Talk:The Adam Carolla Show (radio program)/Archive 1

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

Recent Changes

Can someone add something on his page about teryy, the terdactal, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.230.12 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to add some characters to this page, since most of the games they now play on the show weren't represented. Any comments on my changes? SGreenwell 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas. I tweaked some of what you wrote, only for original research concerns. I hesitated previously to mention Gardner as Deaf Frat Guy, given that it's not been discussed by a verifiable source (ie, newspaper, etc) - it may still need to be tweaked somewhat.
I removed the Trivia Challenge, only because I believe they're done with it. When Mo won on 5/26, she said she was retiring, and they didn't play it this past Friday. (She implied that she was somewhat embarrassed by her detailed knowledge about the show - and it got weird when she knew that Teresa graduated from NYU, even though Teresa claimed she'd never mentioned it on the show.)
I'm still kinda torn as to whether to add Richard Martin, Republican from Ohio as a recurring character. He's on the show semi-often, but I don't think he's a Carolla show exclusive bit. (He's performed by Paul Gilmartin from TBS's Dinner & a Movie.) -- ChrisB 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions, I don't have a problem with any of them. It slipped my mind that Mo said the most recent trivia would be her last go at it. You could probably mention Martin, because he comes around as much as the Tree Mascot does, and that actor does that role on SNL too. I'd like to add more citations for some of the statements (being a journalist and all) but I didn't go through the radio show blog while doing this. If I have some time, I'll try to look up DFG's first appearance, for example.
Also, Ass-Kiss Rodeo should probably be added to the games section, provided they play it again soon. SGreenwell 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ass-Kiss Rodeo hasn't been done in a long time. :( Nor has the Richard Martin thing, or 1780s Guy. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest Update

Okay, I used Google and the radio show blog to look up dates for the first appearances of the major characters and games. I also separated them into characters (i.e. people that Adam and the crew just talk to) versus bits (the movie reviews, Jerk Report). Finally, I added in the part about Kimmel guest hosting for a few days. Anyone object to any of the changes? The journalist in me attempted to attribute as much of the information as I could. Any suggestions for future addictions / clarifications? SGreenwell 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Does anyone have an update on the ratings the shows been getting? The last paragraph in the intro has been on this page since the end of january (1 month into the show), so I think it's out of date.--128.253.10.81 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that the ratings are still low from various sources, to the point where there are rumors that this "vacation" might become permanent. I'll try to find a good source for it and add it, though. SGreenwell 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Theme Song Talk

Sorry Stephen's Black Friend, I didn't mean to slight your information; I acknowledge that sometimes I don't edit as tightly as I should because I'm in a rush, just checking pages for vandalism. I agree with ChrisB - The main reason I deleted the information about the show's opening song was because it was after the info about Rachel. Not much order to that. In a trivia section, it's fine, although I'm not sure if it's noteworthy - I've listening to almost every show, and they've only mentioned it once or twice. I didn't think there was a great clamoring as to the identity of the song, although I am close to Boston so everyone knows that song anyway.

As for the other part of your edit, which was about Stern, I edited it out because it seems like speculation. Unless Howard has said otherwise, we can't assume that he doesn't have a strong relationship with Opie and Anthony, or David Lee Roth, or some other DJ that replaced him. If Stern did say on air that he was closer to Adam than the others, then I agree that it should be in the article, but quoted and with a link supporting the quote. SGreenwell 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT REVERT

The Adam Carolla Show webmasters are editing this page. If you see something deleted please DO NOT revert back to a previous copy.

It's fine if you want to edit the page, but please be familiar with Wikipedia's rules and regulations. For example, Amanda's assistant Lindsay probably isn't worth a mention, as Adam will normally only mention her in passing, and I don't think she's had much airtime at all. If she's part of the show's cast, then why isn't Dave's mom or cousin Brandon? I don't really think she's noteworthy in an encyclopedia entry.
Also, the Billy Moses section must stay, at least in my opinion. It would be nice to get some sort of consensus on the issue, but significant segments were devoted to him in the show's early days, some of which were very funny. Such as Kimmel talking his mom into finding his porn stash, his lie detector test and when he told Jack Silver to F-off.
Finally, please sign your comments on the talk page by adding four tildes at the end of your text. SGreenwell 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to throw in two more cents - I think the Moses section should stay. The paragraph is not particularly flattering for Moses, so it's not like it's there to make his involvement notable. Those events did happen, and his drops are still being used. (The recent revert also took out the rest of the "former bits" section, including the now-defunct "Tuesday Morning Football" game.) Six months from now, if it seems like they're no longer referencing Moses, then it might be worth removing.
As for the other recent edits: the added (now removed) "Show Staff" section was completely redundant, given that there's already a paragraph listing everybody, and the included "known for" statements clearly fell in the line of original research (at the very least, non-encyclopedic).
As for the existing list - Lindsay should not be listed, given that she rarely makes appearances, and is usually referenced because she works for Adam (ie, not specifically for the show). I'd personally prefer that the list focus on those who make on-air contributions, and not the support staff (ie, Chambers, Sullivan, Baugher, and Cioffi). Shows like Letterman and Kimmel have extensive support staff (writers, etc), yet their articles do not (and, I believe, should not) include that information.
As for the persistently deleted assertion of Josh Gardner as Deaf Frat Guy - Josh is making public appearances as Deaf Frat Guy, and there are Deaf Frat Guy links on Gardner's IMDB profile. I understand that the show might be reticent to have DFG revealed as a character, given the dicey implications of an actor impersonating a deaf person, but I think it's certainly notable and citeable. By comparison, Yurgi is more than likely also portrayed by Gardner, but there's no appropriate source for that information. (Carolla slipped up prior to an early Yurgi appearance and mentioned that Deaf Frat Guy was coming up, even though DFG was not on the schedule that day.) -- ChrisB 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Kobayashi

I'm pretty certain that Kobayashi is comedian Jo Koy; Adam has specifically thanked him at the end of the show for helping out with the voice a few times. The problem is, I'm not sure how to cite it. I have copies of the show and could trace when Adam said that, but there's not an online link proving it, like with the ACS blog. SGreenwell 04:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable and POV sources

I have deleted all unreliable blog sources, per WP:RS, and it was reverted back. Reading this article, it is clearly that this article has a very strong POV bias from the show perspective. Thus it does not conform with WP:NPOV. Almost all article appears to be list of the contents from the commercial show. It has a strong tendency of an advertisement, rather than an encyclopaedic item, per WP:VANITY. Please remember that Wikipedia is not an advertising. Please resolve this issue, provide 3rd party sources, remove all blog sources and reduce all ads-like content to minimum, before the template that I've put is going to be removed. — Indon (reply) — 08:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why you're so bullish on removing large portions of the article. Yes, a lot of the citations are from the show's official blog; where else should we provide cites for the first occurance of most of the recurring bits? Leaving them unsourced seems to be a greater issue. I don't consider the vast majority of the article to be in vanity; these are all bits regularly played by the cast. Obviously, because of the nature of this medium, most of these bits aren't going to be covered everyday by independent media sources. The majority of what's in the article is not controversial - For the bits, there isn't a controversy about what the show is doing.
If you have specific blog citations you do not like, or would like to see additional sources for other information, please bring up specific cases. Making a massive edit on EVERY blog source seems a bit too much, since WP:RS makes a provision for "self-published sources in articles about themselves." In my opinion, the show is responsible for the blog, and falls under the four provisions of this rule.
However, again, if possible I'd prefer for us to go fact by fact to what you object to using for a citation. It's possible we could find cites for some of these, or reach some sort of compromise via the talk page, as opposed to getting into some sort of edit war. SGreenwell 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullish? I'm just following WP guidelines. Blogs can never be used as primary source, as it is unreliable. If it is a self-published source, then according to WP:RS, "these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously." Have the facts been published by credible, 3rd party publications? If not, then your facts are not notable to included here. — Indon (reply) — 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V (duplicated in WP:RS):
-
Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
-
The show blog clearly meets this requirement. It is a source about the subject of the article, which is specifically allowed in the guidelines. The blog is being used to support factual descriptions of the events that took place, not to supply POV opinions about the show. The blog is written by Marc Chambers, a staff member on the show, so there's no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
If you feel that some of the content in the article is POV, please address the content and give editors the opportunity to fix the problem. But, in this case, the issue is clearly not the nature of the supporting source, per WP:V. -- ChrisB 04:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave's firing, or not

I've posted something similar on Dave's page itself: Please stop posting the information on Dave from the message board. By itself, the message board is NOT a credible source. In the past, there has been widespread misinformation on it, and as a general rule of thumb, Internet message boards aren't always the most reliable source.

However, what I think *would* be good information is any sort of circumstantial evidence. For example, if FreeFM pulls Dameshek's profile off of their web page, I think that's a pretty clear sign that we could include in the article. But unless something like that happens, I think we need to wait for a press release from the show, or some sort of announcement by Dave.

I'd love to hear what others have to say on the subject though, given that there's been a couple reverts in the past day or two. SGreenwell 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave has made the announcement himself, on the message board -- is that considered untrustworthy? Sorry if this sounds hostile, I'm legitimately asking. 70.188.244.236 07:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't noticed that he himself had posted in a thread when I originally made my comments. I think that's probably enough proof to include it in the article for now, although we might want to re-write it; the show is acquiring quite the list of former staffers. It might work better as it's own section in the article, with Perry, Bruscha, Dameshek, Tad and Billy Moses. SGreenwell 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay - I've substantially reorganized and edited the page, taking out the references to Dameshek, Bruscha and Tad in the lead, as well as Jarron. Can others add some parts in? I'm listening to the show on a delay, so for example, I don't know who they hired as their new black guy.

As for Dave's firing, we can add more credible and more relevant sources as they occur. I'm sure Adam will discuss is on length at air, so at the absolute worst, we will only have to wait until shortly after January for a much better source. Again, feedback would be appreciated, since I made some significant changes. SGreenwell 13:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for keeping what is now a RUMOR about Dave being fired. I understand that post on the message board is possibly from Dave himself, but we also have known the message boards to be inaccurate. I don't find the information on Adam Carolla's message board to be reputible by any means, no matter who it was posted by. As fans of Adam's show knows, even webmasters have done their best to incite controversy about the show. MikeDawg 16:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Dameshek's confirming the rumor on the board is enough to make it newsworthy for the page. There's more than enough "buzz" around this to confirm it, such as Carolla talking on air about bad ratings for the previous few weeks, and Bonaduce replying to people on MySpace about having an announcement about it soon. I think as it's written now, it can stand; the information is what Dameshek has announced, and Tad, and nothing more, I believe. Once CBS Radio confirms or denies it, we can add / update it. SGreenwell 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

CBS confirms Bonaduce

I'm editing the page right now to reflect their announcement. Thanks to an editor at Dameshek's page for noticing it first! SGreenwell 18:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Recurring Bits

Is the Adam Carolla Show Trivia really a recurring bit? Should this be removed? MikeDawg 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it once, but someone kept re-adding it. Since at the time they were doing it once a month or so, I just kept it on there. Feel free to take it out. SGreenwell 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Lots of Recurring Bits are not recurring anymore. Some were not repeated after first few months, and some were never repeated in 2007 after crew clean up... Seems like that section is the bulk of the article. Obrez 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm going to suggest breaking bulky sections into separate articles. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 05:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ex-Webmaster Billy Moses

Greetings all. I'm sorry, but I must insist that my name be reframed from being posted on the Adam Carolla show article. I feel that the minority of the people that manage this article don't like me, and know they post negative things about me. I will not take part in this, and do not want a bad rep for my name.

If you would like to keep it in don't post negative things.

Hello Billy. I'm afraid you don't get to choose whether you feature in this article or not. However, if you have a concern with "negative things" that are untrue or are uncited, then do let us know here (rather than edit it yourself per WP:COI) and we can discuss it. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this to the bottom so it's easier to keep track of, and in chronological order. I agree with the above comments, though. SGreenwell 01:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have just read the material the Billy is referring to and I concur that it is both critical POV and original analysis. The current version is much better and should remain. Lets remember WP:BLP applies to ALL living individuals mentioned in any article, people. Rockpocket 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who added those parts; I didn't even notice those passages because Billy just removes the entire paragraph. I agree though - The part about the lisp and what not are a bit too much. In current form, it seems OK. He was a pivotal part of the show for a few of the summer months, and they still use his drop from time to time. SGreenwell 02:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank Guys! - Billy

Trivia

removed trivia: a) opening theme is mentioned in the info box, can also be integrated into the article.

b) sing-song melody of "Ad-am Carol-la" from a web cartoon is no longer played.

c) differences in calf muscle size is not a such frequent subject. Obrez 08:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominating some sections to be Spun Off into their own articles

The page is growing nicely -- too nicely; there are several sections which have grown to become the bulkier parts of the article. I nominate the following sections to be spun off into separate articles:

Section: Former Staffers
New Article title: "Former Staffers of The Adam Carolla Show", or "The Adam Carolla Show: Former Staffers"

Reason? Not only does it take up space in the article, the fact that each former member is a section clutters up the ToC. It's distracting to new readers and old readers alike to glance at the ToC and see so many names which are no longer relevant to the show. Not so irrelevant that they should be stricken from the record completely, but they can def. be moved to a separate page, so that the ToC and the article alike have just one single link to the faces of the past.

Sections:
Recurring characters
 Recurring Bits
 Past recurring characters and bits

Reason: Boy, these are getting bulky. I'd start with the PAST bits at the very least. The CURRENT bits section is current and informative, and so i'm partially inclined to keep it here. But its sheer size is starting to tip my opinion towards making it a separate section -- if only for quick readability. It's not a crime that there are a lot of recurring bits that are successful. But the goal of a Wikip page on The A C Show should be quick concise readability for new readers, and should not be dominated by one section that I would consider "optional reading" -- Let's take it out of the main page where it doesn't weigh down the article for the casual reader, and make it only another click away for the more interested reader.

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 05:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and did the heavy lifting on most of the above. What I didn't touch is the "Recurring Bits" section. Here's my suggestion for spin-off criteria:
The Main Article should have a "Recurring Featured Segments" section that contains segments that which appear no less than once per week. Every recurring bit that falls below that criteria should be spun off into a sub-article, perhaps called The Adam Carolla Show: Recurring Segments, with the specification in this article and that one of the criteria I mentioned above. If you guys like, we can even drill down to Daily Segments and so forth, but I doubt this'll be necessary. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Adam carolla radio.jpg

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

-this speedy deletion is ricockulous! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. if policies change, let users fix the page. don't speedy delete it. this goes against productive efforts. the image description page was already tagged once, added details. now its speedy deleted? what about Discussion? what about votes in favor/opposition? Obrez 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Asian community controversy etc

seems like this section needs to be removed:
a) does Asian community consider it as controversy?
b) any media has mention of it, aside from Asian community controversy sites?
c) reference provided is no longer there.
d) it was barely discussed on air.

please voice your reasons for keeping it.


the show in 2008

I propose to list some sources as they become available in here, that shed some light on the future of the show. the fact that official message board got nuked is worthy to add to the article i think. Obrez (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

also the fact that AC called in sick, the last two days and did not show up for the live event is worthy of mention as well. Obrez (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

there you have it. http://www.cbsradio.com/press_center/releases/pressrelease083059-12-21-2007.html adam carolla show is back, danny is canned but got his own show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrez (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So yeah, under the 'Adam's illness' area, why is there no mention of how Danny isn't popular with listeners? And why no mention of the Adam Carolla Show's message board being deleted after hundreds of different people complained that Adam had left Danny in charge to host the show and CLEARLY wasn't sick? i.e. Adam called into Dr Drew's radio show on 12-12-07, sounding just FINE, an hour or two after his own show had ended. HELLO?? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In the section on Bonaduce's departure, it is never stated what relevance Adam's sick leave has to Bonaduce leaving. Either the connection should be explained, or that part should be taken out. C1932 (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

don't see the issue there. its a fact that he called in sick, its a fact that it was a big issue and thus notable for the article. but if you say adam didn't show up in protest to bonaduce, someone will slap [reference needed]. if you have citation to some news source, go ahead and add it. in my personal view, not everything needs a citation or a reference link. some things are common knowledge. --Obrez (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised History Section

I thought that, since this show will now be going on its 3rd year, and with all the changes that have occurred, some kind of brief, more inclusive history ought to be included. If it looks bad, go ahead and revert. How say you all? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco affiliate?

Didn't SF drop the show? :( The article still says its on there, toward the top. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the "Gay Walking" Segment's deletion??

Is something going on that I haven't heard of, maybe some Interest Group or other that is disatisfied with the "Gay Walking" segment??

Why have we removed the segment from the Article, even though the skit is till played regularly??

For that matter, what about the "Nerd Walking" and "Huell Howser" segments, if not more of them??

Could somebody please clue me in??

(The Revisions/History Page isn't very clear about it, either).

looks like someone thought its not wikipedia worthy. Obrez (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

recurring segments

as far as recurring segments i would restore it, since it was established that official show blog can be used as source. maybe even as its own article.
it would be nice to improve the article rather than just deleting stuff -Obrez (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

also before removing recurring segments etc.
check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Show_segments , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketches_on_Letterman etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obrez (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. if you look at the article for a movie and see a Plot section is there a citation or reference after each sentence? is it original research when a group watches a movie and decides to collaborate on a plot section? i encourage everyone to talk things over before removing stuff. -Obrez (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

reverts

your behavior causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress Wikipedia:Civility. your reverts were very invaluable and not beneficial to the article. you did not bother to see what you are reverting or did not care to voice your opinion on a discussion page.
a) there is no need for two banners on the top of the page
b) there is no need for citation of the opening paragraph.
c) there is no need for frequent guest citation (check other articles of similar radio shows)
d) recurring segments are fine for an article (check other daily show pages)
feel free to collaborate on the article, and feel free to revert your revert.
drive-by editors referred to are: Special:Contributions/AbrilloJames and Special:Contributions/WinstonBlues -Obrez (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If other articles are doing it, so can we isn't the Wikipedia way, I've been told. And if the two banners referred to the same problem, they would have been merged. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, please join us and contribute to make this article better, collaboration is always welcome. And i encourage you to be bold and remove similar sections from other articles about daily shows (see above for a few examples), just for the sake of Wikipedia way and overall quality. -Obrez (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure I'm not the one who needs encouragement. - 09:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
i meant you obviously not interested in the subject matter, you were interested in unnecessary revert.

WSJ

i suppose lots of references and good info can be pulled out from Wall Street Journal. somewhat reliable source.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120535527639031299.html?mod=2_1567_leftbox - Obrez (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy:The Asian community

This needs to be removed, and stay removed, unless it can be rewritten using reliable sources. As it is now, it uses one source that looks more or less like a blog, the rest is original research and presents serious WP:BLP issues. If it can be rewritten to address these issues, I wouldn't have a problem with it. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored the same section with a different and addtional sources and even an audio clip. Addtionally, there is no original research present in the article. Original research implies that the paragraph is drawing it's own conclusion without any source when in contrary it merely stated what happened and community reaction it it. And it does not present BLP issues as this is not a biography of a living person and does not otherwise violate any of the BLP criteria. Feel free to discuss.Growler998 (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Information is not notable for wikipedia unless is it cited by reliable sources. No one is questioning that it happened, but it's not notable unless reliable sources can be produced. It presents significant WP:BLP issues as without reliable sources it's slander and libel. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Discuss on talk section before deleting again. Sources are not POV and merely state the groups reaction. Paragraph itself does not draw its own conclusion but merely presents the facts.Growler998 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This quote from Ester Wu is not only POV, but is factually inaccurate. Even though it was aired on his show, Carolla did not put together the skit, that was Dave Dameshek. Apparently Dave also did not preview it with Adam before airing it. I didn't remove the content from this page, I remove it from the Adam Carolla article as it's not related to Adam, it's related to his show. If it's going to be in any article (which is still an open question), it should be either in this on or Dave's. This is why you need reliable sources, and not a quote from someone on a blog shooting off their mouth. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. I'm going to remove it from the Adam Carolla article, if you put it back I'm reporting it as a a BLP violation. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that no where in the paragraph does it state that Adam put together the clip, only states that he aired the clip and the Asian organization's reactions to it so your point is pretty much irrelevant, and yes you did remove the content from this page (in fact twice). Additionally, no blogs were cited so I do not know where you are getting that. But I agree, it should not be on his main page, but on the show's article instead; I won't restore it on his personal article.Growler998 (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The POV quote that you're edit warring to keep does blame it squarely on Adam, "Carolla's childish actions not only demean the work of Asian American actors..." Yes, it definitely implies that it was his doing, which is factually inaccurate. reliable sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and sources with obvious POV (e.g. The Asian American Justice Center, Asian American Journalist Association, etc) should not even be considered as a source for factual information in the article. Work on writing good encyclopedic content rather than making a WP:POINT in the Adam Carolla article [1]. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is his show and he is responsible for all of it content. Additionally, he went along with the skit and actively contributed to it, as evidenced by the sound clip. Finally, Carolla accpeted all responsibility and apologized for it. That saids it all. And the two sources should be included as factual as these two prominent civil groups found offense and this is what the paragraph is about. Again, no where in the paragraph does it state that Adam put together the clip, only states that he aired the clip and the Asian organization's reactions. And no, I was not making a point. I realized that this section did not belong in his personal article and as such I realized other information in his "Controversy Section" did not belong either, which is very clear.Growler998 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how the responsibility is legally shared, but I'm almost certain it's not a legal issue. I can tell you that he often complains about what is censored by the "dump guy" for his show, so he definitely doesn't have final say in any case. This is really more of a "morality" through sponsor arm-twisting issue, and even in this sense not responsible for everything everyone says on his show. It's radio, not the military.
He also did much more than apologize, he invited Guy Aoki on to his show several times to explain the problems he saw with the skit. Adam didn't know that people took as much offense to "ching-chong" as they did. This was very generous on Adam's part, and this picture the paragraph paints is completely inaccurate. Again, this is why we should be sticking to reliable sources, rather than sensationalist press releases from "watchdog" groups.
What I'm 100% sure is most of the paragraph isn't supported with reliable sources, is factually inaccurate, and that doesn't maintain a neutral point of view. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If the above has indeed happened, can you add to the article with sources to back it up. Both the claim that Dave Dameshek put together the clip and Carolla's additional response? Also, I am not arguing a legal responsibility in any sense, only a responsibility in going along with the segment and Carolla actively participating in it. And as the show's host, he obviously could have discontinued at any time if he wanted and ignorance is never a defense, either in legal terms or general terms.Growler998 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Or we just follow wikipedia guidelines as delete the whole thing as it there are not enough reliable sources to justify it's inclusion in the article to begin with. Or, to compromise, we rewrite it using the single reliable source you found (sfgate) and provide a summary of that article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Now you are attempting a WP:POINT. I believe it is good in its current version. It seems more and more you are trying to censor this article and that is POV on your part. Growler998 (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Okay. Well, I'm not. Removing information not supported by a reliable source is usually a good thing. At any rate, I reckon we would both benefit from taking a breather from this discussion. Lets revisit this in a day or two. If we can't come to an understanding or compromise, we can put in a WP:3O. Happy Friday. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to ask the following questions:

1. Did Adam Carolla air a racially charged skit concerning Asian Americans? - Yes
2. Where Asian Americans and their groups offended by it? - Yes
3. Did Adam Carolla apologize for the mentioned skit? - Yes

That's basically the content of the paragraph. As a result, I find the section appropriate and have no qualms about it. I really don't see what the problem is. -- MMAJunkie250 (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
It represents viewpoints not published or vetted by reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between Flat Earth and this. From what I've seen, the Asian American community was offended by it and the references generally provide reference to it. The skit was considered offensive by Asian Americans, are you saying it wasn't? Being in San Franscico, I can tell you that there was uproar in the Asian community at the time concerning this. Keep in mind this section is about the Asian American community's reaction, so it's their viewpoint that is important here. The only minority view I see, is that those individuals (probably not Asian) who don't find the skit offensive at all. -- MMAJunkie250 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

i dont really care anymore in one way or another, but there is nobody in Asian American community that was offended. there is one individual who is hell bent on blowing things out of the proportions - Guy Aoki - and that is it. people that are quoted, most likely, have not even heard of this radio program. there is no record or mention of anyone getting offended but Guy Aoki. arg, this is not even worth time discussing. -- Obrez (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you claim to speak for all Asians? There are two large Asian organizations cited and the paragraph only mentions that they were offended. It looks like you, who is probably not Asian, wants to put your view on it. Growler998 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy Aoki?

Why isn't Guy Aoki mentioned any where in the article? He tried to come after Adam after the whole Asian-American flap. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Adam Carolla Show (radio). 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}}).

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) 03:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Adam Carolla Show (radio). 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) 06:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Adam_Carolla_Show_(radio_program)/Archive_1&oldid=1137226465"