Talk:Carlos Mencia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carlos Mencia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] General criticism of Mencia

He's definitely a hack/theif/liar, maybe half-german, and god knows what else, but why doesn't this page address the fact that he's a racist, homophobic piece of shit? I don't have any problem with comedians who attempt to neuter ignorance and racism by mocking it (ie Dave Chappelle, Richard Pryor, etc.). But Carlos Mencia doesn't mock racism, he revels in it. He's a fat ignorant fuck and someone should slit his goddamned throat. Why isn't this issue brought up here?

First off, label your posts. Second, don't think he's a racist. He's just a joke thief. Kritish5951 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Factual Inaccuracy of article

This article, in an attempt to reduce critical nature, is largely biased and downright innacurate. His name IS Ned Holness (which does not represent his validity as a comedian in any way, shape, or form) and Joseph Mencia is NOT his true brother, as 'Carlos' himself has stated in an interview. I won't be bothered to give exact links, but since this "KimboSlice" seems to be so absorbed in citation, a simple google search should produce the source.68.201.245.163 07:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Hacking

The first thing that should be noted is that the entire genre of comedy Carlos belongs to, the attitude, the controversial subjects, the entire persona, was done almost thirty years ago by Angel Salazar. As a comic, I have to roll my eyes when I se his act or his show on TV. The sad thing is, I have to admit that I occasionally laugh, but I feel bad because I know the joke probably came from some unknown comic who took the time to write. I've heard audience members actually say they don't care if the jokes are stolen, as long as they're funny. This is a shame, and just shows that comedy has a way to go before it is considered a legitimite art. Jokes are hard to write. Even when they are written, the delivery is hard to master. It sometimes takes a comic years to hammer out a bit. Considerably longer than it takes to finish a song. Unfortunately, some of the most famous and respected comics are hacks. This doesn't bode well for the craft. How long until the main prerequisite to be a successful comic is to be really good-looking like it is for musicians and actors? Please, for the love of art, don't let this happen.Qabala 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy Store Incident

Sticking to the facts, the basis of anyone adding a reference to the Comedy Store occurrence comes from a copyright violating video that originated on Youtube. Until a major news source (that's not using PR newsfeeds that anyone can contribute to and isn't a blog) that is accountable can accurately cover what happened, you can't add reference to what happened. The source is a video which had been edited by an employee of Joe Rogan, its a biased and unusable reference. The bigger question is whether its even notable that Rogan's name appear in the wikipedia entry at all. Rogan's somewhat known for Fear Factor, I don't think anyone in the general public that doesn't frequent comedy clubs even realizes that he does stand up. It would be different if it was known comedians making plagiarism claims and we could provide references from a verified news source. If a real established newspaper (not some humor rag with an unknown readership) or established magazine does a story on the event, and we can cite it, go ahead and add it. Until then, its not citable and its not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimboSlice (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

First, this is still a developing and highly-edited section of the article. Bobby Lee has even redacted anything he had to say that was edited into the RoganTV Quickie video in his own video on YouTube. The fact that new information is coming out currently makes this worthy of a currentevent tag to notify other readers that the subject is in high flux. Secondly, the news article sources the video and discusses where it can be found online. That makes the inclusion of text discussing the video valid, don't delete it. Finally, since the article discusses the video AND even gives the website to find it, it's entirely reasonable that we would also then be able to add the same link. The link added is to the permanent page and not just main.php because it is better to source something permanent and not variable content. If you want to remove any of this, you should discuss it here first as it is well-sourced and notable content. ju66l3r 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The video on YouTube should stay up because it is an integral part of the story that represents Joe Rogan's side. The point of Wikipedia is to show an unbiased look at the information but that doesn't mean censuring information that may be biased. If you wish to point out that Rogan's people edited the video that is totally fine. But to claim the video has no validity is ridiculous. Just because there isn't a story that lives up your unbiased expectations doesn't mean it didn't happen. We should have ALL the information about what is currently happening and update as the facts change. I see no valid reason for censuring the Youtube video so long as it is clear this is coming from Joe Rogan and thus has a bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hadees (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I think everyone discussing this video's inclusion on the page should read the relevant section of the Copyright policy. Specifically, this video (at least the version provided at JoeRogan.net) is not a violation of copyright, because it is a "RoganTV Quickie" and so for Joe Rogan to host his own video is not a copyright violation, therefore a link to it at JoeRogan.net follows what the policy states. The fact that YouTube has chosen to remove a video/version as a copyright vio for Carlos Mencia (read as: Viacom) does not impress me because as I said, the video itself was created by Joe Rogan and a creator can not violate his own copyright. We do need to respect that YouTube has decided not to carry the video for copyright reasons and therefore a link to the video at YouTube would not be appropriate, but that does not mean all copies of the video are to never be included in this article. ju66l3r 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The video as a whole is not owned by Joe Rogan (that's legally impossible), its only that it was edited by his employee. It is a violation of copyright, among other reasons, because it includes excerpts of videos and TV appearances that Rogan does not own the rights to, the video can't be used as a reference. And finally, its blatantly false for you to state that Rogan is hosting the video. He's not, he's acutely aware that he legally can't host the video on his own site because of the copyright reasons mentioned above, he can only post a videoplayer which hotlinks the video from another sources, or links to sites where the video is temporarily located at (there's no direct link to a video on his server, just Google or mirror sites). Just because he stamps his name on the video doesn't mean he has any legal rights to use it anywhere, why do you think it was removed from Youtube in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimboSlice (talk • contribs).
It's not legally impossible for Rogan to hold a copyright to the video. The Joeshow Quickie is the workproduct of Joe Rogan and Redban (the videographer/producer). It's also NOT false to say Rogan is hosting the video. The direct link is right here on his website. That link goes to a video file on joerogan.net, not a link on joerogan.net to other sites. Most of what you've written is just speculatory nonsense. It was removed by YouTube because a copyright claim was put in that they chose to honor. For us, that does not mean that it was correct or substantial in regards to other versions of the video available on the internet, but that we then should not link to the version at YouTube per the copyright policy I linked above. By the way, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of what you write, please. ju66l3r 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that "Carlos Mencia/Viacom" stuff. The video is copyvio because the Comedy Store has asked Joe Rogan not to film his webshow there. (Not that I'm defending Mencia or anything, but law is law.) JuJube 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
YouTube pulled the video submitted by its creator, Redban, as a copyvio claim by "Carlos Mencia". Viacom is well known for their prompt requesting for video removal of all things Viacom from YouTube and have a vested interest in Carlos Mencia because of his television show with them on Comedy Central. Since hours of Mencia footage from other appearances were not also yanked, it is less likely that Carlos requested it be taken down, but Viacom did it for him. YouTube has a history of abiding by Viacom's requests, whether reasonable requests or not, to avoid a lawsuit about all things Viacom at YouTube. That's all. Not suggesting it be part of the article, just part of the talk page discussion. As for Rogan's decision to tape his show after the club asked him not to, that does not mean that the resulting footage is a copyvio. There may be trespass and fraud concerns for Rogan with The Comedy Store, but that's hardly our concern. ju66l3r 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You're making assumptions, though, and not going by facts. Viacom did not request that the video be pulled, Mencia's company or Mencia himself obviously did. When Viacom has something pulled, the notice that remains must legally reflect that "Viacom" did it, not the actor or comedian that appears in the copyright violating clip (you won't see "Video removed by Chris Rock" if HBO Corporate filed the request as opposed to Chris himself doing it). Second, most of Mencia's footage has been yanked, contrary to what you state. The clip in question comes from "No Strings Attached", and I've seen countless clips from that special on Youtube in the last few months (wheelchair kid at Disneyland, etc). Today, I can't find a single clip on Youtube from that special. As far as the film footage shot at the Comedy Store, my understanding is that its a private establishment and the filming was done without legal consent. At the end of the day, its a concrete copyvio issue.KimboSlice 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There's little point in lawyering this issue to death, it's somewhat moot. As I said below, you don't like it for its bias as a secondary source, then the fact that the video is available on joerogan.net should remain in the article as that is part of the news story source. I can agree to that. ju66l3r 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with mentioning that the video is available for viewing on his site since its mentioned in the article, I just didn't want the article shaped around what the video shows if its not usable as a reference. But I'm not open to unprotecting it anytime soon, because the video has whipped those who dislike Mencia into a vandalism frenzy. The page was already a daily target, now people are motivated to vandalize in general even if its unrelated to the video.KimboSlice 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Another point is that the video editing issue illustrates why clips produced by a biased party shouldn't be referenced. The video contains a clip of Ari performing a joke, but the date is stamped on by the editor, followed by a clip of Mencia performing a joke with a different date stamped. You can't determine when either clip was actually filmed, or if Mencia told a similar joke (without mentioning Arnold) 10 years ago, and that was the first instance that it was actually filmed. Bobby Lee clarifies on Youtube that Mencia told the joke first, but I'm not going to post that link because I don't feel its usable either, even if it supports my argument. I'm perfectly okay with citing unbiased estblished media sources, but heavily edited videos or audio clips that violate copyrights (especially produced by someone with an ulterior motive) should not be used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimboSlice (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Fine, then it should easily suffice to say that the video is on Rogan's website (which *is* in that news article). ju66l3r 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because Youtube pulled it for supposed copyright violation does not make that copyright violation fact. The use of clips of Mencia in Rogan's video falls very clearly under fair use - criticism (and arguably parody). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.204.177.212 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
I think that this is missing the point of the video here. Of course you can't use the video as a reference becauise it's biased, you couldn't for example say Carlos is a thief and here's the proof using it as a reference. But it this case the video isn't a reference to a story it IS the story. The fact that it happened and it's on the net and ten's of thousands of people watched it is the story. People are watching the video coming to the page looking for more information on it's validity and finding it removed because it's too "negative." instead of offering as little information as possible on this issue lets add more. Lets add a link to joe rogan's blog were he has the video but mention how it cannot be validated and was created by friends of Joe. lets also mention that Carlos had the video removed from youtube personally and has not responded to it. Maybe mention as well how Carlos pressured Joe's agent into dropping him because of the incident. Mention any responces given by carlos as well but don't just leave it like this the story is way bigger than what's mentioned here. More information has got to be better than the bare minumum thats here. 71.17.155.216 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's biased by omission, but it's still a factual recording. Everything in it is true. You can cite the video as a source in discussing that the things portrayed in the video did indeed happen, and the accusations made, were in fact made. If you want to maintain the neutrality of the article as per wiki standards, discuss the allegations as allegations, and present a fair account of the evenets. The video is very much a usable source. It's not some CGI fabrication, it's a recording of a real discussion. Frogacuda 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

if youre ok with unbiased estblished media sources, then why did you keep deleting his 2007 standup showdown rank, even though it had a citation? Kaizenyorii

If you look at the page's edit history and the discussion page, you will see that initially there was a great deal of one-way criticism with nothing to round it out and show that there were opposing views. The whole point of adding the 2006 Stand Up Showdown results was to reflect that people who watched TV voted him in second place, and balance out the 2006 Maxim piece compiled by its editors. By your logic, we could find every sentence critical of Mencia on the web (and there are probably thousands) and add it to the page just because its citable. We're trying to keep the article balanced and unbiased, not overly praising but also not overly critical. All the Mencia critics want to do this page is either vandalize it or heap on as much criticism as possible without care for balance.KimboSlice 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, where he places in a competition is not meant to be a criticism: its a fact on where he ranked. You say that "By your logic, we could find every sentence critical of Mencia on the web (and there are probably thousands) and add it to the page just because its citable." The Standup Showdown isnt just any citable source, its from Comedy Central, the network which just happens to produce Mencia's show. If anything, Comedy Central is a more noteworthy source than Maxim, which is a second-rate smut magazine. Its not like 14th is low, but it does represent a drop from his 2006 rank. Being unbiased means presenting facts as they appear without tampering with them. Selecting and censoring which facts to place in an article is what really counts as bias. Kaizenyorii @Feb18

At the base level, Joe Rogan may or may not have committed a crime by taping Ned charging his stage time. That's for him to sort out with The Comedy Store. A news source can not be claimed as a reliable source because they are a privately owned corporation, ask Fox News. Kaizenyorii's opinion on Maxim's reliabilty is just that, an opinion which is believed only by them and anyone who agrees, not the entire world. The fame level of Joe Rogan versus a more prominent comedian is irrelavent in regards to Joe's (and Ari Shaffir's) claim. Also note that at no time has any filed a plagirism lawsuit against Ned Holssen. The only thing being asked of him is admission. Video evidence (proven to be untampered) can be cited as video reference...banks and gas stations use it daily against thieves.70.160.178.202 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone has a brief mention in the "internet section" of their magazine. It is the issue before Cartman/Saddam Hussein/South Park. All it says is that Rogn confronted Mencia about plagirism, and a video ended up on the web. This is the same video that ws pulled off of YouTube, but the URL is collegehumor.com.

I don't understand what the problem is. The incident at the Comedy Store happened, and it is cited from an article in the Times-Herald. What is there to argue? We don't have a link to the video on Youtube as a citation, it's a written newspaper article. The article clearly doesn't show any bias towards one side or the other, so there is no more need for discussion on this. Whether or not Mencia stole jokes, it's important that it be included that he has been accused by multiple comedians of stealing jokes.DavidFuzznut 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican and Honduran

Contributors continue to shuffle their opinions throughout all the little subsections on here, so I'll just stick this where its easy to find. 1. The IMDB bio has stated for years that he's Mexican and Honduran, the only reason why it has read "German" for the last few days was because a vandal made the edit (as any IMDB user can do). 2. His father Roberto was a Spanish speaking Honduran citizen who eventually became a U.S. citizen (as per interviews). 3. Mencia has a picture of his father on his website's bio, brown skinned, black haired with the Paco style moustache. Look at the picture and ask yourself if the Aryan Nation or KKK would welcome this man into their ranks with open arms.

Does anyone notice how this sentence manages to include a horrific sterotype, an illogical ethnic slur and an unfunny joke? Hmmm...66.65.156.213 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Was there a point to this? And stop editing my comments, I'm restoring them to the original version. KimboSlice 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

4. If the whole basis of calling his father Roberto a German because of his surname, a 5 second Google search for Holnesses yielded this guy named "Lansford Holness", a name like that just screams "German Soccer Hooligan." Here's His Photo

You seem to be the only one screaming anything about Germans. It's no wonder you like this fellow so much. The fact that you think it's a "slur" that "Carlos Mencia" may be white says more about you than it does about his detractors.66.65.156.213 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
How am I the only one screaming something about Germans when this article was vandalized once a day by someone adding an uncited statement that he's German. What I consider a slur or not a slur is completely irrelevant here, the point is that he's Mexican and Honduran with no evidence to suggest otherwise, yet people have edited the page daily just because the host of Fear Factor claimed that he's German. KimboSlice 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

5. In interviews he explains that the Holness family name originated in the Caymans between Honduras and Cuba, which is why a Google image search of "Holness" yields mostly photos of Black and Caribbean people from Jamaica and throughout the islands. The only people insistent on claiming that Mencia is German are those who dislike him, yet the only evidence they provide is a vandalized IMDB entry, a guess because of his father's surname, and a claim from a rival comedian. Never mind that the same rival went on Opie and Anthony claiming that Mencia's surname was "Hortence". And this is the best source people can come up with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KimboSlice (talk • contribs).

Fortunatly, we all know KimboSlice is Ned Holness's dupe. Besides, even if he was 100% pure mexican, he is still a lying thief. I'd like to see some prove about this "vandalism" also. Skyfire.michael 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Just because someone is on the side of Mencia does not allow you to belittle their input ("Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.") You have been warned. Anyway, whether the imdb thing is vandalism does not matter. What does matter is that it can be easily changed by anyone so it is not reliable. I still have seen no definitive proof of Mencia' father being Honduran or German. Gdo01 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The guy's trolling, he doesn't even deserve a response. To Gdo01, Mencia states in interviews and shows that his father is Honduran, I take this as about as much evidence as one can get. How else can you confirm that any actor or singer is what they say they are other than to go by what they say in the press. We can't access high school records for Oscar de La Hoya's dad to see what he checks off under ethnicity, or the birth records of Lucy Liu's mother, etc. The only people making a big deal of the ethnicity claims are Mencia critics, these guys will never run out of things to speculate over.KimboSlice 18:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone supports a view that opposes yours does not indicate trolling. It just seems a little strange that every other post has your name on it. Anyway, I don't see any solid proof that anyone vandelised Ned Holness's IMDB.com profile. At any rate, it's Holness's word against the critics and the obvious solution would be to believe the person that doesn't lie and steal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyfire.michael (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
As long as kimboslice is not Carlos/Ned or his employee, the amount of contributions does not matter as long as they are NPOV and follow wikipedia guidelines. Even if a user contributes a lot to only one article and only one point of view, if they are staying within wikipedia guidelines, you should not make such accusations unless you have something more solid. --RandomStuff 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Imdb.com can be edited by anyone is proof enough that its not a reliable source. Kaizenyorii @Feb18
Right. It's as reliable as wikipedia then. Still, no one can prove it was vandalised —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyfire.michael (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Wikipedia can request citations with a cn tag. IMDB doesn't have such a function; there are no admins on imdb either. There is also no way to check the history of imdb pages so any vandalism cannot be easily identified. IMDB, in many ways, is a lot more unreliable than Wikipedia. Gdo01 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Skyfire.michael, where is your proof that the subject of this article is a thief and/or German? Don't tell me to look it up; link it. I don't care enough to look it up myself because this issue is pretty insignificant but I want to see undeniable proof, or even proof without reasonable doubt, of these arguments; it's annoying to see all these unbacked claims. IMDB is not acceptable. Joe Rogan is not acceptable. Your source needs to be a credible third-party. Second, all these "you can't prove this," and "you can't prove that" are just as easily applied to your arguments. So, cite your sources. 152.23.196.162 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You're comparing apples to oranges dude. simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.176.197.61 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Banned from The Mikey Show for plagiarism

A pity someone has frozen editing on this article when far more controversial articles on wikipedia do just fine without such administrative abuse. Mencia now banned from The Mikey Show for plagiarizing a "Stereotype Olympics" bit from other DJ's. [[1]] --RandomStuff 06:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say he was banned for this? From what I read it says that he borrowed, with permission, a skit from someone in Miami and Carlos decided to give the skit to the Mikey show. "Carlos Mencia called into the show today, without us even knowing. Carlos was on the show last week and pitched us a bit he was working on called stereotypical Olympics. Mikey explained once he was off the line with us that 2 jocks in Miami actually came up with that. Also during that interview we talked to Carlos about how Joe Rogan will not mend the bridge with Carlos because he still thinks he is a thief. Carlos called today to clear the air and let us know that the bit he told us about was not his and it came from those jocks in Miami and he is actually boys with them. He told us they were the ones who wanted him to use the bit and they gave him the ok." Seriously, where do you see anything about banning, in fact he was even interviewed. Gdo01 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You can listen for yourself here. But, here's the problem: That call was from June 30, 2006. About a week later, July 10, 2006, Carlos calls back in and tells them that he's friends with the Miami DJs and they gave him the idea to pitch around. There's nothing more than these blog entries that I can find online about this situation and so I don't see how it can be reliably sourced. ju66l3r 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the context but that just proves that he is no longer banned if he was allowed to call back and talk about his friends that he got the idea from. Gdo01 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of why its a good thing that this page is fully protected, people are grabbing at anything just for the sake of being critical, and twisting what was written to put their own spin on it (the word banned appears nowhere in the source, for example). I don't know which season it was from, but Mencia actually did a skit for his show called stereotype olympics, but what wasn't mentioned is that some of the ideas came from a stand up act he did at least four years ago from one of his CDs and also a DVD. There's a whole bit on how the U.S. should offer green cards as a prize to different groups in exchange for competing in their stereotypical talent (Jamaicans in the boating events, Mexicans for running and jumping over things). If a college newspaper in Norway does an op ed piece about Mencia being an awful comic, someone would add it to the page within hours, it never ends.KimboSlice 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, this is a good example why there are policies and guidelines for sourcing and verifiability. Page protection is to prevent people from simply reverting the text over and over without discussion to build consensus on the talk page. The fact that Carlos was banned by Mikey did occur: ... Mikey said he can not have Carlos on the show any more... but was rescinded a week and a half later. That's why I posted both dated links above. You need to think about whether you're operating in the interest of neutrality or simply anti-Mencia-criticism. For example, a Norwegian op-ed could be a useful source for a statement like "Critics of Mencia feel that his level of comedy is sub-par". It is all in the neutrality of presentation. Wikipedia articles have weathered far worse vandalism than this page has ever seen and have been on far more contentious issues than a stand-up comedian's career. The current level of protection is from overzealous reversions. ju66l3r 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This is sad. The attempts to author-in the whole plagiarism scandal is wholly justifiable. There are numerous sources appearing that fall into acceptable citation usage. This is clearly about one person who likes Carlos Mencia enough so that she will lock an article on it until everyone just gives up and lets the white-washed version go through. KimboSlice clearly misses the ideology behind an internet encyclopedia that allows its readers to edit any page at any time. Meaning, if something new and relevant comes up, by the Wikipedia ideology it should be allowed if it meets all the standards of encyclopedic incorporation--which in itself has been heavily modified to include internet sources. Get off your throne, unlock the page, and accept that you are in the wrong. The man is most likely a plagiarist and there is a lot of valid, sourced proof appearing practically every day now. Fermentor 09:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Justifiable? Yes. Sourced? No, not as far as I've seen. When articles are locked, the talk page is where content is discussed. If consensus is met, then that information can be put into the article after a request for unprotection is made (often, best after consensus is reached on the disputed content). I'd happily see a section on accusations of plagiarism in this article, but it will require good sourcing. The topic is in conflict with the WP:BLP policy if left unsourced, and therefore such claims of plagiarism can not remain in the article without reliable sourcing. Provide what you think should be added to the article here on the talk page and if it meets the standards of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V, then it can be added after a request for unprotection goes through. As an aside, KimboSlice did not lock the article. ju66l3r 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You, yourself, posted links to "The Mikey Show" blog right above and you say it can't be reliably sourced? That's a direct audio source, not even speculation. The Joe Rogan video is a direct source to accusations of criticism. There are several comedians in that video that claim Ned is a plagiarist. These are direct citations and the argument has been made before that experts in the field qualify as a direct source. Go to, say, the page on global warming and you'll see direct quotes from experts on the field and no qualms about it. There doesn't have to be a decisive decision, but it's a fact that there is controversy regarding his supposed plagiarism (which I happen to believe is true) and it is readily sourced. I do not think it is a copyright issue, just look a the whole Michael Richards video which was aired on a thousand TV shows. KimboSlice may not have locked the article but I would bet that he was responsible for reporting it. Fermentor 08:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lets remember it was Mencia who jumped on rogans stage to begin confrontation.

Certainly a move he regrets, but let's not make this look like Rogan jumped on Mencia's stage. While he certainly probably baited Ned, it was Rogan's venue, not Mencia's. Certainly, Mencia should have had more than "you must be queer for me" to demonstrate is rapier sharp wit, but hubris is a terrible thing. Maybe the most insulting thing to the comic community is the fact his show is billed as "from the mind of mencia", as if he were to have all of these ideas bouncing around in his head just waiting to get out. If his show was called "from the tivo of mencia", people might be cool with him.

This isn't a message board for personal opinion, what does any of that have to do with the main article? No one on the discussion page is even talking about who "started" the confrontation. KimboSlice 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe he is referring to the line "On February 10, 2007 Rogan confronted Mencia on stage at the Comedy Store on Sunset and continued his allegations of plagiarism." in the article. While this is true, the writing makes it sound like Rogan was the instigator. studentism

[edit] Lopez plagiarism accusation

In another article, there is a mention of George Lopez, in a 2005 Howard Stern interview, claiming that Mencia appropriated roughly 13 minutes of material, and later having an altercation with him. http://www.redban.com/audio/lopez.mp3 -- Hellmark 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a mention of the Lopez plagiarism claim on the article before, but it was removed because of copyright issues. The copyright owner (the station) didn't have the interview on their site, so it can't be used as a reference. The audio could have been edited, its on the site that you just posted a link to which seems to be unrelated to Stern's show. Wikipedia's copyright issues are also why youtube links aren't supposed to be used as references. There's a new video on youtube that shows George Lopez in 2006 performing the exact same "Who is going to build the new border fence" joke, meaning its either a generic joke or he stole it from Ari or Mencia. It raises the question about generic jokes or why Ari and Rogan haven't personally gone after Lopez if it was stolen, but it can't be posted as a source because it wasn't released by the owner of the Lopez footage. There also doesn't seem to be anything on the web from a news source in which Lopez actually names any jokes that Mencia stole. He claims he talked to HBO to get the special pulled, but from lack of evidence they didn't comply. Maybe Mencia did steal jokes from Lopez, it would be easier to address it in the main article if he went on record about what he thinks was taken or maybe put out his own video of him performing those jokes before 1994. KimboSlice 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


It's a good thing we have KimboSlice here to defend Carlos' honor and make sure that nobody post anything that could in any way portray Ned in a negative light (whether it be deserved or not). I certainly hope you're getting paid for this. Bobgat 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We're writing non-biased encyclopedia articles. This is not where you "stick up" for someone or "defend" them. 74.140.117.151 05:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


"The copyright owner (the station) didn't have the interview on their site, so it can't be used as a reference. The audio could have been edited, its on the site that you just posted a link to which seems to be unrelated to Stern's show." I have to take issue with the meaningfulness of these claims. First, part of fair use is to quote copyrighted works for the purposes of criticism, so a clip preserved elsewhere doesn't automatically indicate a copyright violation as its intention may be for the purposes of criticism. Referencing the clip here certainly falls in that category and as I look at the redban site, this appears to be his usage as well (note: this is the personal site of a Los Angeles based comedian--so that should improve the reference to the level of professional criticism, albeit not from one of the luminaries). Besides, any copyright violation is for the website, the copyright owner and the courts to determine, not wikipedia and certainly not for any individual editor to determine.
Second, the audio could have been edited on that site, just as it could have been edited on the copyright holder's site. Wikipedia policy allows (or it should allow) references from "unsecure" sites when trying to provide information on topics, especially those that may come from conflicting sources. Take a look at the edit history for the article "Han Shot First" [2] and before the recent re-release of the original Star Wars, almost every reference to Han shooting first came from sources that weren't the copyright holder. In other words, it was the secondary sites which provide the citation that the copyright materials themselves had been edited.
If wikipedia's policy is to provide relevant citations so that the reader can determine the strength of a claim, it seems to me to be overly-indulgent to require a virtual notary public stamp on anything Carlos Mencia related. Granted, the vandalism and the obviously dubious material probably once warranted page protection, but let's not go so far in the other direction that only promotional material from Mencia, Inc. be allowed. That doesn't seem to serve the encyclopedic interest either. (New Guy to Wikipedia, we'll see how it goes before I decide to invest in a login) 66.75.153.97 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opie and Anthony's Traveling Virus Comedy Tour

Please add (2006) to the link. Stoneice02 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Add "(2006)"; Mencia will not be participating on the tour in 2007.
A little off-topic, but has this been confirmed? Or are you just going off of the fact that he's not in the lineup for the first venue? Stoneice02 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theft From Cosby

Another accusation of theft has arisen, from one of Bill Cosby's routines. Cosby hasn't commented on it that I'm aware of, but there's the video commentary, it's the exact same joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCixAktGPlg Elijya 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Thieving fat fuck.71.176.194.186 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone who has edit access should add this...I saw the video today and it's EXACTLY the same. I can't begin to conceive how he has gotten away with so much thievery. Of course the major news outlets will never report this story as he has a contract with Comedy Central, which is a subsidiary of Viacom, which of course owns quite a huge portion of the media.

It's the exact same premise and almost the exact same delivery, undoubtedly lifted from Cosby, but it's not the exact same joke. It's a variation on a (25 year old) theme. Maybe Cosby gave it to him. Either way, "theft" seems a bit hysterical. Whatever 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added this like three times including sources, but KimboSlice keeps deleting it.Frogacuda 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Its a copyright violating video, elements owned by the company that put out the Cosby special and by Viacom, it can't be used as a ref. The circumstances of the joke are slightly changed (Cosby obviously doing the better delivery), but concept wise its the same joke, either Mencia or one of his writers using Cosby's idea (I don't believe it was just accidental). But even if I think he stole it, though, you can't reference the video itself because of wikipedia's copyright issues (which is why they made a big deal about using sites like youtube as sources in the first place). Just wait until a notable and objective (non POV) news publication does a story on it or interviews Mencia about it, which is guaranteed to happen, and then source that. Other publications have written about comics like Leary and Cook stealing, if its even worth mentioning in the article, some paper will do a story on it. KimboSlice 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a copyright violating video. It's a blatantly clear case of fair use. I linked to an AOL Entertainment News article, which is a perfectly legit, mainstream source. You really think AOL is going to be posting videos that will get them sued? Frogacuda 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
AOL isn't "posting" the article, they're running a feed from a point of view BlackVoices blog. If Viacom decided to send an email to Blackvoices, AOL or Youtube, the video would be removed in minutes (because it contains clips from Mencia's "No Strings Attached", which they own the rights to, not to mention whoever owns the rights to the Cosby special). They aren't even hosting the video, its being linked from Youtube, which again is against reference policy for Wikipedia. You need to take the time to understand why all the videos in question contain clips of various comics that violate copyrights, you can only reference them if they were hosted on the sites of the comics in question or the company that put out their special (Viacom, HBO, etc). That's assuming a clip only has that one comic in it, Cosby himself couldn't put a comparison video up on his own site because it has a copyrighted Viacom clip within it. There are specific reasons why Wiki policy doesn't allow referencing of Youtube videos (or sites which link youtube videos or post duplicates of copyrighted work). KimboSlice 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you know what fair use is? You're allowed to use short clips of copyrighted material for informational purposes insofar as it does not damage the salability of the original content. Many of the videos on youtube are copyright violating and it's a big problem for the site, however the ones I referenced are absolutely 100% not copyright violation. Wikipedia is FULL of copyrighted material that is protected by fair use. The photos on this very entry are fine examples.
Stop being a wiseass and saying "Learn what a copyright is" when you clearly don't know anything about copyright law. You clearly have an agenda here not related to an interest in copyright enforcement, because you've also been reverted completely unrelated edits made to that same section.Frogacuda 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just like to point out that wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It's not about copyright but about reliable sources. An edited together video is not a reliable source and referring to it becomes (in this case) original research -- the thing that journalists do. If however a reliable source, such as Reuters, makes reference to the video in question, then we can cite Reuters and even quote them. DonQuixote 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the need for credible sources, but there's absolutely zero basis to claim that the source is unreliable. The videos feature highly publicized, well documented performances performed many years apart, and are, in fact, first-hand sources in this case. If Reuters writes an article about these videos, it is more likely that there are factual inaccuracies and biases. Remember: The text did not take a stance on the truth of the allegations, only the existence of such allegations. If the accusation itself cannot be used as a source to support the fact that there is an accusation, then I don't know what can.
It isn't OR, either. OR would be if I found my own instances of him stealing and I referenced the quotes and dates of the performances and included them in the entry. These are highly public, widely circulated, and first-hand accusations, and a very relevant part of this discussion. Demanding indirect sources is only going to damage the accuracy, credibility and impartiality of this entryFrogacuda 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Reporting news is original research. An encyclopedia is not a place to report news -- that's for newspapers and such. We're here to collect news from newspapers and such. Working off of the original source material is reporting -- i.e. original research. DonQuixote 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why its a good thing that edited videos on third party sites aren't used as sources. And not necessarily in the case of the cosby joke, but the point is anyone could create a video of a comic doing a Dane Cook joke on stage followed by Dane Cook doing the joke, but mislabel when the footage was shot and then use it as a source for Cook's wiki page that he steals jokes. Now, you get a newspaper writer held to certain standards and accountable for what he writes to do a story on Cook stealing that joke, or writing that such a video has become popular on the web, you're free to reference the story (but then you still can't add comments about what happens in the video if its not in the article). Again, its why we can discuss that the Rogan video exists (because of the Times Herald article) but we can't mention the new video of Bobby Lee defending Mencia since its not on Lee's site itself and is a copyright violating and unreferencable video. KimboSlice 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't be foolish. Kinison and Hicks died years before Carlos got anywhere in the comedy world, and the Cosby video is from a 1983 stand-up special. There is zero ambiguity about who performed the jokes first. You're grasping at straws, here.Frogacuda 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What part of "not necessarily in the case of the cosby joke" from my last comment did you either not read or not understand? Its obvious that the Cosby performance is old, the point is that wikipedia has to draw a line on what's deemed unreliable otherwise any copyright violating youtube video can be used as a source, and you'd see a flood of edits on wikipedia citing videos that could have been heavily edited, or audio and video comments taken out of context. The Shaffir border joke is a perfect example, you can't determine Ari's performance date unless you rely on the date the biased video editor provided, and the Mencia clip is dated much later. Footage may exist of Mencia performing the joke months before Shaffir, but since Rogan's people edited it, they clearly wouldn't include it. What's to stop you from uploading comparison clips of a Russian moon landing and the U.S. one but dating each one incorrectly, and editing Neil Armstrong's wiki to say that a video documents that he may have not been the first man on the moon? This isn't a question about common knowledge, its about Wikipedia disallowing copyright violating youtube videos (break.com, digg, etc) across the board for reliability reasons. Allow people to be subjective about what can and can't be used, and you open the floodgates. Stick to notable publications with writers held accountable for objective reporting, otherwise you'll be citing Weekly World News for Martians advising Bush on foreign affair, or youtube videos showing that a fat kid with glasses owns a real working lightsaber. KimboSlice 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You do realize I didn't source the Ari Shaffir video, right? It seems rather suspect that your biggest complaint is with the one video still described in the entry. In all of the cases I cited it was at least as obvious as the Cosby video, and in fact moreso because the comics in question died in the early 90s. Anyway, first-hand sources are always more reliable than second-hand sources describing said first-hand sources. Slippery slope fallacies aside, what I wrote was credible, fair, and not in violation of any copyrights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogacuda (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
As an aside, just for your personal information, Mencia records and archives all of his sets. He has been asked to produce a tape of him performing the joke before Ari. He has not been able to do so. It is very unlikely that Mencia performed the joke first. But this isn't really relevant since, again, the wiki entry is merely discussing the accusations of plagiarism, not take a stance on the factuality of these claims.Frogacuda 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Rampant speculation. Provide a link to the source which indicates that Mencia was asked to provide a tape of his performance of the joke, and that he hasn't been able to provide said tape. Mencia has, on the other hand, publicly asked comics like Lopez and Rogan to name the jokes that he's allegedly stolen, Lopez hasn't responded and Rogan could only name the Shaffir joke. The only thing we know for a fact is that Lopez also performed the exact same Shaffir joke after Ari did it, so why not edit the Lopez entry too? KimboSlice 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right that I shouldn't say that Mencia has been unable to provide an example of his performing the joke first. I only know that he has not done so, and that if he had truly done it first, he should have the ability to prove as much. I'm just mentioning that as a "by the way" sort of thing.
Second, Rogan used Shaffir as an example because he was in the room, and they could prove beyond a doubt that he was aware of Ari's joke. However he has cited MANY MANY specific examples of Mencia's joke theft in his many interviews on the subject and on his boards. I do think Lopez's accusations are exaggerated (the 13 minutes figure in particular), but to claim people have not cited specifics is absurd. I pointed out a half dozen such specific accusations before you reverted them.
The reason Lopez has not been accused of theft is because Lopez did not sit in the room and watch Ari perform his version. There is no proof that he was aware of Ari's joke, but there is proof that Mencia was. It's possible to come up with an idea indepentently if you haven't seen the original. It's called "parallel thinking." However, if you have seen the original, it's called "remembering." Frogacuda 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

People need to read WP:SPS 128.227.13.113 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Particularly this part: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material."Frogacuda 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to quote the rest of it
"and so long as it is:
  • relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
  • not contentious;
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;
The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all."
(emphasis mine) DonQuixote 03:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under Attack

This page is under attack! As I tried to fix it, the vandal kept deleting the page! Help! Chitrapa 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Slowking Man for stepping into the battle!
Chitrapa 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is sickening. I am very disappointed with Wikipedia for locking this entry. Carlos = hack. Another one, ripping off the late Sam Kinison http://www.dailymotion.com/jokerthief/video/2537154—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.91.66 (talk • contribs).

It's not locked to all editing, just to anonymous users. If you've something you wish to add or discuss, why don't you sign up for an account? Ford MF 05:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under attack again

don't know how to fix it. Think i did, but kind of messed up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.229.178 (talk • contribs) 03:32, March 26 2007 (UTC).

It's not under attack. It's being bolstered with credible information. You broke it, not fixed it.Frogacuda 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new category?

Someone should create a category for famous comedians involved with alleged joke theivery. 76.22.115.136 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Such a category would be hopelessly, intrinsically POV, not to mention almost certainly a violation of WP:BLP. Categories of people "alleged" to have done something are almost always deleted for just those reasons. Ford MF 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarlos_Mencia_9020.html"