Talk:Dilbert

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"calling Black Americans a 'hate group'"

Of sources in the article, CNN says "calling Black Americans a "'hate group'" , Houston Chronicle says "'Scott Adams called Black Americans a 'hate group'", etc. There has been a attempt to reimagine this in the the lead as "called [the 26% of poll respondents who were] Black Americans that disagreed with 'It's okay to be white' a "hate group." This is not supported by sources and looks like an attempt to try to introduce editor(s) personal point of view to defend racist hate speech. The body of this article has this correct -- "Adams said ... African-American people collectively form a 'hate group'." There is no good reason for us to write a lead section that contradicts the body of the article and contradicts the reliable sources. 13:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC) EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

See below. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's okay to be white

An editor has recently decided to delete reference to this slogan, despite both cited sources explaining the slogan - and it being the entire point of the first source. That action also deletes the hyperlink to the associated article. In my opinion, it needs to stay, per the sources, to give important context to Scott’s comments, and help the reader understand the poll in question appeared to reference a White supremacy slogan. (Scott himself has said he wasn’t aware of the reference.) As this phrase and link have been in place for years before the author’s recent delete, and in an effort to avoid an edit war, I’d like others to weigh in here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The article currently says "The poll found that 53% of African-Americans agree with the statement 'It's okay to be White', while 26% disagreed, and 21% responded they were not sure.'" So, it is incorrect to say that this slogan is not in the article, or that this slogan is not hyperlinked. I removed it from the lead, where it was used to incorrectly claim that Scott Adams was only made comments about 26% of poll respondents. This is incorrect, contradicts reliable sources, creates a lead section that contradicts the body of the article, and only serves as a convoluted attempt to defend racist hate speech. EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying here. We’ll see what other editors say. If they agree with you, the deletion can stand. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I ALREADY POSTED THIS ABOVE, so you can stop with "You haven’t engaged in Talk" bullshit. EdgierEdgar (talk) EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to seriously calm down. Assuming bad faith and swearing is not a good look for any editor. I didn’t see it on my mobile device, and I apologize for that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I am completely calm, just typing in all caps with profanity because you can't seem to read my comments otherwise. I am glad to see that my profanity and use of all caps finally helped you find my comments that I made before you typed up your bullshit saying I "haven’t engaged in Talk." EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

See above. EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I am tempted to bring your behavior to ANI for needed correction, for your own sake, but won't at this time. The correct response when a fellow editor admits that they made a mistake and apologizes is to accept it and move on, not attack them and swear again. (Keep in mind, too, that your post to Talk was a mere 10 minutes before I started a section here...when I reviewed Talk 15 minutes prior to see if you had posted anything, and you hadn't, I didn't think to check again.) I also see that you've made further edits to the article on this despite no consensus on Talk and not discussing them here. I'll leave those alone for now pending others' weigh-in. If no other editors do weigh in, I'll go to WP:3O on it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you want to talk about in relation to these edits. Do you think the article that says this is incorrect? Do you not think this is "important context"? EdgierEdgar (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing. I personally see no issue with the latest edits. But as they fall under the purview of this discussion, other editors may weigh in. FYI hopefully you saw the ping at User talk:Doug Weller. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks, since you "see no issue with the latest edits," then it would appear they are uncontroversial, and we have consensus. EdgierEdgar (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep! Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Still running?

The article's information box says shows attribute "Current status/schedule" has value "Running". Is this correct? ~2026-41400-93 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

i dont know. i dont see any evidence that new strips are being produced. Calvin & Hobbes is still accessible online and posts a strip every day, but of course the strip concluded thirty years ago and none of the content is new. since we call Calvin & Hobbes Concluded, perhaps we should for this strip as well. but im not a subscriber. —Soap— 01:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Elbonia

i remember Elbonia being called a tropical nation, i think on a Dilbert TV series. I wonder if it's extra-canonical since it cannot easily be both in Europe and in the tropics ... unless the continuity of the cartoon is inconsistent on purpose, which is common in some cartoons, and if that's so I think we should mention both locations or neither. —Soap— 23:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

i definitely should qualify myself here by saying that my memory could be mistaken, and that since it's TV I have no way of tracking it down. —Soap— 23:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)