Talk:Scott Adams

stop fighting https://www.tmz.com/2026/01/13/scott-adams-dead/ ~2026-27448-0 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/arts/scott-adams-dead.html is though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Your source just repurposes TMZ ~2026-27448-0 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The rush to, at first, use no source at all for his death, and then, to use sources like TMZ for the death of a BLP, was a nauseating thing to witness. To see an editor of long standing just go, "Trust me, bro" with their edit did not exactly make my morning. Wikipedia is NOT A NEWSPAPER and REQUIRES SOURCING for the DEATHS OF BLP'S. I REFUSE to make any exceptions... PARTICULARLY for editors who should know better! Marcus Markup (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this will shut everyone up. There. No more sources needed. Tweet's been up for multiple hours and his people haven't come out and said it's fake or from a hack. Reliable enough? ~2026-28572-8 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The perfect source, deployed 24 hours after the argument is over. If only you’d arrived on time, this might have been useful instead of just theatrically late. Marcus Markup (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Its very amusing you tell others "they should know better" about rules before insulting someone provoding a source. ~2026-35557-8 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Coming here hoping to, as you put it "shut everyone up" in a convo that has already been mooted, a convo which was in fact dead for a day, by providing information no longer of use to any editor or to the needs of the article, is likely to draw some snark. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Have proposed at talk:God's Debris to merge The Religion War into that page for reasons described there. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I just boldly removed a section that seems to be reliant on non-existent references. It cites to the NYT, the Guardian, and the Atlantic, but I searched and found absolutely no evidence of those articles' existence, which would be surprising if the citations are real. The writing contains many WP:AISIGNS (undue emphasis on broader trends and coverage, very vague wording), and the editor who added it has previously added nonexistent references without being able to account for them. In addition, the one citation that checks out to an actual source doesn't support the text. I'm a little bit concerned that this managed to stay in the article for over a week, but regardless, I'm documenting it here in case any one is wondering why I removed so much text. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 02:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Crestfalling that this is more than likely LLM-generated, I also performed an exhaustive search for the sources and came up empty, and also agree with the Time Magazine source not verifying the text. It was reverted by ValarianB — their reasoning being "white-wash", I'm not going to edit war over this, so I tagged it for further eyes, analysis and opinions.— Isaidnoway (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I've looked into these as well and have not been able to find the existence of the NYT, Guardian, Atlantic, or that Journal of political communication article. To give someone the chance of actually verifying their existence I'm going to wait a couple days, but if there is nothing new I plan on removing the section again as a Verification failure. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The user who added the content has previously added fictious references, admitted to using an LLM, and has had an article deleted under G15 (LLM-generated with no human review).

I also asked them to account for apparently nonexistent citations as soon as I removed the content, and their response has been to reply elsewhere on their talk page and continuing to edit.

I would normally wait a few days, but this is a WP:BLP article, which means that contentious material that is poorly sourced (or, very likely, unsourced) "must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If anyone would like to re-add the material with actual sources, they're free to do so. Courtesy pinging @ValarianB, who may not have seen this discussion. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 17:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Bit late of a clarification, but note that BLP applies to recently deceased persons as well. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 17:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Not to play devil's advocate, but it ought to be easy to find legit sources for propositions that Adams hosted his coffee driven podcast, and drew praise for political takes from those on one side and criticism from those on the other. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, and anyone is welcome to add that content with published reliable sources that verify it. There was mutual agreement though, what was there (AI slop), and the problematic issues that go with it, needed to be removed.— Isaidnoway (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

"and conservative commentator" i feel this is only half true, and should be re-worded for accuracy

while he did espouse conservative policies, he also advocated for many traditionally liberal platform ideas, he has famously said he 'is left of bernie [sanders]' or drug legalization and abortion. TiMike (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)