Talk:Opie and Anthony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

No Sudley[edit]

No mention of Sudley under Jim Nortons characters? The relative of Edgar who has long fingernails, is overly creepy and religious? "You need to find the lord girl!" Iscream22 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lobster Girl and End of terrestrial radio career[edit]

Why isnt SPAZZ or Lobster Girl mentioned as show bits? Its one of the most famous bits they have ever done. When I first started to look up the b-b-b-b-b-boys on google I would always be prodded to search for "O & A Lobster Girl".

Also their radio career needs to be documented to the bitter end, even tho it will just be temporary. This will make their comeback all that more sweet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.47.197 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I imagine it's too hard to reference without being original research.129.139.1.68 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to see this article expanded. Particularly with biographical information and expansion of detail on their careers. Iscream22 (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Clary Controversy[edit]

http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php?t=952 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.9.223 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howard Stern[edit]

I expected to find more references to Howard Stern and his gag order on Opie and Anthony early in their career in this article. 68.10.91.104 (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jesse Ventura[edit]

The article says "As Ventura left the room where the show was being held, Norton said, "F---ing baby. Big f-ing guy who doesn't like the little guy yelling."" I thought he said "Fucking baby" and "big fucking guy". Which was it?129.139.1.68 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travis aka Dr. Gay[edit]

69.207.29.139 (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Will someone please explain to me why Travis's new nickname of Dr. Gay (given to him when he entered into the studio when Opie and Anthony were expecting Dr. J, prompting Anthony to say "More like Dr. Gay")? Or better yet, can someone explain or cite sources where, for example, the nickname SexE is cited with a verifiable source?Reply[reply]

Per our verifiability policy, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source" (cf. WP:CHALLENGE). Additionally, see right below, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (cf. WP:BURDEN). To re-add the nickname, please add a reliable source to support the claim. Maxim(talk) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

69.207.29.139 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Still don't see a verified source for such nicknames as "SexE" or TStorm. I guess I'm not sure why the nicknames that are already here are OK, but the name Dr. Gay would be "challenged or likely to be challenged", unless the challenging was being done by someone who specificaly objected to the word 'gay', as someone who is familiar with the show would find no reason to challenge this. The initial naming of Travis as Dr. Gay was on 11/28/2011 http://www.audible.com/pd/ref=sr_1_1?asin=B005HJAAE0&qid=1324568064&sr=1-1 (Right before the Dr. J interview), and is also listed on http://www.oapedia.com/index.php/Travis , which, granted, is just another wiki, but it's hard to find a verifiable news source indicating a nickname of a producer on a radio show.Reply[reply]

69.207.29.139 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC) So, it looks like the answer is we don't like the "g" word, nor would we dare listen to, or become knowledgeable on the subject that we are editing. Fair enough, but shouldn't that warrant a disclaimer?Reply[reply]


Intro song[edit]

It definitely is NOT Maggie's Farm. Quit changing it to that. It's the Rage Against the Machine's version of Street Fighting Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.187.242 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cake[edit]

Rewrote the cake controversy section, added a couple references. I know that Opie has on the show and off commented about what happened off camera in terms of compensation, but don't have any links so left it out. Seemed less contentious to add without reference that it has appeared on the show regularly since then, but feel free to take that out if anybody finds it problematic. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cumia's firing = America loves and endorses racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.166.9 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014[edit]

I am requesting that the "Cumia Firing" section be revised to make the language more objective and encyclopedic. Here is the source for the CURRENT text:

Cumia firing

On July 3, 2014, Cumia was fired by Sirius XM, after making a series of questionable tweets following an off-air incident with a black woman on the street. Cumia tweeted that he was punched by the woman while attempting to take a picture, and made a series of tweets described by Sirius XM as "racially-charged and hate-filled".[1] There was no comment as to Hughes' possible future with the company at that time. Sidekick Jim Norton is contemplating moving to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career. Cumia is reported "blackballed" in the industry and will never work in corporate radio again. He will instead concentrate on developing his "Live From The Compound" podcast-style show, which he records from his residence in Long Island. Cumia has a history of racially charged epithets and slurs, but somehow has escaped the same punishment as other notable celebs, such as Jonah Hill and Paula Dean until now.


I am requesting that it be changed to the following to make the language more objective, and to remove the ridiculous reference to Jonah Hill and Paula Dean:

Cumia firing

On July 3, 2014, Cumia was fired by Sirius XM, after making a series of tweets following an off-air incident with a black woman on the street. Cumia tweeted that he was punched by the woman while attempting to take a picture. The tweets were described by Sirius XM as "racially-charged and hate-filled".[2] There was no comment as to Gregg Hughes' possible future with the company at the time of the firing. Jim Norton stated he is contemplating moving to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career. Cumia has stated he will concentrate on developing his "Live From The Compound" podcast, which he records from his residence in Long Island.


67.167.104.116 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second one seems reasonable enough, but requires citations regarding Norton's career and Cumia's podcast. I removed everything after the sentence "There was no comment as to Hughes' possible future with the company at that time" until suitable sources can be found. jhsounds (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change the article into the past tense...[edit]

Wouldn't it be appropriate and within the Wikipedia guidelines to change the opening part of the article to read the show in a past tense since technically The Opie and Anthony Show doesn't exist anymore, It's actually now called Opie with Jim Norton and until such time as the pair reunite as a broadcast team which maybe quite a while since Mr. Cumia is launching his own live podcast service and Messrs.'. Hughes and Norton will be at Sirius XM for the duration of their contract so really there is no O&A to speak of and I want to say that I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I was an O&A listener for many years I think if you want to keep it updated put it in a past tense then if they come back in what ever format then you can put it back in the present. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Todd Leopold, Opie & Anthony's' Anthony Cumia fired over tweets CNN, July 4, 2014.
  2. ^ Todd Leopold, Opie & Anthony's' Anthony Cumia fired over tweets CNN, July 4, 2014.

Confusing phrasing/no ref for clarification[edit]

This sentence needs editing as it does not make sense: "Hughes gave some indication, however, when he told the Long Island press in 2006, "We went from having a show that was syndicated in 17 major markets to having a few thousand," which did not help to remove the discrepancy.[12]"

  1. What discrepancy? There is no "discrepancy" in the proceeding paragraph.
  2. Discrepancies cannot be "removed" -- they can be addressed, clarified, etc. Grammatically, the sentence does not make sense.
  3. The provided reference link (#12) is broken, needs updating or removal.

Separate pages[edit]

Since the show is no longer on and their careers have moved in different directions I have split their info out into their own pages. I am moving Opie's personal info into Gregg Hughes and Ant's too Anthony Cumia. As their careers continue apart it makes less and less sense to have one page. I also split Opie with Jim Norton into its own page since it all being here was too much. Please visit those individual pages and help improve them. - Galatz (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Opie and AnthonyThe Opie and Anthony Show – Following the spinning off of the Anthony Cumia and Gregg Hughes articles, as well as articles for the successor shows (Opie with Jim Norton and The Anthony Cumia Show), this article should be renamed accordingly. Previously the article had a wider scope, covering the careers of the two radio hosts, but since this revision the topic has narrowed to the radio show. The full title of the radio show was The Opie and Anthony Show [1] and this should be the name of the article to avoid confusion with the radio duo. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC) - HazhkTalk 16:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say there is no reason to move it. There is huge inconsistency between the naming convention. For example, see Mike & Mike, Ron and Fez, Don and Mike Show, Preston & Steve, Shredd and Ragan.
If you review Category:American comedy radio programs, I would say this majority do not contain the word "show" in the ones that are a pair, regardless of the individuals on page. What makes O&A different than R&F having Ron Bennington and Fez Whatley? I dont think there is enough cause for the move.
Also your examples of the successor show Opie with Jim Norton does not contain the word show. - GalatzTalk 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because "Opie with Jim Norton" has never been branded as "The Opie with Jim Norton Show", yet the second article I linked is titled "The Anthony Cumia Show" because that is the full name of the show.
As for Ron and Fez, that article appears to cover their career as a radio duo, rather than just their current show. Their radio show is referred to in the article as "The Ron and Fez Show" and there is a link to The Ron and Ron Show, a preceding show. -- HazhkTalk 19:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the examples listed either the articles combine biographies of the radio hosts, e.g. Shredd and Ragan, or the show isn't named "The X Show", e.g. Preston & Steve. The inconsistency comes from the fact that not all radio shows have similar names. --HazhkTalk 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opie and Anthony. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Racist" Twitter rant[edit]

Regarding the wording of the description of Cumia's Twitter rant: I really feel like it's an attempt at white-washing (specifically, trying to make it seem like the offensive tweets weren't really racist, but SiriusXM had the "opinion" that they were racist) to change the wording of this sentence. In any case, there's plenty of reliable sources that describe the tirade as racist; I added one, and will add more if you think it's necessary, but that's probably overkill at this point. Rockypedia (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion its racist. In SiriusXM's opinion its racist. But who is the official judge of that is the issue. The purpose of the sentence is that SiriusXM felt it was racist so they fired him, what difference does it make if it actually was or was not? In my view its similar to how the article says he was allegedly punched by the woman, since its not a proven fact. - GalatzTalk 19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually reading your source, it even says in it that "He insisted he was not racist, saying 'there is a deep seeded problem with violence in the black community' that no one talked about". So there is a case made in your source to prove its racist to say it isn't. Thats why it comes down to saying SiriusXM felt it was racist, even though the person who wrote the posts defended himself with an alternative side of why it wasn't. So basically no one can argue that SiriusXM fired them because they felt it was racist, but as your source clearly demonstrates, at least one person has an argument as to why its not. Do you see the difference? - GalatzTalk 19:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've picked a sentence from the source that doesn't impact the statement in the article in question. Whether or not Cumia says he's "not racist" makes no difference; we're talking about reliable sources calling his tweets a "racist Twitter rant" or "racist Twitter tirade." I'll add yet another source, and remind everyone that reliable secondary sources are what matter, not what Cumia himself says - that would be a primary source. Rockypedia (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answer isn't to keep adding more sources, thats just ridiculous. First of all, secondary sources are not "what matters" they are a piece of it. According to WP:WPNOTRS it should be MAINLY secondary, but certainly it can be primary, so there goes your entire argument. The issue is exactly what you are saying, you don't even realize it. According to WP:RSOPINION the authors statements can be used to state his opinion but not as a statement of fact. Because this is the authors opinion, if you read WP:NEWSORG calling them racist makes the author of the article you are citing the primary source not the secondary which you seem to think is all that matters. Even if 99.9999999999999% of the people who read his tweets think they are racist, it doesn't mean its a statement of fact. Since there is no governing board that determines what makes things racist and what doesn't, you cannot state as a matter of fact that its 100% racist. - GalatzTalk 13:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging NateDoggandWarrenG and Hazhk since they have also made edits to this to join the discussion. - GalatzTalk 13:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I absolutely think the "tirade" was racist. However, I am conscious that Wikipedia needs to be neutral. I think the compromise text should read something like, "considered to be racist". I'm stepping back from any further contributions. -- Hazhk (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cumia's Twitter tirade was a very aggressive and vaguely worded criticism of of the black American community right after he got assaulted by a black woman. Many liberal journalists yelled racist, but there is no indisputable way to prove this. It's not the first time he's criticized the black community or been called racist for it. Nowhere in his tirade did he say anything like "All black people are bad simply because they are black". Wikipedia is objective. You would need 2 describe 2 me clearly and concisely how you could prove it as racist. I'm not asking for much. NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree completely. No matter how many sources are added without a governing body to declare them racist, its the journalist's opinion. By stating their opinion as fact its a clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. I also notice that on Opie with Jim Norton it doesn't use the term racist, it only says controversial, which is another possible way of wording it, because it is a clear fact that it caused controversy. - GalatzTalk 13:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're both right about the Twitter rant but wrong about Wikipedia policy. In non-opinion pieces, of course every writer is going to describe the incident in words that are of their choosing; that doesn't mean that "racist Twitter rant" is a matter of opinion. Reliable secondary sources are what matter. Just because an adjective is negative doesn't mean that it isn't WP:IMPARTIAL. However, in the interest of compromise, I am okay with this wording:
In July 2014, Cumia was fired by SiriusXM following a Twitter tirade that was widely condemned as racist.
That's a slightly different version than Galatz's but should satisfy everyone. That brings me to the other reason I reverted again; besides flouting WP:CYCLE, Galatz is also removing a reliable source without reason. Rockypedia (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, your sole purpose of adding those sources was to support your claim that was incorrect, therefore there is a reason to remove them since it isn't adding anything to the article. What you are doing is edit warring and putting back content that clearly is against the consensus. I suggest you self-revert, otherwise I will need to get an admin to intervene. You cannot use WP:CYCLE to try and override that its a WP:BLP violation.
Secondly, as I showed you above secondary sources are not all that matters, so I do not know why you keep claiming that. Especially since the way you keep reverting the article to is it utilize a primary source.
Thirdly, your suggestion is WP:OR. It is indisputable and proven by the sources that SiriusXM found his rant to be racist. None of the sources say that it was widely condemned as that. What are you using as your metric to declare it widely? You are pulling sources and drawing your own conclusion. - GalatzTalk 14:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opinion pieces are no reliable sources. Once again I'm not asking for much. Kramer losing his mind 10 years ago can be called racist. Theres nothing about Cumias rant that is so obviously racist that it can be stated so bluntly in an objective encyclopedia. NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Current paragraph reads:"On July 3, 2014, Cumia was fired by SiriusXM, after making a series of tweets, which they deemed racist, following an alleged off-air incident with a black woman on the street. Cumia tweeted that he was punched by the woman while attempting to take a picture in Times Square. The tweets were described by Sirius XM as "racially-charged and hate-filled". Cumia stated on the Saturday, July 12 episode of Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld that he was not going to apologize for the incident."
I propose:"On July 3, 2014, Cumia was fired by SiriusXM, after making a series of tweets, which they referred to as "racially-charged and hate-filled", following an alleged off-air incident with a black woman on the street. Cumia tweeted that he was punched by the woman while attempting to take a picture in Times Square. Cumia stated on the Saturday, July 12 episode of Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld that he was not going to apologize for the incident."LM2000 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am ok with either one, as long as the source utilized has that exact quote. - GalatzTalk 18:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The New York Times, the New York Daily News, the NY Post, the Daily Mail, and Rolling Stone, for starters, all refer to the incident as a "racist Twitter" tirade or rant, they are all reliable sources, and none of those links are opinion pieces; they are all factual news reports. I don't see what the issue is here: "racist Twitter" is an exact quote from published reliable sources, there's a bunch of them, and no one is contending that the twitter tirade wasn't racist. Changing that line is a blatant attempt to soften the fact that Cumia posted a racist Twitter rant. That's not what we do here. I proposed an alternative wording above that was quickly blown off, so now I start to ask why there's so many Anthony Cumia fans here wanting to change the wording of that paragraph, and am considering an RfC to bring in some unbiased opinions. Rockypedia (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You clearly are outnumbered here, but if you want to bring in more people go right ahead. You are clearly missing every point mentioned above so I am not going to bother repeating it. Either revert yourself or bring an official RfC, because right now you are the only one who thinks it should be your way. - GalatzTalk 20:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stating that I am "outnumbered" really sounds like you're threatening to impose your will based solely on a gang-up mentality. That's not the way Wikipedia works. I've stated the facts in my previous paragraph, and instead of attempting to refute them (since there's no way to refute them) you immediately point to the fact that I'm "outnumbered". However, none of the other people involved in this discussion have even seen those sources that I pointed out yet, and haven't responded yet, so I would say your attempt at intimidation is premature and misguided. Do you have anything to say about the fact that multiple reliable sources, in non-opinion pieces, all describe the events in question as a "racist Twitter" rant? If not, then you have no ground to stand on in attempting to remove that wording from this page and any other page that includes this incident. Rockypedia (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, outnumbered implies there is a consensus and you are in the minority. Again as mentioned above see WP:NEWSORG which clearly says Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The consensus clearly is here that its not in this case. - GalatzTalk 20:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anybody here saying that those five stories in those five reliable sources are opinion pieces. Are you saying that you think they are opinion pieces? Rockypedia (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say that because no where in what I quoted does it say this only applies to opinion pieces. In fact it clearly says news story. - GalatzTalk 21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've cherry-picked one line from a very long section that specifically starts with the statement "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." By your logic, any statement on Wikipedia that's sourced to a newspaper article could be removed if 5 people get together and say "I think that statement is an opinion." That's clearly absurd. None of those articles contain opinion; they're all very dry fact pieces. There's also dozens more that use the same language that I haven't copied and pasted. Rockypedia (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"they are all reliable sources, and none of those links are opinion pieces; they are all factual news reports." Ooooh "factual news reports". So there's no liberal bias in reporting? Everything everyone says is factual? You're really grasping at straws. Give up. It's done, Rocky :).NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give what up, attempting to have a Wikipedia page state what reliable sources say, and not what Anthony Cumia fans wish it to say? I think I'll continue to keep the page factual, and you can go start a fan blog and have it say whatever you like about Cumia. Your statement certainly shows that you are not neutral in this matter, and as such, I believe your opinions on the matter are void. Rockypedia (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You clearly disagree with everyone else here. Either give up or put in an official RfC like you said you were going to, because right now the consensus is that opposite your opinion. - GalatzTalk 13:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, thank you for bringing it to the talk page! I must say that I agree with @Galatz:'s comments on this topic and propose his change over Rocky's. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I'm suspending my bias in favour of service to the objectivity of the website. I personally think that Cumia was not a racist at all or even offensive, but many people believe it was completely racist and many more thought it was inappropriate and offensive. But is it 100%, completely and utterly, incontrovertibly racist? No. So don't say it is. Objectively state what happened and what led up to the firing. NateDoggandWarrenG (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede reverts[edit]

Hello! Since the talk page is active with discussion, I'd love some different opinions on the lede that I wrote that @Rockypedia: has reverted several times. Having improved the article with references, my version only summarises the sections of the entire article, which is what I attempted. Rocky's version makes less sense for a non-listener, per se.

My edit is here and Rocky's is the current edit.

Any suggestions on how to improve this? @Galatz:, what do you think? Thanks guys! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, it should say it is a radio, not was a radio show. It didn't become a monkey when the show went off the air, its still is a radio show, it just doesn't air currently. You can see M*A*S*H (TV series), Law & Order and CSI: Crime Scene Investigation as examples in how TV shows treat it, but radio would fall into the same format.
Secondly, I think the current version goes into too much detail for a lead. We don't need to go into them replacing The David Lee Roth Show. For that I like your version better.
Thirdly, your version saying controversial tweets is the same issue as above. - GalatzTalk 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers for the input! I just want a version that we're all happy with. Also, what articles that are Featured status have the "is a" instead of a "was a", I wonder? I'm happy to go with "is a", but thought what the higher rated articles put. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opie and Anthony. 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) 18:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Want to add section about O&A's influence on Stand Up Comedy - seeking guidance[edit]

Whats up guys,

This article is missing a lot but one thing imparticular I'd like to add a section on is O&A's influence on stand up comedy and their relationship with certain stand up comedians. I'd like to focus on why their relationship with the stand up scene was unique, how it came to be (Norton was obviously a key factor) and summarize O&A's relationships with certain stand up comedians in general (Patrice O'neal, Louis C.K., Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, Colin Quinn). I think this is a pretty important chapter of the O&A saga.

I'm not asking anyone else to do the research or anything, but am just not so sure how to frame the subject and was hoping to open a dialogue on what the best way to do that would be. And also hoping someone might have some good sources I could use to gather info. I've been collaborating youtube clips for a while now of old shows they did that are relevant, and have also bookmarked an episode of Joe Rogan's podcast in which he touches on this topic for a few minutes. Blob Blobbed (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third mic vs co-host[edit]

Does anyone have anything to add to this [2] on what Jim Norton's role was with the show? If I do not hear anything else here I will open a official request for comment. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]