Talk:Scott Adams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

TV appearances

This section should be expanded (slightly bigger?). It should at the least include the Newsradio episode where he made a guest cameo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdeviant (talk • contribs)

Pam

There's a lot that we could add here, but my number one question is: who's Pam? I know it's none of our business but he's dedicated practically every book to her. I'm assuming that she was his last girlfriend until around 2003 or so but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.167.26 (talk)

Adding to the article that he dedicated several books to her is appropriate, since that is verifiable, but specific books should be cited as sources (including the page number of the dedication). Posting what you are assuming about her and Adams is not acceptable, even in a talk page, because Wikipedia prohibits unverified information about living persons. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four ~ characters.47.139.46.164 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent developments - controversial

In March-April 2011, Scott's writings and web comments have caused some controversy which does not seem to be reflected in his wiki entry. I'd suggest a new section in his wiki entry be added to reflect this. Understanding that Gawker.com may not be the most reliable source, I do recommend this link as a good starting place: http://gawker.com/#!5792583/dilbert-creator-pretends-to-be-his-own-biggest-fan-on-message-boards Phenylphree (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's purely your opinion. His writings have been cause for amusement for me, but never controversy. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 04:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Broken link

This link is broken.. [1] Zargulon (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Master of the Strip

An edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Adams&oldid=632578642 inserted the reference that mr. adams is commonly referred to as "Master of the Strip", the source cited makes no reference to this (correction: this is an error on my part, the actual link does but the home page of the blog doesn't), i also did a google search on the terms "master of the strip" and "scott adams", this provided a total of 11 results, so my verdict is No, he isn't. I've taken a screen shot of the google result to show 11 results. Phil Nolte (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

sorry i forgot to note that most of the 11 results, the next sentence was "His Dilbert series came to national prominence" which was what followed the line in this article. Conclusion - The majority of the 11 based on the wikipedia article Phil Nolte (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott Adams. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www7.mercurycenter.com/archives/dilbert/mission_index.html

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

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this source has disappeared. Thane Eichenauer (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump and Adams' blog

Adams' blog has exploded in popularity, largely due to his criticisms of Donald Trump's candidacy. Although, as the article states, he has "praised" Trump's media skills, it has been from a detached perspective. He's been invited on several TV and internet forums to discuss his thoughts, usually taking care to not endorse Trump. Additionally, many other blogs and commentators have discussed his blog, so I believe the notability is there.

I was thinking of adding a note about this in the lead, but not until expanding more info about it in the body. Anyway, I just wanted to raise this issue on the talk page because of how hard it is talk about it neutrally. CarolOfTheForest (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

He posts about Trump every day and is probably one of the biggest Trump supporters out there. You can check out his AMA on the reddit Trump forum. He has been a steadfast defender of every one of Trumps policies. There is nothing detached about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.139.26 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Better photo needed

The current photo, File:Scott adams.jpg, is just plain awful. I tried applying white balance correction, and even though it caused the subject to brighten up and stand out from the gloom, the image was as grainy as one might get from ISO 1000 film at twilight. There simply isn't enough information content in the file to extract a useful image. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 04:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Overly focused on Trump?

It seems to me that this article is overly focused on Donald Trump. It appears in the lede and there is a long section about Adams' opinions of Trump that is actually longer than the section on his cartooning career! This strikes me as WP:RECENTism. Adams has had a long career and the Trump thing is just the latest blip. I think it needs to be toned down. Ashmoo (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there is some serious tunnel vision going on here, from his "2011 sockpuppet controversy" to the long-winded Trump thing, whoever wrote this is too fixated on his real life business and the scrutiny of the page should focus on his job/franchise, not on convincing everyone of how evil and controversial he might be. Even the "alleged girlfriend" bit seems a bit overdone, but that might be just me.

I think it would suffice to turn this Trump novel into a short paragraph along the lines of "In 2016, his support for presidential candidate Donald Trump resulted in, according to Adams, an income reduction of 40%, as well as receiving several death threats, leading to him "officially" supporting Hillary Clinton out of fear." The source should be enough if anyone is interested in the details. 191.183.100.73 (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Living outside the US, I only discovered about his comments to Trump and the 2016 election only few days ago, and I feel that the current paragraph on the page is really too detailed.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It's odd that, though being painted as an ardent "Trump supporter" or whatever, a few paragraphs previous it's stated that In a blog post from September 2017, Adams considers himself to be "left of Bernie [Sanders], but with a preference for plans that can work." Certainly, if there's anyone who can resolve Libertarian ideology (free trade, anti-tariff) with White House policy AND Social Democrat progressivism, it'd be Adams… but all I'm seeing here is a bunch of loose threads.

Suggestion: create a Political views section and lump all this stuff together, then impose a timeline on it.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Reasoning re inheritance tax

Tippx changed "Among his primary reasons for the switch were ... Clinton's proposal to raise the inheritance tax to 65%" to "Among his primary reasons for the switch were ... Clinton's proposal to raise the inheritance tax to 65% of every dollar over $500 million", here. I reverted with edit summary "Not well sourced", Tippx re-inserted with edit summary "Literally in the source already given". The source is Scott Adams's blog, which says that the mention of that "top" rate is misleading and objects because the plan would actually increase taxes for people with "over $5 million(ish)". Possibly Mr Adams's reason wasn't good, but that doesn't change what I hope is obvious here: (a) Tippx mis-stated what the reason was (b) Tippx violated WP:BLP by re-inserting without taking it to the talk page and seeking consensus. I have reduced to: "Among his primary reasons for the switch were ... Clinton's proposal to raise the inheritance tax" as a compromise, other suggestions are possible. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. My issue is mainly putting the "65%" number of the marginal rate without the context of the dollar amount above which the marginal rate applies. Tippx (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Links in the Publications, Dilbert books

These links all seem to go, not to an article about that specific book, but rather to the entry "Dilbert", an entry that talks generically about the comic strip. This seems wrong to me. I would suggest removing all those links. BetseyTrotwood (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not accurate about what he said in regards to being "left of Bernie Sanders"

The way the article currently makes it sound like, is that Scott agrees with Bernie Sanders on certain issues and that he is more left than Bernie is on certain topics...However the source does not back that up. The article says this - """"""Adams has referred to himself to be left of Bernie Sanders on a number of occasions.[39]"""""" That is not a honest interpretation of what he said in the source though. It comes across as whoever put that there as trying to downplay his sarcastic criticism of Bernie Sanders and the far left, which is what he was doing.

What he actually DID say and this is from the source as well is this - """"""Lately I have been describing my personal political views as “left of Bernie, but with a preference for plans that can work.” In other words, I would love universal healthcare and free college. I just don’t know how to get there in any practical way. I don’t think anyone else does either.""""""2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:2801:4E5E:7D8B:9B77 (talk)

If you read God’s Debris, Adams is surely left of Sanders in his publicly stated opinions on religion. In his followup book The Religion War Adams essentially has his characters destroy Christianity and Islam simply by circulating the phrase, "if God is so smart, why do you fart?" Hyperbolick (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I edited the sentence about Adams being to the left of Bernie Sanders (or saying he is) without having first noticed this discussion. I did the edit just to detangle the sentence not to step into the middle of an accuracy question about what exactly Adams meant when he said what he said. Anyway, I'll leave my edit there and you all can do with it what you will. Novellasyes (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Using Scott Adams to establish notability of things Scott Adams says

Hello there! I removed some material earlier which was sourced only to Scott Adams' personal blog, which has since been restored (ETA:apparently while writing this, it has again been removed). I personally feel this should be removed -- while I have no problem with the sourcing, as such, I feel it's inappropriate to simply pick things from Mr. Adams' personal blog and decide that they are notable in and of themselves. Without coverage in some reliable source, I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia anymore than Mr. Adams mentioning what he's having for dinner. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That was me, and I self-reverted before you posted here. I was responsible for adding something like this in 2007, it was in response to some other edits that had suggested Mr Adams did a bad job of predicting. Google "scott adams correctly predicted 2016 election" and you'll get hits for several well-known newspapers and magazines, so I'm confident that notability could be established, and I was dubious about your original edit summary saying "we need someone to make this assertion" when we had someone: Scott Adams, in his blog posts before the election. However, nobody has a right to re-insert contentious material in a BLP, that was removed on good faith BLP grounds, without seeking consensus. So do others have opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate your solicitude here, though to be honest, I would not call this particularly contentious: more of a rote encyclopedia disagreement. Also, you're right--I could have phrased my edit summary better. I don't particularly doubt that we can establish notability for the 2016 predictions, but I am more skeptical of the recent musings. Still, I think we have to establish notability beyond "this appeared on his blog," and thus I swept in the 2016 material. I too would like to hear others' thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Self-published Issues in Criticism of "Hoax Edits" by Media Section

WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFSOURCE allow self-published sources as sources of information about themselves; however, the material must not be unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, involve claims about third parties, involve claims about events not directly related to the source, and not be based primarily on such sources. The self-published sources by Scott Adams in this section involve claims about third parties making hoax and biased edits in an attempt to discredit Adams. These are exceptional claims about events not directly related to the source, and the claims are unduly self-serving. The claims are based primarily on these self-published sources, as no other sources are cited for the claims. For these reasons, these edits violate the WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFSOURCE policies and should be removed. Squideshi (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not a surprise, given the section above, but I completely agree with this. The article tends to use Mr. Adams' own words for a bit too much, by my lights. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've removed the section. Lennart97 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Protection

I'm not sure if removing protection from this page is a good idea. Scott Adams is deliberately provocative and controversial. He attracts a lot of bad attention. This page is a good target for vandalism. Nexus000 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

this is out of date

Scott Adams now spends his time on Twitter claiming that "The Jan 6 hearings are part of a mass brainwashing operation", that there was no insurrection because "the most heavily armed segment of American society forgot to bring guns", that saying you saw something with your own eyes "is highly predictive of a hoax. It suggests you know it doesn't make sense even though you "saw it" directly in some fashion", and similar nonsense: "Recent mass brainwashing operations we know about: - Russian Collusion Hoax - Critical Race Theory (replaced Occupy Wall Street) - Waukesha disappearing story - Fine People Hoax - Drinking Bleach Hoax - Jan 6 "insurrection" hoax - Courts can validate election fairness " -- Jibal (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

“Republicans will be hunted”

Adams didn't indicate who'd be doing the hunting. If 6 January Capitol stormers seeking to "hang Mike Pence" and almost certainly to execute Mitt Romney and Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, possibly Mitch McConnell, isn't "Republicans being hunted" then what is? I call this prediction correct, and expect more of the same in the future as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's clearly not what he meant. He now insists that there was no insurrection and that the Jan 6 hears are "a mass brainwashing operation". In any case, our opinions of what predictions are or aren't correct aren't relevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Separation to Basham

- this is now announced publicly by Adams. Quadrow (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mensa?

Where is the citation for mensa? The link goes to a dead link to his personal blog? 141.158.44.19 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I updated the citation to a regional Mensa chapter, but I'd be fine with not mentioning any of it. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Watch the (timestamped) vlog reference for the claim of the 185 IQ, it's one of Adams's social experiments. Other editors can act, I'll watch this one play out. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone deleted my comment, while another self-published source (Locals) was added to the 185 statement. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm being reasonable and not touching the IQ statement, but please, don't revert others' comments on the Talk page, that's where conflicts are supposed to get resolved. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section redux

WP:CRITS generally discourages dedicated controversy sections. I'm not opposed to keeping the content, but there's not much under the heading and it can easily fit elsewhere. Adams's other controversial statements do this, e.g., "hunted" Republicans and the UPN firing. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Racist AIM accounts connected to Adams' AOL account

I saw a message board post from 2004 by a fan of Dilbert alleging that in the 1990s, he looked up the AOL account listed in the comics on a search engine and found some AIM accounts connected to his AOL account with racist usernames containing racist slurs. Has this been reported in any reliable sources? I Googled it but I couldn't find any. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. Interesting though, shows he probably was always secretly racist and makes his claim about “helping black people” dubious to say the least. Dronebogus (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way to still access those? Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section

I'm not sure some blog spat from a couple years ago rises to the level of being notable. And I'm pretty sure that making anonymous postings on Reddit and MetaFilter definitely is not notable.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say: "In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time"[1] as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic" (I have added the bolding for emphasis.)

Wikipedia's notability policy is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia

I therefore propose deleting the section. Hanxu9 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that you, Scott?97.120.69.7 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not "some blog spat". Scott Adams made several postings that made him come off as extremely misogynistic and the amount of press it generate both on and off the web had serious professional fallout for him. Posing as a fan to defend himself also received media coverage. And yes, it did generate coverage from resources Wikipedia considers to be notable, checked the cited sources - at least one of them is broadcast news with no ties to Adams or activist causes. Here's another one we could use from a respectable source that covers comics in general: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/04/20/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppet/

Salon also covered it: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/19/scott_adams_sock_puppetry_scandal/

I think the section needs a pass to address why its notable and not just record the events, but deleting it entirely when its had such a large impact on his legacy and did meet the notability standards is excessive. Rebochan (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I edited the section, but I have to agree that it is pretty trivial. It is just not that notable for a blogger to write some comments that generate criticism on other blogs. Roger (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

1. He's not just "some blogger": he's a notable figure.

2. This isn't about criticism on other blogs; this is about an incident that led to coverage in Salon and other notable publications. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Adams further incorrectly predicted on July 1, 2020 that if Biden were to win the 2020 presidential election then Republicans would be hunted and there's a "good chance" they'll be "dead within a year".[110]" This seems to be an attempt at discrediting Adams and is not very useful. A few Tweets that were reported on by one tabloid is hardly noteworthy. 68.129.82.26 (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)MK

That was worse than what you suggested -- not even an accurate quote, and if you don't die that doesn't prove there wasn't a good chance that you would die, and the year's not over, and he didn't say that the hunted people were specifically Republicans. I have removed it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Object to calling this "incorrectly predicted." If people storming the US Capitol to literally "hang Mike Pence" on a gallows and undoubtedly go after Mitt Romney and probably Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, maybe even Mitch McConnell, isn’t Republicans being hunted, I don’t know what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the topics he talked about were seriously controversial, he suggested "druggies shuld kill themselves" when talking about his own son. They're very notable. Good job editing your own wiki, Scott Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.240.7 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Bobby Lawndale (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Category "white separatist"?

Granted that we're quite reasonably cancelling this guy faster than a Spirit airlines flight in slightly inclement weather, but is "White Separatist" really appropriate here? Is that a term supported by the body or by RS's? NickCT (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really like using specialized political terms for people who clearly aren’t political thinkers and are just spouting whatever hateful nonsense pops into their head. Dronebogus (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Spouting hateful nonsense does not a white separatist make. NickCT (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Especially as it's one event. After all, Adams has pushed a number of daft conspiracy theories for a few years now, but we don't classify him as a conspiracy theorist, even though there's more evidence for that than for "white supremacist". Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair, I added it to have a category relating to his racist remarks but on a second thought "white supremacist" is more adequately sourced. That being said, if Adams decides to get into white nationalist politics (likely, since he is currently doubling down on his remarks) then sources detailing his political activity would appear and we could have a discussion about adding it again. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Identification as black

I think we need to wait until we have reliable secondary sources confirming that this identification is serious. I'm pretty sure it's merely satirical. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it again. Meters (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the specific policy that dictates this? Scott Adams identifies as black. He has made this identification public on at least a dozen occasions at this point and given no indication that he isn’t serious. What if there is no coverage of this in reliable sources a year from now, and still no indication that this identification isn’t serious?2601:445:37F:8A10:B0FC:2626:4490:7B52 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously trolling. Adams has previously identified as white in serious discussions and it's clear the remark that's being cited was meant ironically. Article semi-protected to put a stop to this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Adams has said on a few occasions that he was absolutely serious. He reasoned that he hit a glass ceiling on two occasions because of diversity quotas and therefore he lost his job to race. He says he therefore identifies as black. Quadrow (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if he is trolling, is there a WP policy to reject a self-identification if the editors doubt his sincerity? Roger (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Or, put alternately, what source describes this as trolling? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It actually makes sense to honor his self-identification because, if a person can force others to honor a self-declared change of gender (something fixed and essentially immutable), then it follows a person can change race or height or any other physical attribute simply by declaring it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Improper category

@Jaydoggmarco, please observe WP:BRD, and also remember to use edit summaries.

I removed Category:Anti-black racism in the United States because, as my edit summary stated: such categories should categorise articles about events or topics, not biographies. Wikipedia categories are used to classify, not to 'tag' pages with related topics. You might want to see WP:COP#Sensitive, WP:BLPRACIST, as well as, IMO, WP:OPINIONCAT. Tagging every racist/allegedly racist person with that category would fill it to the brim, and would prevent people from using it to find articles that cover the topic of Anti-black racism, which is what the category is for.

Note that this is a content category, not a people category. A proper "people category" would be Category:American racists, which doesn't exist. If you want to propose we create it, feel free to, but the chance it happening is a snowball's in hell. DFlhb (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

ADL is not a Neutral organization

a bunch of logical fallacies Dronebogus (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

My edit that removes the "a phrase described by the Anti-Defamation League as being associated with the white supremacist movement." was reverted. I think that part should not be on Wikipedia because it is perfectly clear that ADL has a strong political bias. I'm not gonna make and argument about whether "It's OK to be white", because if it is not clear by now, I can't help about that. However, I can point out that, if we agree with ADL, most black people are white supremacists. Just from here, one can see that ADL is a far-left (or whatever it is called) polically biased organization. With 180 degree rotation and with some exaggeration, one can write "Black Lives Mattes! is a phrase described by KKK as being associated with the black supremacist movement." Both should not be on Wikipedia. Mstf221 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) The description is clearly attributed to the ADL. If you really think of the ADL as equivalent to the KKK, you would probably be more comfortable at Conservapedia, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Either you did not see "with some exaggeration" or you are pretending not seeing it to gain some political points. I will assume good faith. Hypothetically, just imagine, would such a comment be allowed on Wikipedia, if the comment was rotated 180 degree, and the source is also rotated 180 degree (so it is now right-wing)? If you say "Yes" to the above question, I have nothing further to say. If you say "But, ADL is already on Center", again, I have nothing further to say. Mstf221 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC) We reflect what WP:RSes say; numerous reliable sources consider the ADL's categorization of the phrase to be important context, so we cover it. Also, it's worth pointing out that some sources, like CBS, say that it's used and and promoted by white supremicists in the article voice, unattributed. I left it attributed to the ADL because most sources do so, but it clearly isn't a particularly controversial statement if CBS is willing to state it in the article voice; and numerous sources treat it as essential context to the poll itself. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Agreed, ADL is an incredibly biased organization, and using guiding language like that is far from the neutrality Wikipedia strives for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9540:16B0:5893:C5DC:CC54:BC2A (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC) CBS is a left-leaning news organization (check for the link below), and most, if not all, of the "reliable" sources you are refering to have left-wing political bias. This is a political topic, so there are no facts, but opinions; so, I don't see how a source can be reliable on political subject. There are (conservative) news organizations which have the opposite view. There is no consensus on the topic. So, we should not give Wikipedia readers a narrative which favors one political stance over another. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cbs-news-media-bias Mstf221 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) The bit about left-wing political bias was amusing enough but "This is a political topic, so there are no facts" is an absolute gem. Have you read WP:CIR? Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC) If you think that not having left-wing political bias is an indication of incompetence, sure. I have seen what you did to protect AOC. These are your own words to justify removing the content about AOC being a bartender: "... it has been used by various opposition figures and right-wing media to attempt to discredit her as a politician." Maybe you need to read it more than I do. Mstf221 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC) And yet that content is still in AOC's article - the only discussion is whether it should be in the lede and/or in a category. Because it's a fact. Feel free to flounder around a little more, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Tabloids used as citation in Controversies section

The claim that Dilbert was pulled from 77 newspapers for "anti-woke" content is only supported with a reference to the Toronto Sun—a North American tabloid not considered a reliable source per discussion on WP:RSN. Other discussion of this incident in other non-tabloid news media does not mention the content of recent strips nor draw connections between their plotlines and Dilbert being pulled. The discussion of plotlines in that section should then be spurious, no? If nobody objects I'll use a more reliable source in that section sometime this evening and rewrite for clarity. I've already edited out the phrase "poking fun at woke culture" as this is clearly loaded language that is unsupported by reliable sources. 217.105.24.185 (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wasn’t this whole thing as a response to a Gallup poll question? We may need more context. 41.58.235.170 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

These are two separate incidents. The recent rant was in response to a Rasmussen poll that asked if people agree with the statement: "It's okay to be white", which had a history of association with white supremacy; I don't know whether Rasmussen made the phrase's history clear to respondents of not, but regardless, it's separate from the September 2022 controversy. DFlhb (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There are now many reliable sources that say that Dilbert is being pulled from newspapers in response to Adams' comments about Black people made on a podcast released on February 22, 2023. For example, Variety, Forbes, the San Francisco Chronicle. Toughpigs (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I do believe the sourcing concern brought up was about the September 2022 paragraph, not the February one. Will look for sources if I have time. DFlhb (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the OP is about the sourcing of Adams being pulled in September and if other more reliable sources make any connection to "plotlines in the strip [that] parodied ESG strategies". I also think the Ben Garrison line might need more/better sourcing, ATM I only see it covered by The Daily Cartoonist and We Got This Covered, and the latter is not a RS. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, we definitely don't need any more context, that would only confuse people. If sources claim that what he said is racist, then the fact is that what he said is racist, it's that simple. Showing people what he actually said and what made him say it, might make some of them question that judgement. Under several of the news reports I've seen many comments written by people who seem to have looked up the context, and they ended up defending him, saying things like "If he doesn't want to hang around a group of people who openly stated how much they hate him for his skin color, then is that group racist or is he the racist for not wanting to be around those people who openly said they hate his ethnicity?". You see the problem? In the past, the news sources told the story and people made their own individual judgements, but these days the topic of race relations is so complex that we should not let laypeople decide it, therefore we should rely only on the conclusions made by experts. That's why the trusted sources are written by people who graduated degrees in journalism, critical race theory, race relations, etc. And if these sources say he is racist, then it is not our job to question them by looking up what he actually said. 2A02:2F07:D812:ED00:D037:64F:492F:7445 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Holy **** did you even read what you just wrote? How dystopian and insane it sounds? "There is no need to confuse the public with context, we already decided what they need to know about the subject. The public cannot be trusted to have the correct and desirable opinion on the matter and allowing them to question it might undermine Our Consensus™ decided upon by The Experts™ on the situation. They should not be given a chance to make such mistakes." I really hope this is some trolling attempt and not actual wikipedia thinking. 200.198.196.129 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Yes. It's obviously just trolling from a random anonymous user. It doesn't say anything about Wikipedia. You don't need to waste your time on it. In fact, lets just roll this up so other people don't do the same. DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some requests for the "Views" section

For one statement, an editor changed the source from The Mercury News to Adams's original tweet.[2] I understand the reasoning, but Adams has tweeted a lot of things; what makes that particular tweet notable is its coverage in independent sources. Either remove the sentence or source it back to a third-party.

Also, the UPN show cancellation is mentioned twice, under "Full-time cartoonist" and "Views on race", and while that's perfectly acceptable, if I could edit I'd delete the first instance and move its ref over to bolster the second instance. What should match are the dates, both should be June 28. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

First issue has been addressed.[3] 70.163.208.142 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek Opinion on Context for Racist Comments

A Newsweek opinion piece suggests that most sources have missed the context of the racist "hate group" comments. Pakbelang (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Modern newsweek is a crap source with no respectability. Dronebogus (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Pakbelang, please see WP:NEWSWEEK and this RfC regarding the use of post–2013 Newsweek. Stoarm (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The article now has reliable sources for the key points. Pakbelang (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests

In the Personal Life section, please add that he is a vegetarian. https://www.impactlab.com/2006/03/31/interview-with-dilbert-creator-scott-adams/ 2600:100C:A206:F6CD:3021:AA51:E238:D22A (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Disappearance of websites

On the 13th of March, according to the Wayback Machine, dilbert.com and scottadamssays.com were set to redirect to his Linktree page, which in turn links to the Coffee With Scott Adams "Locals" website, the Real Coffee with Scott Adams YouTube channel, and his Twitter profile. This change was sudden, as dilbert.com was still being updated with new comics.

I don't believe the timing of that is coincidental, as his Twitter bio announces that "Dilbert Reborn" is launching 13 March, which requires a subscription to access. He describes Dilbert Reborn as being "spicier than the original" but I don't really know anything more about it.

How should we handle this? I think the "Website" section of the infobox needs updating in some way. That's probably all that needs doing, as the page already mentions Dilbert Reborn, albeit not in any detail. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

For one thing, update url-status=dead for the several cites to his blog, or just stick to secondary sources. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, updated.

I've noticed the Dilbert page's "Website" field has been amended to "dilbert.com, now redirects to Scott Adams Linktree", presumably to do with this Talk post where Fishing Publication mentions Linktree being blacklisted from being inserted into Wikipedia pages. I'll sleep on the idea of doing something similar here. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Stoarm and Fishing Publication:, stop the edit warring now. Fishing Publication, if you really feel this is an improvement start an RFC, as there's clearly no consensus right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)