, etc, to try to convince others that vaccinations are dangerous. Implying this criticism isn't worthy to include here as long as he doesn't play as big a role as Jenny M. is fallacious. If that were so, only the most notorious person regarding anything could be commented upon. RobP (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that scienceblogs was a rejected source from the previous times in 2014 when this same topic came up. [3] It was later rewritten with Huffington Post as a source, but later removed. [4] You might want to consider that writeup as it was more neutral than what you have presented and it explained specifically which bill was contested. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the HufPo article was removed with the explanation: "Removing unencyclopedic material and useless content: Nazi stuff and more non-senses." I believe that to be Wildly nonsensical if it applies to the HP material... A ton of other stuff was removed with the same revert, so perhaps it was an accident. So I just added "much more sourcing and weight" as requested - some from other WP articles. So how is it now folks?RobP (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the paragraph more and removed the biased statements, simplifying to the three events: the rally against AB 2109, being dropped from state farm, and SB 277, which appear to be his most active work in this matter. If he's done some documentaries or books, that would be worth putting in as well a concise statement on why he believes what he believes. It's not clear whether he followed through with his spending against Gonzalez statement, at least according to the Washington Times, his interaction seemed to end cordially [5] "When I called him back he was actually much nicer to me, but let’s be honest … that is 20 mins of my life I’ll never get back". And Lorena_Gonzalez_Fletcher#2016_California_State_Assembly shows she won her re-election quite soundly. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is OK with me except that I think a sentence that was deleted is important and should be used somewhere: "Schneider has actively fought the passage of a series of California laws which attempted to make childhood vaccination exemptions harder to obtain." RobP (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of debatable whether that needs to be summarized since there were only two bills that because laws he was involved in. Were there other ones? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just the two that I am aware of... Perhaps then "Schneider has actively fought the passage of two California laws which attempted to make childhood vaccination exemptions harder to obtain." as a summary before the details are given? I also added back my line about his stance being "contrary to the scientific consensus on the subject" as a counterpoint to the "multiple celebrity" opinions. I think this reasonably accomplishes what JzG was clumsily trying to add. RobP (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wanted to make sure the section was written neutrally as per our NPOV standards with WP:POV / WP:IMPARTIAL, and that it was balanced in proportion to his overall career WP:BALASP. It's tempting to editorialize any of his statements as being uninformed or ignorant, or make it a bigger deal than his acting career, but it isn't for us to decide that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The section on Schneider's anti-vaccination activism, and his statements contrary to established fact, is now very well sourced. Circumspect (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF:, As a ten year veteran admin who wrote the standard advice for biography subjects given out by OTRS, I'm quite familiar with WP:IMPARTIAL and its relevance in biographies. The issue here is that the claims and statements Schneider made are objectively false. He claims that vaccines cause autism, but that claim is entirely discredited. It is based on fraudulent and retracted research, and it is contradicted by hundreds of studies in dozens of countries covering many millions of children over a period of more than two decades. Vaccines do not cause autism. Period. In fact they can now predict autism at 12 months or earlier with around 90% accuracy. This is not a debate, it's not a competition between claims of equal merit, it's a refuted claim. The science is in. He's wrong.

The same applies to his statements, quoted in the article:

• "The efficacy of these shots have not been proven" - objectively false, they are proven to be effective in preventing disease and applying the principle of charity and assuming he means safety not efficacy, still objectively false because vaccines are the most heavily scrutinised form of medicine. We give them to babies. You would not believe the hurdles necessary to get a treatment approved for infants.
• "the toxicity of these things — we’re having more and more side effects." - objectively false, the side effects are actually going down as vaccines become more specific and the numbers of proteins are reduced; the entire schedule now has fewer proteins than a single shot in the 1950s.
• "We’re having more and more autism." - Objectively false. The rise in autism diagnoses is down to better detection and changes in diagnostic criteria. There may be a small increase due to some unknown factors, but that is itself uncertain, if there is an increase it is totally swamped by the changed diagnostic criteria. This is of course also a non-sequitur, since autism is unrelated to vaccines.
• "It’s illegal. You can’t make people do procedures that they don’t want." - Objectively false. There are laws mandating vaccination, which have stood withstood legal challenges (e.g. California Senate Bill 277). Yes, the law absolutely can do that.
• "The parents have to be the ones who make the decisions for what’s best for our kids." - Objectively false. There are many circumstances under which the state may, and does, override parental preference when child welfare is concerned.
• "It can’t be the government saying that. It’s against the Nuremberg Laws." - Objectively false. The Nuremberg code (which is what he means, the Nuremberg Laws were Nazi laws) refers to human experimentation, and to class vaccination as experimentation relies on accepting that because they are untested (which they aren't) thus they are not approved (which they are), and thus they are experimental (which they are not), and thus the informed consent given by parents is invalid (which it isn't) and therefore it's unapproved human experimentation. It's unhinged.

So: Schneider's feelpinions on vaccination and the regulations around it are the unqualified reckons of someone who has been fed a strong line of delusional bullshit by professional anti-vaccine activists. We don't sugar coat that. If you're going to stand up and speak outside your area of expertise, as Schneider does, then we can, and must, accurately identify the status of the claims made. They are false and refuted claims, and we characterise them as such. Feelpinions are not the same as facts, however sincerely they might be held. See WP:ASSERT. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are false. But while it is blue to you, it isn't clear to the readers, so it is better to add the source to the statement that Schneider's claims are false rather than to editorialize inline how wrong each of his statements are without providing any of the references. It should be okay if he spouts a bunch of his statements at once and then answer with the refutation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

MOAR SOURCES. Always good :-) Guy (Help!) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding categories

can someone please add this article to the following categories:

20th-century American comedians 21st-century American comedians 89.242.194.233 (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Adding this category required him to release something funny 121.45.47.166 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done this is a defining category. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

Even though he had more than one voice role, it wouldn't hurt if we can add "voice actor" in his occupation section. Because he has more than one voice credit according to his "filmography" section in his "Voice-overs in film" section. If it's ok if we add that in, that might be ok. As shown here: "Actor, voice actor, comedian, screenwriter, director". 2600:1000:B045:4A9A:6D30:3EE7:566E:5885 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, this hasn't been done with his co-star in the first film, Adam Sandler, nor others who have done voice work, such as Ian McKellen and Bill Nighy. Maybe with an WP:RS it'd be better? It'd also be best to remove that information from the simple wikipedia (which I shall do if there are no more comments here) :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think voice actor is fairly redundant to actor is this case – he's not known purely for voice roles and his voice roles aren't his best known work. NiciVampireHeart 01:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

Spacing between end of quotation and next sentence-

In an interview with News10 in Sacramento, Schneider opined that "The efficacy of these shots have not been proven ... And the toxicity of these things – we're having more and more side effects. We're having more and more autism."Schneider's statements have been discredited as lacking any factual basis.[30] 

---

>

In an interview with News10 in Sacramento, Schneider opined that "The efficacy of these shots have not been proven ... And the toxicity of these things – we're having more and more side effects. We're having more and more autism." Schneider's statements have been discredited as lacking any factual basis.[30] Mialuvailuv (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks for pointing out. WikiSilky (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Nuremberg laws

Should we mention his spiel about the nuremberg codes?

Above question posted up by 173.15.96.125 on 4 May 2021. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• If we mention the Nuremberg Code, people might start researching it. Good or bad thing? Point 5 of the Nuremberg Code is particularly pertinent, although all 10 apply for covid vaccinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.203.11 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Depends on how extensive the section about subject's anti-vaccination activism will end up being and on sources' focus on Nuremberg "mention" ("spiel"). See immediately below. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede with anti vaccine activist

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

At this time, consensus is against including Schneider's anti-vax activism in the lead section. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

I believe the anti vaccine activist should be in the lede as it is extremely relevant and important to Schneider. Tundraspalace (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Tundraspalace: No, It is not "extremely important". It is in fact extremely irrelevant to his career notability. The subsection is sufficient. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• No if the question is whether to add this to the lede - This is a matter of due weight and balance:

The lede should reflect the balance of material in the article, which is mostly not about being anti-vax.

This RFC does not present a reasoned case for increasing the attention of his anti-vax activism.

(Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• No. Whether we personally believe that said activism is "extremely relevant and important" matters very little, if at all. Wikipedia is all about sources; not personal input. And sources are clearly not paying as much attention to Schneider specifically as would be required to promote that aspect of his views to the opening section. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• No. The vast majority of sources are about him as an actor. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• No as explained above. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:43, 7 December 2021 (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.

Political party.

In his 8/27/22 appearance in episode 152 of the Glenn Beck Podcast Rob affiliated himself w the Republican party, not as an independent like the page currently shows.

Source: https :// youtu.be / N1Hc-x5RJpE Concussion.1 (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

In a conversation on Glenn Beck's podcast, Schneider said that McKinnon's post-presidential election cold open at the piano, during which she sang Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" dressed as Hilary Clinton, was the beginning of the end for the show. 23.93.187.214 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Political affiliation

He literally just stated on Fox and friends that he is and has been for a while now Republican!! NOT independent! 2601:243:C202:9870:4D2F:E7C8:E046:8F04 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If it "literally just" happened, I don't see the need for the exclamation point and aggressiveness. We can't make changes before they happen in the real world. Additionally, please provide a source for this Fox and Friends info, so that we can cite it in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone care to update the "Political views and positions" sections to reflect Rob Schneider's recent COVID anti-vax nonsense?

https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/1614034013391552512 31.205.5.237 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)