Talk:Adam Carolla/Archive 1

message: Why does the author of this article imply "semi-college" as a synonym for junior college. I also go to a 2-yr. school and I find that offensive. -Amit
Your right, it's not semi-college.  More like Senior High School.  Just admit you're a falure and get a job.
"Junior College is high school with ashtrays", as Adam Carolla once brilliantly stated. Now stop whining and go play some hacky-sack in the student lounge. --Lovelinelistener 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior college 

message: Adam Carolla is not Hungarian!
Regarding, Carolla's heritage and genealogy: if he serves no other purpose on earth, certainly not for comedic reasons will society recognize Adam Carolla.  Instead, he lives only to validate the theory of evolution.  He is a testament to the idea that we evolved from apes that derive pleasure from playing with their genitals and making loud noises with their bodies.  Adam Carolla is our closest link to primates, which is why we had to make him available to the greater public by giving him his own show – to validate the theory evolution over intelligent design.
:I like your theory.  Publish it somewhere, and we can include it in the article!   Wasted Time R 12:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's not Hungarian! 

message: Remember, not everybody reading this listens to Loveline. How are they to know who Engineer Chris is, and what would one make of the fact that he is also "known as the Vicar of Christ"? Xen0phile 09:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  esoteric references 

message: Adam's IMDB mini-biography says "[h]is mom was a sex therapist and his dad was a psychologist". While he did apparently have blue-collar jobs, if IMDB is correct I think it is misleading to say he came from blue collar roots.
:Be Bold --TheMidnighters 11:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue-collar roots? 

message: How can all of his cars be listed without a citation? I could add in a Ford Pinto to that laundry list of cars and no one could prove it wrong. Get a citation or take it off! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.157.114 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cars 

message: Did he really say he was leaving?  If I recall correctly he only announced his being approached for the job of a morning show
--Selfexiled 13:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He has announced officially on Tuesday of this week that he is leaving; tonight is his last night on the air as co-host of Loveline.  He said he will be starting the morning show gig right after 1 Jan '06. --Melissa Della 06:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving Loveline? 

message: Why is the Adam Carolla Project (Show on TLC) not mentioned anywhere in this article? And was that show canceled? It just dissapeared.--Giamgiam 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the season finished and was not picked up for a new one. Feel free to add a section about it if you wish. Rockpocket (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Carolla Project? 

message: While one of the best parts about Carolla is his lack of polarizing political rants, do his beliefs deserve a mention in here. He certainly dislikes the religious right, he shows the most contempt for left wing groups such as the ACLU. Some fans have called him a right wing libertarian or a "South Park" Republican. I probably agree with these statements. To summarize my ramblings, do you think that a sentence or two about Adam's politics is necessary? It certainly fleshes him out more, but may alienate some fans. Thoughts? Pumpkin Pi 02:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Beliefs 

message: I added a lot of fact citations. I know these things about Adam are true because I've heard him talk about it on the show, but specific shows/facts need to be cited for inclusion on Wikipedia (see WP:V). --Liface 21:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you for the citation. --Liface 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact citations 

message: Okay, I'm tired of seeing his middle name reverted so let's have this debate now. --Liface 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_Carolla#Adam_.22Lakers.22_Carolla -- Craigtalbert 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: For some reason, this article stated Adam suffers from Crohn's Disease.  On 4/9/07 on his show, he mentioned that he read this about himself on the Internet, and noted that he specifically does not have the disease.  In fact, he claims his stomach is "iron clad".  Noted here so that the article edit is not reverted. 70.176.242.236 14:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crohn's Disease 

message: I mean, people put it on youtube for some reason. But it really wasn't that fascinating or controversial or prolific. I know there are some people who REALLY love em some anti-lawyer red meat, but they're a niche.
I hate when I work on a big wiki edit an one douche decides to delete your work. I'm not going to do that, but do any other people agree with me that the Gloria Alred thing doesn't deserve its own section or to be called an "incident" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephen's black friend (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How was the Gloria Allred thing an "Incident" ? It was just a heated debate, I don't get what's so important about it 

message: I've reorged the outline of several sections (Radio, Controversy), after adding/modifying several assertions/incidents discussed within those sections.
However, I discovered that explanations of Adam's comedic style doesn't have its own section, and ends up being discussed in those existing sections, in a kind of tangential way.
I think his comedic style is important for inclusion, as it supports a lot of the 'incidents' that are reported. I think it's especially important, as Carolla uses irony and black comedy much of the time, and that doesn't translate well into print. "Ironic" statements can read quite differently when the reader doesn't know that the context is one of irony, and a lot of Carolla quotes fall into that hole. Carolla's "negative" statements are usually good natured, or at least well-intentioned, and I think this is A) important biographically, and B) necessary when quoting him to avoid attributions which are not negative, yet appear to be because printed quotes tend towards being taken literally.
I propose a section on "comedic style", moving the assertions about his self-effacing humor, black humor, etc. from the other sections -- where they merely support those sections -- to its own section towards the top of the article, so that a lay-reader will understand the context for quotes which appear later in the article.
Input welcome.
--
ManfrenjenStJohn 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want something done right, do it yourself! -- ManfrenjenStJohn 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think article would benefit from "Comedic style" section 

message: The written content of this article is growing nicely, and I like the outline that is forming. However, visually, it needs some pizazz, in the form of pictures.
I'm not very good at finding usable pictures or making screen caps. May I suggest that ppl who know how to do this perhaps provide some? Suggested locations/pictures would be: Man Show screencaps, Crank Yankers screencaps, and promotional pics for other works/events.
--
ManfrenjenStJohn 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Req. for Pictures 

message: Okay, the section has been formatted and fleshed out. It does show-don't-tell some of Carolla's humor, which this article definitely benefits from. But the subject of the apocryphal allegation and its subsequent dismissal is -- by itself not desirable under WP:RELEVANCE.
The article needs examples of Adam's humor, but for some reason I feel this section can just be deleted.
--
ManfrenjenStJohn 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crohn's disease section: Remove? [[WP:RELEVANCE]] 

message: I was realy upset and I did not understand why this was removed. So I added back. For the Adam had a 3 min Cameo in the film and also the film came out on DVD in July of this year. This is part of this film work. IN NO WAY was this Spam. CamdawgUGA 03:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam's Cameo in the film Abby Singer 

message: really? -Obrez  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Someone placed him in the category "critics of Scientology." I've heard Adam criticize Scientology before, but maybe only 1/100th as much as red turn arrows. If this article was in every category of everything Adam complained about... Well, you do the math.  Anyway, I removed it and some other irrelevant categories, and I'm going to remove the template from the talk page. -- 67.161.150.171 08:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Scientology 

message: The Asian Controversy segment should be removed. It is also apart of the TACS page, where it belongs. Adam did not read the ching chong statement, and probably didn't write it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: or any other Controversy segment. they belong in the article of the show ie Loveline or TACS, although its wikipedia importance is disputed since Coulter controversy has been removed from ACS article. after all it seems to be a funny segment rather than controversy. for all of these 'controversies' there is no major news sources --Obrez (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian Controversy 

message: I was realy upset and I did not understand why this was removed. So I added back. For that Adam had a 3 min Cameo in the film and also the film came out on DVD in July of this year. This is part of this film work. IN NO WAY was this Spam. CamdawgUGA 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam's cameo in the film Abby Singer 

message: The quality of this article is mediocre at best. Would any kind folks out there please clean this mess up? 69.143.99.118 (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT -- Scarpy (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Quality 

message: We had this discussion in 2006, unless there's new evidence that a driver license overrides other legal documents in California (Rocketpocket made a very convincing argument that it doesn't) then this is a clear violation of WP:BLP. You'll notice, if you click on Craigtalbert, I'm on the opposite side of the debate now. Wikipedia should be presenting accurate information. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam "Lakers" Carolla (again) 

message: This needs to be moved out of his personal article and to their respective radio show articles. Additionally, what was so controversial about the Anne Coutler call? A notable incident maybe, but hardly what I would describe as "controversial."Growler998 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: This section belongs in the Adam Carolla Show article not in his personal article along with the Hawiian section (to the Loveline article). Additionally, there was nothing controversial about it so it needs to be integrated in the body of the Adam Carolla show article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growler998 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as it seems like you're new found interest in Adam Carolla, and removing information from his wikipedia article, is an attempt to make WP:POINT after I removed your contributions to this article that were related to his show from it; you're right, the Coulter stuff should be in the Adam Carolla Show article. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne Coutler 

message: Adam discussed these earnings numbers again on the Adam Carolla Radio Show Oct 7, 2008, the dates covered were 1981 - 1999.
199.248.230.5 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam reads these earnings on-air occasionally. I can find an exact date if neccessary. Tedder (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two references for the earnings. If the objection is notability, I completely disagree- it is entirely notable. Tedder (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. This is totally notable, and it's an important part of his rags-to-riches persona.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.21.227 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earnings 

message: Look at the talk page there, I venture to suggest he meets the criteria. 4.255.53.2 (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ego-dystonic sexual orientation]] 

message: I Noticed that Loveline the TV show was not included as a TV experience for Mr. Carolla. Is there a reason for this? Smkohnstamm (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loveline the TV Show 

message: WIKIQUOTE had a great and hilarious Adam Carolla quotes page for years.  Suddenly the entire page is gone, with no forwarding link or explanation?  What happened?  And the link is still at bottom of this wiki bio page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.141.246 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Wikiquote delete logs and didn't see a Carolla listing.  Are you sure the original link was always active?Mosedschurte (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: That sucks.  When was the last time you saw the page existing?  Maybe we can check the deletion logs specifically.  Is there a copy somewhere else?  Did you save a copy?Mosedschurte (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire WIKIQUOTE article deleted? 

message: Somebody changed the line "Carolla, though brought up Christian, is an atheist." to "Carolla, though brought up Christian, is a racist."  Looks like some immature vandals are around, I guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leathlaobhair (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Article states: "On The Adam Carolla Show, Carolla said he was offered a football scholarship to Marshall University, but he was not interested in college."
On Loveline, Adam has stated that he was playing junior college football with the intention of accepting a promised scholarship to UC-Davis once he got his grades up, but he couldn't overcome the persistent effects of his earlier back and leg injuries that were also discussed on the show multiple times. He also freely admits to being a poor student, but that's not why he missed out on college football.
He could have received scholarship offers from more than one school so both UC-Davis and Marshall could be correct, but the reason he was unable to accept the offers is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockinRobbin (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam's college attendance 

message: "As an environmentalist, Carolla is adamant about water conservation, often urinating in the sink to save from flushing."
Very funny, but I think this needs a citation.
72.82.165.208 (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's not a left on red.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He talks about it frequently, but not for the reason given. In fact, he hardly ever gives a reason. Still needs a cite. tedder (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pee in the Sink 

message: Under the podcast episode list I think that it would be helpful to link to an active archive of the episodes. I'm not sure how someone would go about this but I know that http://archive.org has some along with http://pod-archive.andreaslabs.com/Adam-Carolla-Podcast-Archive/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlere (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:EL, there's a pretty big copyright issue there. tedder (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:RS. On the other hand, if he mentions it on air (loveline or ACS), it can be used as a primary source. I should just ask Giovanni, he has encyclopedic knowledge of everything Aceman! tedder (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACP Archive Links 

message: Adam was not born in Philadelphia, this is wrong and needs to be changed. How do you want me to verify for you, shoot you an email from the adamcarolla.com domain with the details? And yes, IMDB is also incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.186.152 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source would be best (even Adam saying on his podcast "I was born in X hospital", but feel free to email with details. I know there are complications with Philadelphia versus the valley. tedder (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  INCORRECT BIRTHPLACE 

message: The link formerly  22 did not go to where he discussed bandwith costs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.28.44 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a link, it's a citation, and it's correct. tedder (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted incorect link 

message: His comments about same-sex parenting were not a controversy. A couple GLBT blogs picked up on what he said and reprinted his quotes. No mainstream media outlets reported on it. That hardly qualifies as controversial. Accordingly, I've deleted the paragraph in the Controversy section that mentions it. If someone takes issue with this, please produce an article from a mainstream media source or a non-GLBT blog.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrathOfRomey (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a bit of hair-splitting.  Given the overall tone of the Adam Carolla wikipedia page, where excessive detail is provided about relatively minor aspects of Carolla's career (i.e. elaborate accounts of the misadventures of his youth and in-depth descriptions of failed sitcom pilots that have never even been seen by the public), it seems a little odd to decide that this particular issue doesn't meet some lofty standard of "newsworthiness," and thus deserves to be deleted.  Carolla's marks elicited controversy in some circles; that fact alone would seem to be enough to merit the inclusion of this incident in an already extensively detailed wikipedia entry.  If you would like to propose radically cutting much of the material contained in this wikipedia entry on the grounds that it is not sufficiently "newsworthy," then I'm sure that you could mount a convincing argument, but I don't understand the focus on this one issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaWade (talk • contribs) 01:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, the determination on encyclopedic content is meeting WP:BURDEN by having reliable sources. A gossip site is questionable, as is a internet petition site. Comparing it to other articles or other parts of the same article is WP:WAX; this shouldn't be a tit-for-tat discussion. tedder (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the only sources declaring this a 'controversy' are gossip sites and Internet petitions. I also have a feeling that this particular entry was inserted into Carolla's page by individuals who were trying to make these comments controversial, because they weren't stirring up much controversy outside of secluded Internet circles. I have re-deleted this entry in the 'Controversy' section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrathOfRomey (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, tit-for-tat approaches are not following Wikipedia's pillar of civility. Please stop and think about this. Also, the burden on uncontroversial information is much different than controversial information on a BLP. tedder (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Though, despite any outward appearances to the contrary, I can assure you that my suggestion that perhaps this page is rife with unsourced, questionable material that merits deletion doesn't come out of what you refer to as a "tit-for-tat approach," but rather from a sober meditation on what kind of information does or does not deserve to be included here.  I legitimately believe that there is a lot of material on this page that either needs to be sufficiently sourced, or else excised.  See my "Unsourced material" entry below. VirginiaWade (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fought off so many urges to write a response that wasn't discussion-board appropriate. I read through the disputed entries that you've flagged. All of it is source-able, but it's going to require listening to a lot of old Loveline episodes and Carolla radio programs. I don't think I am the man for the job. Someone needs to send up the Bat Signal for Giovanni.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrathOfRomey (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've signaled Gio several times to find primary sources in the past. Most of the information is pretty easy to dredge up. tedder (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same-sex parenting "controversy" 

message: Can anyone provide legitimate citations for the largely unsourced sections of the "Early life," "Early comedy career," and "Loveline" sections of this article, as well as the entirety of the "Non-Fiction Writing" section?  If not, these probably need to be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaWade (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: Should the "The Car Show" links really link in the main portion really link to "The Car Show" external site?
170.232.128.10 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Anon, 17 Aug 2011 

message: Under the Controversies section, there are two remarks made by Carolla that created controversy. According to the citations, they were both made on his show as part of a comedic act. I tried to add this qualification, but it was removed with the claim that it is subjective information.
Should this qualification be added, or should it be suppressed? Niluop (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessary; both controversies state they occurred on his show, which is sufficient to imply that they may or may not be "sincere".  The problem, though, is that there's no way for us to determine which claims Carolla makes on his show are "comedic" and which are "serious" and which (like most) are a mix of the two. Note specifically in the second section how it includes a quote from Carolla stating that the comments were made on the show with the intention of being provocative and funny, thus implying a complex mix of genre.  In any event, the statements can be controversial, even if they were made in jest--think, for instance, of the comedy acts of Andrew Dice Clay and George Carlin.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. One was on Loveline, and the other on the Podcast. You make a good point about his intentions being unknown, and the mixture of elements in his routine. Niluop (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Items 

message: I'm not a major contributor here or anything, so I figure it's only appropriate to let everyone know when I change something.  Adam's politics were stated as being "Libertarian".  I changed it to "libertarian" (as a libertarian, there's definitely a difference).  Let me know if there's an issue with that, or if I wasted everyone's time by posting the change on the Discussion page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.104.228.149 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Libertarian, libertarian 

message: I've reverted the addition of an opinion on the Occupy Movement to the controversy section per weight.  The other issues in the controversy include widespread condemnation leading to a public appology.  At this time I'm not seing anything other than an opinion given by someone whose job is to give opinions.  Just because not everyone agrees with him doesn't make it an encyclopedic level controversy.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's "controversy", but it's getting enough news coverage that it is worth mentioning in his biography. There's talk of politics in the "personal life" section, perhaps it should be rewritten and go there. tedder (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing a bunch of copycat articles that say "he said this", but nothing else.  Personally I think it still falls under WP:NOTNEWS but perhaps there's an argument that could be made for the other side.  If it were worth covering I'd suggest that it would belong in The Adam Carolla Show (podcast).--Cube lurker (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTNEWS, but that's for a standalone article generally. My feeling is it's deserving of a sentence here because it's his political stance (or claimed political stance), perhaps a few sentences on the podcast article about how it caused coverage. (note "causing coverage" is different than "causing controversy"). tedder (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On Notnews, you are correct, I was thinking more of the spirit rather than the actual policy.  As to the other, let me put it this way.  I personally wouldn't add it, but if you added it as a segment that 'caused coverage' I wouldn't argue.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OWS "Controversy" 

message: I've recently removed a statement regarding Adam's mother which was way too loosely sourced (the "reference" consisted of the name of Adam's radio show and a date). This statement definitely does not meet WP:BLP standards. My change was subsequently reverted by another editor. At the risk of getting into an edit war, I reverted that editor's reversion. If someone can provide a reliable source for this information, please do so. Barring that, material of this nature cannot be included on WP. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly sourced defamatory statement regarding Adam's mother 

message: He is also a serious automobile collector with over 20 cars including several Lamborghinis, (one of which he has loaned to the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles) at least one Ferrari and Aston Martin and several vintage race cars. The article used to mention the early model Lamborghini he owns -- I'm replacing that in the article. Also, what happened to the mention of the BMW M3 he had tricked out to over 500 horsepower, and as he was driving it home he got pulled over but the cop let him go (a further explanation was also given)? And yes, this IS relevant to the article. --24.20.167.224 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected which Lambo model was loaned to the Petersen (it was a Miura per the NYT article) and I've expanded the description of the collection. I have not removed any information about his M3, so I'm not sure when that information was removed. If you have a reliable source for the information you describe, feel free to add it back. — DeeJayK (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The M3 would be the "tow truck" car, but it would need citing. It doesn't need to be ultra-"reliable", a reference to date and time of a show would suffice for these details. tedder (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  His cars? 

message: WP:UNDUE wins.   BLPs are not catalogs about a person, containing details of every event in their lives and everything they have ever said  - they give proper weight to specific issues - in the case at hand, that level had been greatly exceeded.  Collect (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The version you imposed turned sourced information about three separate incidents into a single sentence about one incident, which was so arbitrarily shortened it wasn't even clear (referring to KPOI without so much as a wikilink to explain that's a Hawaiian radio station). Each of these incidents is well-documented and I don't see how including any of them is a violation of WP:UNDUE, nor how a controversy section that takes up about 10%, or less, of the article (by any measure I see) is giving undue weight to that section. I'm sure we can agree that WP:UNDUE is not intended to be a license for any editor to remove anything they like from any BLP article, so perhaps we can discuss further, and more specifically, why you feel that the policy calls for further removals in this case. In theory I'm okay with reducing the section, and I tried to do so, but in order to present the situation with a WP:NPOV, it seems to me the article must mention what Carolla did, what the response was, and any subsequent apology or defense from Carolla, and it was hard for me to see what else could be cut without skewing the presentation one way or the other. (Incidentally, I'll go ahead and mention that I listen to Carolla all the time and I think he's one of the funniest people alive. I can't speak for anyone else, but my opinion that coverage of these controversies is fair is not influenced by bias against him.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Sourced content" v. "UNDUE" 

message: What, if any ,content should be added regarding the show that wasn't picked up The Birchums? Here is a reliable source article regarding its development from TV Guide, and in a recent podcast the subject of this article spoke extensively about it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Birchums 

message: In June 2012, Carolla became the target of charges of sexism and antisemitism due to his remarks during an interview published in the New York Post:[69]
    The lesson you learned from a sexual harassment seminar was “Don’t hire chicks.” Do you hate working with women?
    No. But they make you hire a certain number of chicks, and they’re always the least funny on the writing staff. The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks. If my daughter has a mediocre sense of humor, I’m just gonna tell her, “Be a staff writer for a sitcom. Because they’ll have to hire you, they can’t really fire you, and you don’t have to produce that much. It’ll be awesome.
    The “are women funny” debate has grown very contentious. You’re not worried about reactions to this?
    I don’t care. When you’re picking a basketball team, you’ll take the brother over the guy with the yarmulke. Why? Because you’re playing the odds. When it comes to comedy, of course there’s Sarah Silverman, Tina Fey, Kathy Griffin — super-funny chicks. But if you’re playing the odds? No. If Joy Behar or Sherri Shepherd was a dude, they’d be off TV. They’re not funny enough for dudes. What if Roseanne Barr was a dude? Think we’d know who she was? Honestly. Sexism and antisemitism?!?
I can see the sexism part and I condemn him for that... But the Antisemitism!?! There is no Anti-Semitism at all!!! STOP TRYING TO CREATE AND CAUSE TROUBLE!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.121.133 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexism and ANTISEMITISM!?!

message: I'm not sure why "(sic)" is used in the quotation in the discussion of Carolla's book President Me. Was someone aching to make Carolla look stupid? I think that "is" is the correct conjugation of the verb "to be" given that "a lot" is singular. No? Even if not, is it standard practice to insert "(sic)" in quotations of casual speech...from comedians?
Anyway, just thought this looked weird and axe-to-grind-ish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.151.143 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct use of "sic"? 

message: Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert. 
(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette 
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher 
There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It implies something that is not true
:Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous. 
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
:Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.
It goes against consensus
:This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
:More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
:On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count. 
It is unsourced
:If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
:In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
:Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."
In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.
:When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
:In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief. 
In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes. 

message: There should be a section for 'businesses' or entrepreneur these are spread around or not included (in the case of carolla digital)
to include:
-Carolla is a part owner of Amalfi, an Italian restaurant in Los Angeles.[83]
-Mangria, esquire gave it a good review 
http://www.esquire.com/food-drink/drinks/a17377/should-i-be-drinking-this-adam-carolla-mangria-14849659/    and its now available in several flavors, and a growing number of states
-Adam Carolla Digital - features sevaral podcasts by adam (ace on the house with ray, car cast, adam and drew) as well as hosting podcasts by Penn (Penns sunday school) This week (larry miller) Dennis Miller etc. Previously carried shows were Alison Rosen IYNBF and "//" which was hosted by Adams father but was cancled, by Adam....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 05:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Business Entrepreneur!?!

message: The same way Drew Careys page has all his movie and TV appearances there should be one for Adam, there is enough going on that it should be charted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Carey  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography

message: Does anyone have a newer picture of the guy?  That one is 8 years old...seems like there should be one someone has that can be uploaded.  Victorygin1138 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Substituted at 14:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Why is his name (in the lead) listed as Adam Lakers Carolla?  The article goes on to explain that he made that name up as a joke, when he filled out his driving license paperwork.  So, that childish prank does not make "Lakers" his real name.  Why is it listed as such?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Adam Carolla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111009023734/http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2010/04/19/adam-with-cheech-and-chong/ to http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2010/04/19/adam-with-cheech-and-chong/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Adam Carolla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121111071720/http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk259q_the-tonight-show-with-jay-leno-adam-carolla-part-2_news to http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk259q_the-tonight-show-with-jay-leno-adam-carolla-part-2_news
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113061854/http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/21/3577969/adam-carolla-writing-book-president.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/21/3577969/adam-carolla-writing-book-president.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae_WP:HOUNDING  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed here with a WP:BOOMERANG against User:The Kingfisher. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Adam Carolla. 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66Bt6WcA4?url=https://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/02/16/adam-with-mark-burnett-rick-fox-finesse-mitchell/ to http://adamradio.wordpress.com/2006/02/16/adam-with-mark-burnett-rick-fox-finesse-mitchell/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217232511/http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/newspeakerbio/2358/index.php to http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/newspeakerbio/2358/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603075655/http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cbs-radio-amp-2311999-jack-format to http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cbs-radio-amp-2311999-jack-format
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615170344/http://laist.com/2010/06/11/adam_carolla_talks_about_talking.php to http://laist.com/2010/06/11/adam_carolla_talks_about_talking.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,285444,00.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66BfptkeN?url=http://www.themediaproject.com/shine/2000.htm to http://www.themediaproject.com/shine/2000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified