Talk:George Carlin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Thomas template

Another editor added the Thomas template. After seeing where that redirected, it certainly seems like an appropriate addition to the article. As noted above, Carlin was the host, the human star, of that institution for 5 seasons. Yes, its covered in the article, there is no dispute to the fact. I think it would seem logical to include the template as support. Note the other user who had completely missed the mention in the article months ago. At that time, I had to point out to the other user that it was in fact covered. I suggest that serves as evidence that it is not covered sufficiently in the article, certainly for that one IP user, maybe others. One line as the footer to the article does not make undue coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas template is a good example of exactly the kind of information not to include in a biography - except the one about the author of the books (and maybe the producer of the TV series). The template is all about the Thomas series. When one clicks "show" there is nothing about Carlin until one gets down to the bottom and clicks on the "show" button for the TV series. Then, with all three screens of the template open, one has a total of seventeen lines of information, sixteen of which contain no info about Carlin and one that contains the word: "Narrators" and his name (along with the five other narrators). This seems to me to be an absurdly complicated way to get the information that Carlin narrated the series. Moreover: That info is already in the article in two places previously. I say leave the template out. Sunray (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

In Last Words, Tony Hendra writes, in regard to a genre for the book, "We also tossed the narcissistic Gallicism "memoir", which we decided was a linguistic mongrel of "me" and "moi"". Him and Carlin came up with the genre "sortabiography" for the book. The article refers to the book as a memoir. I don't know if it would be god form to list the book as a sortabiography, but I think the fact that the authors didn't write it as a memoir should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.161.82 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Locked?

Why isnt this article locked?? Carlin is a significant and influential figure alive today. SoAuthentic 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoAuthentic (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't regularly lock pages, unless there's an immediate danger of vandalism, or an ongoing edit war. It's the encyclopedia everyone can edit, so policy is to make sure everyone can do that. Dayewalker (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, first, he's not "alive today", as I'm sure you know.
Second, significance and influence are not, per se, grounds for protecting an article; and there isn't an sufficient amount of vandalism (at least since I've been following it) that would warrant protection. If you think it should be locked, by all means, make your case. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2d Marriage

Sally Wade claims they were married "in spirit" but never legally. 66.3.106.2 (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Graffiti with a quotation of Carlin in Germany

I admit that I have never heard of Carlin before I saw this graffiti at a German railroad station near Munich. Obviously the quotation is correct - it can be found in Wikiquote. All images with part of the quote can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Carlin_Graffiti - perhaps this can be used in the article. Plehn (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How? What do you suggest? CTJF83 19:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Definitely should include his children's work. He voiced Thomas the Tank Engine and I'm unsure of this but I think he was on Sesame Street as well. The reason I came to the discussion page was because of the last sentence of the Summary, "He was the recipient of the Mark Twain prize in 2008." Well, he died in 2008, and he died before he received the award, so I think that sentence deserves a well-placed 'posthumously.' Dave 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs) ... I SIGNED THESE THINGS... 4 TILDES, RIGHT? Dave 05:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

How bout something about Carlin's appearence on children's television?

He was on Thomas Tank Engine as the Conductor (Ringo Starr also) maybe 1 english 1 american version?

Nothing in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.108.213 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of "1980s and 1990s" addresses that. By the way, there were multiple seasons of that 25 year old show with Carling following years after Starr had departed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think philosopher should be added to his titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.14.45 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Source it. CTJF83 11:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Agnostic not Atheist

During an interview with Kevin Smith, Kelly Carlin stated that people said he was so grounded, and that he was an atheist, but that she was clearing it that he was an agnostic not an atheist.

Could the page be corrected?

Link to the podcast, at about 1:50:00 to 1:55:00, somewhere in there. http://smodcast.com/episodes/wednesday-august-31-2011/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.80.147 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You realize there is literally no difference between an atheist and agnostic right? Agnostics still don't believe in god they just don't claim to know. Technically speaking every atheist is agnostic because there is no way of knowing for sure. We just don't believe. So editing to say agnostic means nothing.

Big nothing

Collapsing section initiated by sock of blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


In the writings of some creditable pundit, somewhere, there must be a quote to the effect that Carlin was a big nothing. He hit all the easy targets: religion, opponents of abortion, private property, and several others, I'm sure. Personally, I found him a bore. His dysphemistic loquacity and chronic straining after wryness did not mask the triteness of virtually everything he said, onstage and off. The face-making made it even worse.108.52.30.154 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Truly a minority view, especially when you consider his entire career, and how none of the things you described were "easy targets," certainly not when Carlin began. I don't know of any source that would say anything to that effect. Find one and bring it to the page for discussion, we'll see. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss the subject; but actually, I brought it up simply on the chance that it would be taken up by someone whose knowledge of, and interest in, Carlin are greater than my own. I would disagree that the subjects were not easy targets when Carlin began. The first time I saw him, he was in a suit and was doing, as I recall, non-topical material -- "the hippy-dippy weatherman, with your hippy, dippy weather, man." Within a couple of years, he was the pseudo-hippy comedian himself and was going down the counterculture's checklist of targets without deviation. I vaguely recall an interview, from this early period of his reinvention, in which he said he was now being authentic, or whatever, and, moreover, that there would come a time when "we" (we counterculturalists, of course) would have to examine some of our own views, too. What a thinker.108.52.30.154 (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
In "George Carlin didn't consider himself to be an atheist," which is one of the sections above, on the present talk-page, there is a link to a Carlin performance that is called Religion is Bullshit — or, at least, is captioned that at YouTube. Take a look at it. I'm an atheist myself, and I couldn't sit through a minute of it. There isn't a single thought there; and frankly, the material comes off as provincial, the yammering of a lower-class New York Catholic who thinks religion and Christianity are synonymous — or who is simply afraid to name his true target, Christianity. (This comment of mine is based on the first fifty seconds or so of the material; I literally could not listen to it.) -- Somewhere on Wikiquote is a Carlin statement about private property, a statement in which he says, apparently as if it were his own formulation, "Property is theft." That was original around 1840.--108.52.30.154 (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
And see if you can locate the NPR interview (with Terry Gross, on Fresh Air) in which, while speaking autobiographically, Carlin made a point of remarking that he'd scored high on some trivial aptitude test — something he'd taken, before his life in show business, when he'd applied for a job at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the like. The radical: scornful of the establishment's measures of worth.108.52.30.154 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
PS There — see what an easy target is? I just slammed the Department of Motor Vehicles. Maybe I should get a special on HBO.108.52.30.154 (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Dayewalker. Most of what you express are deeply involved with your own opinion, possibly jealousy. In wikispeak, that is considered POV, something to be discouraged. The fact that you say you are unable to sit through his words from a short comedy routine shows clearly you are limited in your ability to process ideas you don't agree with. I would hazard to say, there are a lot of people that wish to place words into Carlin's mouth, a problem he himself had to address. So we who watch this page are intent on maintaining the truth of Carlin's own words, rather than misquotations or broad interpretations of what they think he meant. He is also a subject that brings out wild opinions from the fringes. Therefore we try to stick with confirmation from what are called reliable sources. Go ahead, do your own research. Bring reliable sources to the table that support a trend for any opinion and we have to include it. Trackinfo (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Your entire paragraph is off-target. I haven't suggested that my opinions be placed in the article; I recognize the concern with POV. My original statement here was that there must be, somehwere, in the writings of a creditable pundit (as I said), a statement that is in harmony with my own view of Carlin. Your remarks about "misquotations" and "words placed in Carlin's mouth" are offensive, inasmuch as they suggest I have misquoted Carlin or have placed words in his mouth. I've not done that at all.
Dayewalker stated that my view of Carlin is a minority view. It might very well be; that doesn't mean it's mine alone. I made clear to Dayewalker that I know little about Carlin and thus am not in a position to produce pundits' remarks about him; but to enable Dayewalker to consider whether my assessment of Carlin has some value — and thus to prod Dayewalker or others with an interest in this article to see whether anything in harmony with that assessment might be discovered in criticism of Carlin — I produced pieces of evidence in support of it. That's all.
It's almost comical that you, who are apparently a fan of the self-styled wildman Carlin, would try to dismiss my view by suggesting, however indirectly, that it is a "wild opinion from the fringe." I should think that's praise in Carlinville. Just what is your definition of the fringe? A household that doesn't waste its money on cable television? You got me.108.52.30.154 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have bothered to engage. I explained why the article is the way it is. I made no accusations about you other than the opinions you express, continue to express, are your POV opinions and interpretations of his work and are not appropriate for the article. Public acceptance, the thousands who paid to see him, paid for his recordings etc etc. shows his significance. What you write here, a critique of his work, is not really appropriate for a talk page on wikipedia. Here, we talk about what should be in the article and why. If you think it is significant enough, go get your opinions and analysis published and it will be something for discussion here. Otherwise take it to a blog elsewhere, where they discuss his work. Trackinfo (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, Trackinfo: I originally provided what was, in my view, evidence of Carlin's worthlessness because Dayewalker reacted with something like incredulity to my statement that Carlin was nothing. My intention was simply to provoke some research on the part of Dayewalker or others who might have a serious interest in this article. The additional evidence, which I have presented below, has been my response to your suggestion that I was misrepresenting Carlin.
Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be fan-club essays about their subjects. If there are pundits who have dismissed Carlin, their statements might be a worthy addition to the article.108.52.30.154 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


Okay — here are two passages from Wikiquote. Are they misquotations? I have no idea. If they are, you might want to remove them. Here goes:
Let me get a sip of water here...you figure this stuff is safe to drink? [audience yells "No"] Actually, I don't care, I drink it anyway. You know why? 'Cause I'm an American and I expect a little cancer in my food and water. I'm a loyal American and I'm not happy unless I let government and industry poison me a little bit every day.
Same with religion. Religion is nothing but mind control. Religion is just trying to control your mind, control your thoughts, so they're gonna tell you some things you shouldn't say because they're...sins. And besides telling you things you shouldn't say, religion is gonna suggest some things that you ought to be saying; "Here's something you ought to say first thing when you wake up in the morning; here's something you ought to say just before you go to sleep at night; here's something we always say on the third Wednesday in April after the first full moon in spring at 4 o'clock when the bells ring." Religion is always suggesting things you ought to be saying.
Shall we try counting the cliches in those remarks?108.52.30.154 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
How about the following — also from Wikiquote:
You ever notice the first thing someone says when they can't find something is that it was stolen? They say "who stole it?!". It's an ego defense. They can't stand the fact that they might have been stupid enough to have lost something.
Is that supposed to be acute observation? Actually, the only persons who say "Who stole it" when they can't find something are ill-bred persons of the sort among whom Carlin apparently grew up. He's just a bumpkin.108.52.30.154 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Want some more originality from the maestro? Again — from Wikiquote:
I look at war a little bit differently. To me, war is a lot of prick-waving! OK? Simple thing. That's all it is. War is a whole lot of men standing out on a field, waving their pricks at one another. Men are insecure about the size of their dicks, and so they have to kill one another over the idea. That's what all that asshole jock bullshit is all about. That's what all that adolescent, macho male posturing, and strutting in bars and locker rooms is all about. It's called "dick fear!" Men are terrified that their pricks are inadequate and so they have to compete with one another, to feel better about themselves, and since war is the ultimate competition, basically, men are killing each other in order to improve their self-esteem! You don't have to be a historian or a political scientist to see the bigger-dick foreign policy theory at work. It sounds like this: "What, they have bigger dicks? Bomb them!" And of course, the bombs and the rockets and the bullets are all shaped like dicks. It's a subconscious need to project the penis into other people's affairs. It's called "fucking with people!"
I see: masculinity is problematic; weapons are phallic symbols. Been attending your Adult Education classes again, George?108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It never stops. From 1999, according to Wikiquote:
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
Flattering women, three decades after the triumphant emergence of modern feminism. Really going out on a limb there, George.108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to see the great commenter fail disastrously — in just six words? Here we go (yes, from Wikiquote again):
Try explaining Hitler to a kid.
Actually — a kid is the one person to whom Hitler would be no mystery at all: "He tried to kill everybody he didn't like." Carlin — if, indeed, he is the one who said that — is not saying anything there. He's just dressing up some bromide about Hitler's badness (the easiest of easy targets). Everything this guy says is safe.108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No — I was wrong. There's a target even easier than Hitler's badness. You guessed it — Midwesterners:
At some point, someone who worked at Rockefeller Center must have said, "Boys, I have a great idea for Christmas. Let's kill a beautiful tree that's been alive for seventy-five years and bring it to New York City. We'll stand it up in Rockefeller Plaza and conceal its natural beauty by hanging shiny, repulsive, man-made objects on it, and let it stand there slowly dying for several weeks while simpleminded children stare at it and people from Des Moines take pictures of it. That way, perhaps we can add our own special, obscene imprint to Christmas in Midtown."108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
And notice the pointless use of the word obscene, which is intended to give this mass of curmudgeonliness an edge.108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wait — I see: it's obscene because it involves the killing of a tree. Trees good; people bad. Holy Green Party, Batman.108.52.30.154 (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoa — we might have a personal best here. In just one brief remark, four easy targets — fascism, consumerism, smiley faces, and America-that-is-worse-than-Nazi-Germany:
When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts … Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend.108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
And note the closing's double cliche: "Believe me" and "my friend." Choice.108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay — I just learned: the one that includes "Property is theft" isn't from Wikiquote. It's an "unsourced quote" that's mentioned on this very talk page. I'll withdraw that one.
Just go to Wikiquote and read the whole thing. It's like listening to a musician who can't hit a single right note.108.52.30.154 (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify things IP, this talk page is for a discussion of the article, not of the subject. I think we all started on the right foot but have gotten a bit off-topic here, this isn't the place for a debate on his style. As for your suggestions, if you want something added to the article please look it up yourself. I'm not going to bother, as Carlin is almost universally thought of as one of the three best and most influential comedians of all time. Feel free to disagree and find reliable sources saying so, but I'm just saying that I wouldn't count on anyone else doing the work for you. Dayewalker (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to your decision. I was merely making a suggestion; and as I've said, my discussion of Carlin's utterances was presented to justify the suggestion.
I will take a moment to address your snide remark about my having someone "do my work for me." The only reason I sign in as an IP is that at another Wikipedia article I was blocked for making what was construed as a legal threat at another editor, who had, in my view, defamed me. I chose not to withdraw the putative threat, prior to my posting of which I'd edited under my actual name. If you care to know, that's John Bonaccorsi. I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. I'm in the phone book. If you will check, for instance, Wikipedia's Charles Manson article — whose prose, unfortunately, has been marred a bit by careless editing by persons other than me — you will see that it is probably the most-throughly-footnoted article in this entire encyclopedia. It has hundreds of footnotes, all but a handful of which were placed in it by me. Virtually its every clause is footnoted.
I hardly need add that I don't care whether Carlin is "almost universally thought of as one of the three best and most influential comedians of all time." He was right about one thing: he was just the Class Clown.108.52.30.154 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow -- interesting read over there at Talk:Charles Manson! But I have to agree with the others that you're going to have a tough time finding a "creditable pundit" who shares your opinion. After all, even Carlin's most strident critics criticize his politics rather than his skills, and all, AFAIK, acknowledge that he and Richard Pryor and a few others essentially created the comedy genre as we know it today. But if you do run across a usable source with an opposing view, by all means, enlighten us -- we'll be happy to include it in the interest of balance. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction should be generic not specific?

The following may be far too specific:


Carlin was noted for his black humor as well as his thoughts on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine were central to the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a narrow 5–4 decision by the justices affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves.

Consider:

Carlin was noted for his black humor as well as his thoughts on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine were central to a U.S. Supreme Court case which affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves.

Candy (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

. . . to effectively bury the specifics of the case and the links to find out the specifics? Why is this important to hide? Trackinfo (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cars section

That entire section about Cars Fillmore seems a little unencyclopedia-ish. Should it be removed? The evacipated (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the official verification rules are around here...

The caption on the photo that's up there now needs to be fixed. Anybody who has the slightest familiarity with the man knows that is from nowhere near 1972. My guess is early 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.254.140 (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I have added a cite tag (not sure if that's proper in an infobox). I also found this at Commons, George Carlin 1969, if this is in fact Carlin then the '72 claim is even harder to swallow.
Mlpearc (powwow) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and put back the less controversial photo. Carlin went through a lot of various looks over a long and very public life. Unless someone has an alternative, I don't think there is any one look or any one moment he is known best for. In other words, there is no pressure to make THIS our primary picture. When the proponents of the autographed photo come to a consensus as to what it is, then we can consider putting it at the forefront of the article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I guess I wasn't in a bold mood :P should of done that instead of all the running around :P good call. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I changed the approximated date on the earlier image to circa 1980. I also came across this one from 1975 and another from 1981. In any case, feel free to change the date if you get a more precise estimate. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Influenced -- Bill Cosby

The article lists Bill Cosby as a comedian influenced by Carlin, but the supporting source ("Funny, that was my joke") footnoted in the references does not say that. As far as I can tell, Carlin isn't even mentioned in the LA Times piece. As Cosby and Carlin were contemporaries, it doesn't seem one can claim either was influenced by the other, more than successful artists working in any art form tend to influence one another. Moreover, Cosby is famous for being a "clean" comedian and almost entirely eschewing bad language, whereas Carlin is infamous for making such language the focus of several routines. Other than the chronological concurrency of their careers, therefore, I don't think they had a lot in common. 98.65.193.34 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove the connection. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Courts Martial

"During his time in the Air Force he was court martialed three times, and also received many disciplinary punishments." I also peeked at the citation source and Carlin's own Web site. I expect that Carlin or his biographers did not consider those early events Earth shattering so the Air Force events likely did not receive in-depth attention. Based upon my own military experience and frequent visits to non-judicial punishment (a step down from the far more serious courts martial) I suspect that Carlin did not experience even one let alone three courts martial; based upon his discharge level. There is some disagreement among various sources whether the proper term is "court" or "courts" martial. Not a biggie though when I was harassing the military higher-ups in the 1970s the proper term at that time was "courts martial." It may be nigh-on impossible to ascertain what form of legal troubles Carlin experienced within the military but I felt compelled to mention that the negatives usually associated with a courts martial may not be applicable to George Carlin since he may not have actually undergone that ordeal. I suspect that rather than explain the intricacies of military law and rituals the biographers and even Mr. Carlin himself may have simplified things by just using the "court martial" term.Obbop (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The George Carlin website says "1954-1956 - Receives three court-martial and numerous Article Fifteens (form of punishment just below court-martial). Attitude toward military service can be discerned by noting history of changes in rank: A/B, A/3c, A/2c, A/3c, A/2c, A/3c, A/B, A/3c."
Carlin's book Last Words on page 197 says "But it was too late. I'd said 'Fuck you.' I had defied authority. And I got an Article 15, a punishment just short of a court-martial." On the next page he talks about being hauled in front of authorities for deserting his post during a simulated combat exercise, which resulted in a "court martial" with only one guy in the room... not a panel of field officers.
You might be right about Carlin not ever experiencing the real thing, the big and painful court-martial process. It seems like he only got the junior version. However, we do not have any published sources to say differently. We go by published sources, not common sense personal analysis. I have not found any book or magazine or newspaper article saying that Carlin exaggerated his brushes with USAF authority. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Amen -- and regarding any "disagreement" about the plural of "court martial" -- if there is any I'd like to see it -- because every reference I've ever consulted agrees that the plural is "courts martial." DoctorJoeE talk to me! 17:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Plural should always be "courts martial", no other choice. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Carlin's values changed to ??

George Carlin said that psychedelics and marijuana are "values changers" and maintained that his own values changed as a result of using these. However, I'm not sure what they changed to. True, he did say that after he used the hallucinogens he accepted himself as a rebel, and as someone who had never had any hope of conforming to society's norms.

Other than that, have any of his biographers attempted to delineate what Carlin's values changed to? Or was he only a critic and nihilist?

The Wikipedia article as it's now written mentions his satirical barbs towards both conservatism and liberalism. Fair enough, but did he express any views that divulged his essential values or personal ethics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.59.54 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you mean. If you're talking about what he said in his interview with Jon Stewart, I think he meant that drugs opened up different ways of seeing the world, and your values kind of change along with that.

I completely disagree with the claim that he's a nihilist. He didn't agree with the religious approach to the meaning of life, I think he just accepted that he didn't know.

I'm confused, are you suggesting a change to the article?Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

IRS

May want to mention how his drug habits led him to ignore his IRS taxes, which he had to work to pay off for nearly 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.162.156 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've located the article reporting that (with a good quote), and will add it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

George Carlin didn't consider himself to be an atheist.

Carlin is listed in the category 'American atheists'. I can see how he's considered to be an atheist in the traditional sense (didn't believe in god), but he very clearly stated that he did not think of himself as an atheist. So, should he really be in that category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.198.45 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please respond to this person, Carlin spent most of his career mocking God but he claimed that he was neither agnostic or atheast, but acrostic. Scorpion583 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though he was against the traditional God, he was open to other concepts of God which he mentioned during an interveiw with the Onion.

In the September 6, 2000 edition of The Onion A.V. Club titled "Is There A God?", celebrities were asked the question. Carlin was among those asked.

The Onion is complete satire and is not creditable in any way, even their using his name on their site does NOT guarantee that he actually said it. In fact, if you go to his own website, he decries 'all the stuff online attributed to him,' and he says 'if [he] said it, it would be on [his] site.' He *did* say "*IF* I'm going to worship anything it would be the sun, because at least the sun is there, I can see it." Label him 'acrostic' since that's the word he used himself, across between 'agnostic' and 'atheist(ic).' And, being acrostic, due to his high intelligence, he should be listed in BOTH the 'atheist' and 'agnostic' pages. He also talks, jokingly, about worshiping Joe Pesci, since he can see Joe Pesci, and he talks about how Joe Pesci can produce results, but that's just an his accolade to Joe Pesci. Dave 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Onion: Is there a God?

George Carlin: No. No, there's no God, but there might be some sort of an organizing intelligence, and I think to understand it is way beyond our ability. It's certainly not a judgmental entity. It's certainly not paternalistic and all these qualities that have been attributed to God. It's probably a dispassionate... That's why I say, "Suppose He doesn't give a shit? Suppose there is a God but He just doesn't give a shit?" That's the kind of thing that might be at work.

See the feature at http://avclub.theonion.com/avclub3631/avfeature_3631.html.

You seriously think the onion is accurate and not a satire publication? CTJF83 01:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If the man himself claimed that he wasn't an atheist then we should not consider him to be one either, he wasn't an atheist, he was an acrostic. Scorpion583 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, find a reliable source where he says he isn't an atheist. CTJF83 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"When it comes to God's existence, I'm not an atheist and I'm not an agnostic. I' m an acrostic. The whole thing puzzles me." -George Carlin Scorpion583 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Link it! You saying he said it is hardly reliable...and again, the Onion is not reliable. CTJF83 17:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It comes from the Atheism Theism Debate, you can't prove that this information is false simply because it isn't. Scorpion583 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you saying something hardly makes it true. Source it, or leave it alone. CTJF83 17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources, the quotation doesn't come from The Onion but rather The Onion A.V. Club. As the Wikipedia page says, "Unlike its parent publication, The A.V. Club is not satirical". They do serious (non-satirical) interviews, and they did several with George Carlin. One of his interviews was even published in print in the 2002 compilation book "The Tenacity of the Cockroach: Conversations with Entertainment's Most Enduring Outsiders" (which I own). Regardless, the quotation still doesn't automatically exempt him from being an atheist; see my paragraph below. WillieBlues (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Getting back to the original question here, personally rejecting a word as a label doesn't automatically exempt that person from fitting the term. For example, the band Audioslave tried to reject the descriptive term "supergroup" even though they fit the definition, and no cult ever calls itself a "cult". Carlin made the very clear assertion on several occasions that God doesn't exist. He may have mentioned not ruling out the possible existence of other supernatural concepts (e.g., "The Big Electron"), but nothing that was a deity. His position fits all of Wikipedia's own opening paragraph definitions of atheism. WillieBlues (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


It wasn't me who said this, don't be foolish! The words came from the mouth of George Carlin himself, you're just being stubborn. Scorpion583 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

From the long quote above, he seems to fit the category of Agnostics (when he exclaims that there might be an intelligence, but we can never understand g), or borderline Atheist. In any case worshiping the Sun means Sun worshiper, and the guy he prays to means Humanist.153.18.28.30 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

He became progressively less and less religious until he was an atheist by the time of his final three shows. A source is needed obv but anyone who saw his last three shows knows he is an atheist. He made it abundantly clear. AaronY (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There might be some perceived baggage associated with certain uses of the term to which Carlin objected, but the loose sense which is conveyed by putting someone in the atheist category here definitely applies to him, as is made abundantly evident in his Religion is Bullshit performance. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Carlin was an atheist. Sorry it doesn't agree with you if you think he was religious in any sort. One of his skits begins with "I was raised Catholic, until i reached... the age of reason." Listen to his 'sanctity of life' skit. Just an excerpt: "'Sanctity of life,' makes you feel special, doesn't it? To think that somehow, life is sacred? But look at what we kill: Flies and mosquitoes? Because they're pests! Chickens and pigs. Because we're hungry. Lions and tigers? Because it's fun! And people! We kill people! Why? Because... they're pests! And... it's fun!"

He was also cremated, was he not? That's another reason I came here, to verify that he was cremated. Dave 05:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlin did not consider himself an atheist. Someone above demands a credible source? Here it is, with George himself stating live not only that he wasn't an atheist, but WHY he wasn't an atheist (&, importantly it must be added, these aren't the words from during one of his sketches - a milieu where all artists will lie for a laugh - but in a serious tete-a-tete w/Larry King): Starting 2:35 into this vid - Bill Maher remembers George Carlin (Part 1) - King gives a quick preamble which leads to George's owns words.203.79.96.4 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you didn't watch the whole clip as at 8:26 in the video he says " I don't buy the whole humanity thing, don't buy the species, I don't believe in my species, don't believe in my country, I don't believe in religion, I don't believe in government, or big business, I think it is a game, I think it is a racquet, a game and a con, and I enjoy not caring about things, it gives me a deatachment, a separation..." Mylittlezach (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Carlin has said that he believes in a universal consciousness. He also claims that he doesn't believe in a big man in the sky, but he does believe in a god. When he says he doesn't believe in a God, he means he doesn't believe in what humans have manifested him as. Check the video about 5 minutes in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_bYnvR_fRg&feature=relmfuComatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What has " I don't buy the whole humanity thing, [...] it gives me a detachment, a separation..." got to do with somehow repudiating his clear statement that he didn't consider himself an atheist? If the words "I don't believe in religion" are the ones that are meant to underline the whole point of your *AHA, GOTCHA* post (I guess you didn't blah blah), then the simple observation is someone doesn't have to buy into any specifc religion in order to believe in the infinite. If, on the other hand, the whole tenor of his statement is your point (he doesn't believe in this, OR this, OR this, OR this...), then that simply reads as someone with a healthy misanthropic take on numerous human activities, something which in itself indicates nothing about said person's take on/belief in any potential afterlife (& the principle which might govern/underpin it).203.79.96.4 (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Right! We cannot assert Carlin was an atheist from him saying or writing that he was not religious. Irreligion is very different from atheism. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's get this article to "Featured"!

What do we need to do to get this article to "Good" and finally to "Featured"? I am willing to help in anything necessary! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Try taking it to WP:PR CTF83! 23:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible redirect

There is currently an AfD being held on George's brother. Deletion if not redirecting to this page has been suggested due to lack of reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Cremated

The article claims that he was cremated and his ashes scattered. The Daily News article used in reference for this has no mention whatsoever of how his remains were disposed of. Where is the source for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.61.109 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Resourced. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 07:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Carlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sourcechecked  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Carlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcechecked  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Carlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sourcechecked  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on George Carlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Posthumusly published album?

The discography section claims that George Carlin published something in 2016, but he died 8 years before. This seems a little suspicious to me, and as a fan of George Carlin, I don't recognize the title from anywhere. It doesn't seem too farfeatched as something he would name one of his works, but still... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.45.111 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleting "Watch My Language" from the Written works section

The Written works section included "Watch My Language" (2009) with the notes

  • ISBN 0-7868-8838-5
    <ref>Carlin, George (2009). Watch My Language. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-8838-5.</ref>
    <ref name="Watch My Language/New York Boy">"Watch My Language". BookFinder.com. Archived from the original on September 10, 2013. Retrieved October 9, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)</ref> Posthumous release (not yet released).
  • The ref tag "Watch My Language/New York Boy" was not used elsewhere in the article.

I have deleted mention of "Watch My Language" from the article per:

  • A lack of sources and mention about a proposed "Watch My Language" project and subsequent explanation for why it was never released.
  • The present sources related to the ISBN 0-7868-8838-5 are all a dead end.
  • A search for "Watch My Language" by Carlin finds:
    • Amazon finds the record https://www.amazon.com/dp/140130026X/ which is "Watch My Language Hardcover – September 30, 2007. Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."
    • Goodreads is for ISBN 140130026X but with no cover image. four people rated it 5-stars and one with 3-stars though none reviewed it.
    • Abebooks shows no copies which is usually a good clue that a book does not exist.
    • Worldcat shows no copies.
  • WP:CRYSTAL about a book at apparently was never released and is not likely to be.

--Marc Kupper|talk 19:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George Carlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Book signing photos

Why are there two photos from the same book signing event? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point, one removed. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If Carlin was a DJ, should he be categorized as such?

Should this article be put in the American DJs category? The article does talk about George Carlin's time as a disk jockey. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No, as this isn't a defining characteristic. - Radiphus (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Caption that reads "Carlin at a 2011 book signing for Brain Droppings at a New York City Barnes & Noble" is incorrect

Please note there is a caption under a picture that reads "Carlin at a 2011 book signing for Brain Droppings at a New York City Barnes & Noble", which is incorrect as George Carlin died on June 22, 2008. Please advise if the true date for this photo can be researched and the correct date put in the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkf12 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Atheist again

Carlin never made any explicit statement about what he himself believed. His comedy routines cannot be assumed to represent his personal attitude. His daughter says he was agnostic. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The man specifically stated "No, there's no God" when asked about his beliefs. If his comedy somehow wasn't already a strong enough indication on the matter, then this has to be when an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God. It's already cited within "Personal life". There is no reasonable doubt he was an atheist with a quote like that. As for what Kelly may have said, I haven't come across anything mentioning agnostic stances. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
He immediately undercuts the statement by saying maybe there is a God who doesn't give a shit. My reading of that interchange is Carlin disavowing the paternalistic representations of God.
Kelly spoke about her life and her famous dad in a live stage presentation, and talked about his spirituality in that show. She said he was agnostic in this podcast; unfortunately, the link is dead now. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if she did she doesn’t speak for him. We have a very clear non comedy routine quote saying he doesn’t believe in god and that there’s no god. How much more specific does one need to be? Rusted AutoParts 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Kelly Carlin's opinion on the matter should not be dismissed. She's certainly an authority on her dad. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
But she isn’t George. When we have a quote said by George himself identifying that he does not believe in god, it is more authoritative than his daughter. Rusted AutoParts 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if he did make a little joke at the end, the “No. No, there's no God” is pretty cut and dry the core belief in that statement. A joke within it doesn’t make the statement as a whole a joke. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a joke, I'm saying the first part of Carlin's response is modified by the last part, such that a reasonable amount of doubt is cast on the first part. It's not such a clear statement that we can define him with it. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don’t agree. The article the quote is in is a series of people being asked “do you believe in God?”. He’s answering that question. He directly says no. It’s pretty clear. Rusted AutoParts 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In this clip at 0:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyX7X7lsTeA&t=29s his daughter says he never used the term "atheist" to describe himself, and then at 1:30 on she says "he self-named himself mostly as an agnostic" ClearSeawater (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe how terrible many of his points are and how deluded the reaction the people gave in many videos such as ID 8r-e2NDSTuE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:6594:3843:DA62:C33E (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Carlin/Archive_3&oldid=1136276117"