Jump to content

Talk:Scott Adams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"until it was dropped"

[edit]

I undid this edit, but it's been reverted. I have a few problems with this statement. It repeats what the third lead paragraph says and focuses on Dilbert over Adams. It implies that the comic stopped being a "cultural touchstone" after cancellation, which isn't for us to say; sources in the article simply report the drop from syndication and why. I considered removing "until" and starting a new sentence to just read "It was dropped from syndication and now runs as a webcomic", but that's even more repetitive and disjointed. Maybe we should drop "and becoming a cultural touchstone" altogether. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. Roger (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoon seems to have peaked and ebbed long before. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is another reason to remove the edit. Roger (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the ledes for other bios and have cooled a little about redundancy. For example, the lede for James O'Keefe mentions his firing in the first and last paragraphs, granted it's a longer lede. Still have a problem with the conjunction "until", it's drawing conclusions. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably both of them have enemies who take great pleasure in repeatedly saying Adams and O'Keefe were fired. Roger (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Low probability speculation. 2600:8802:571B:E00:28EC:43A5:5FF9:B17D (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-identifying category removed

[edit]

I removed Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent because the article says that Adams said he had a small amount of Native American heritage, but later found out through a DNA test that he had none. So, he may have previously said he had a small amount, but says none now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming "Views" and primary sources

[edit]

@Hyperbolick, my edit helps resolve the section tag and "primary sources" tag up top. It might look like a hatchet job but there is reasoning behind the start and end points of the cut, e.g. after the cut the last sentence of the paragraph (...stated that writing positively about Trump and supporting him ended his public speaking career...) nicely supports what immediately comes before. Adams has a daily podcast and active X feed, his comments about the 2016 DNC and Hillary Clinton are downright quaint compared to the stuff he posts every day. His political registration is effectively meaningless, a "persuasion technique". It's best to just try to keep what secondary sources mention, like the Politico stuff.

Pinging @FMSky as you placed the tag. 70.163.220.139 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be quaint but he wrote what he wrote. Go point by point. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adams writes what he writes every day, in 2016 it was more his written blog and today it's more livestream and X. Why include his facetious temporary endorsement of Clinton and his takes on the DNC when we could just as well include his more recent opinions about migrants and sperm—which at least was covered by a third party source, although I'm not sure if Uproxx is WP:RS. 70.163.220.139 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that this is a pitifully small article, so don't feel you have to delete stuff for that reason. We document history here, and his historical positions, development, and changing positions are good stuff to have in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue of WP:PROPORTION. Is Scott Adams first and foremost a political pundit? Because, based on the size of the Views section, that seems to be the case. My proposed removal doesn't document any changing positions IMO, more like reiterations. 70.163.220.139 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the section down. I think if more work is done on the article, we should merge his political activity into the narrative biography and integrate his views in that context. This would also help as some of what is in views, e.g. predictions, are not per se about views.
I share concerns that there is such huge weight on his politics overall, while the entirety of his non-politics full-time comics work is covered in ~100 words. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm formerly the 70.* ip, you did a good job with the trim. Several recent sources call Adams a political commentator, but yeah within the span of his career we can show discretion with things like his political predictions (I'm not a fan of the 2024 Politico article, it gets the timeline of his tweets wrong) 184.190.139.244 (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer diagnosis

[edit]

I saw the recent edit, and Breitbart and The Daily Mail are both covering it. We can't use either source, so I guess it's a waiting game for an actual RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press is reporting Scott Adams has aggressive prostate Cancer and it is being picked up by Canadian news outlets. 2001:1970:4F67:B800:A8AB:BC70:5005:9B10 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now on CNN as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Adams&oldid=1291449442"