This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Is it just me, or was Stephen Colbert granted official Hungarian citizenship last night on the show?!?! Simonyi gave him a friggin' Hungarian passport!! K. Lastochka 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Simonyi also accepted that Colbert was fluent in Hungarian (though that really remains to be seen). Clearly, he'd need to have said more than he did to prove any kind of fluency (fluency which he probably doesn't have). My guess is that the passport is fake, the money is real, and that were Stephen to actually go and visit the site, he might not be fortunate enough to return to the States in one piece. Not if he really wants his own híd, anyway. Remember the whole death-clause? Phantasmbunny 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but Simonyi assured Stephen that they could work around the death-clause. He invited Stephen to visit Budapest, check out the construction site and then they would go from there. Simonyi is in fact the REAL ambassador and thus I assume the official document was real, as for the passport who knows. BTW, does everybody in the United States know the word "híd" now?? K. Lastochka 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone know what the piece of music they play when they exit on the ambassador and Stephen? I assume it's Hungarian, or at least meant to be vaguely.
It is Ferenc Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2. :) Thanks for an excuse to watch that clip again btw--Andras Simonyi has GOT to be the coolest ambassador around. :) Oh--and Simonyi actually DID say the passport IS official! Good grief, Stephen Colbert is a Hungarian citizen. K. Lastochka 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a very good article. I would support it's use as a featured article once the external link problem is cleaned up. It seems once you click on a link it doesn't allow you to link back to the article easily. Otherwise, the content and substance is very good.
BTW-- I think the page can be unprotected. Eight times in 24 hour is not that many compared to some of the other bio pages in Wiki.
Ramsquire 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because he mentioned your site and various other internet fads on his show doesn't mean he's perfect. He deserves a criticisms section or page.
This might be a good place to start: [1]. It's a piece by the Wash Po's Richard Cohen that pretty well expresses my own feelings about Colbert, and is in response to one of Colbert's defining moments. OPen2737 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no criticism section because there is nothing to critisize.
Wikipedia seriously needs to unlock the Stephen Colbert cite, everyone knows that WP is a frickin joke. And without Colbert in the first place, WP wouldn't be getting so much traffic and ad revenue, so why not let him have some fun and lighten up a bit. It's a frickin' website, not the end of the world.
why this article is still locked??
Leotolstoy
20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's give it a go. -- No Guru 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, I completely agree that there's substantial justification for semi-protection but there are drawbacks to that option. My opinion is that it's more important to show that vandalism is routine and manageable on WP; semi-protection shows that vandalism does have a powerful negative effect requiring severe measures. Yes, it's a nuissance to review all the edits made to the page and revert routinely but that's the case for many articles. It's actions like protecting this article that lead to cries of "omg colbert broke wikipedia lol elephants" and encourage people to continue vandalizing since they think it actually has an impact. But if it's troubling lots of editors I can see why it would be necessary to protect so I'm not vehemently opposed to that option either. -- TM 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am unprotecting this article, as it has been semi-protected for 2 months. I'll be watching it closely and if excessive vandalism becomes a problem again, then I guess I'll have to re-protect it. I'm very uncomfortable with having an article protected for this long, however. — bbatsell ¿? 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there has been no discussion that I can see on the lock on the article in 2 months, and was wondering if it still needs to be protected. Thanks! Whereizben 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit uneasy with editors adding back external links to fan sites on this article which were removed by other editors... Why? Well it's clear that those adding the links back ( Nofactzone ( talk · contribs), Snarkivist ( talk · contribs)) are the folk who run the sites: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.
While there has been previous discussion on the article talk page it seems rather minimal... Might be worth looking at this again? Thanks/ wangi 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Colbertnation is the official fan site. Why are we letting other fansites spam here? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it mentions that he is a member of Mensa. What's the source for this? I really want to satisfy my curiousity, too! Fairy Incognito 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article currently has an image of a segment it spells "Even Stevphen", while the Daily Show's 10 !@#$ing years video on its website currently spells the segment Even Stephven. I wasn't sure if they changed the spelling here and there or whatnot so I didn't want to change it myself. If it's a typo, I suggest correction TheHYPO 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
On the actual opening of Even Stepvhen they have the v behind the p and h - therefore shouldn't it be Even Stepvhen? I can't believe I'm arguing the point xD but still - just a thought... -- 143.167.233.7 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if anyone caught this, but during Colbert's appearance on Comedy Central's Night of Too Many Stars, at one point it sounds as though he's referring to himself with a middle name other than "Tyrone". Unfortuately, it's hard to make out, but there's definitely something he says between "Stephen" and "Colbert", possibly beginning with a "K" sound... anyone have a better idea of what he may have been saying? Also, I sort of feel silly mentioning it at this point, since Tyrone has been in the article for so long, but what exactly was our source for "Tyrone", again? -- (Lee) Bailey (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried adding a section to the article about Colbert's mock Wikipedia website, www.wikiality.com, but it was removed. Based on all of the controversy surrounding Wikipedia and Colbert, the site should be mentioned in the article.
Wikiality should be mentioned since it and Truthiness, which were both coined by Colbert, were nominated for words of the year. If the article mentions truthiness, then Wikiality should also be mentioned. And the wikiality site should be mentioned because Colbert included the web address on last night's show.
Maybe someone could also add it to the Wikiality article. I would, but it has semi-protection.
There's a section under "The Daily Show" heading where it states some of the memorable moments of "This Week in God" include a installment in which Stephen cracks up while discussing a Prince Charles scandal, when, in fact, the aforementioned discussion was not part of the "This Week in God" series. It was just a "live report from London" where he corresponded with Jon about not being able to talk about the scandal. I just watched it on Youtube here: [9] -- 4.253.28.225 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The way the next sentence begins, it implies that the next examples are those of the "This Week in God" series though. Maybe it should be worded differently so as not to mislead. -- 4.253.28.225 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about this part: "...and "This Week in God," a weekly report on topics in the news pertaining to religion, presented with the help of "The God Machine". Memorable reports include..." See how that makes it sound like "Memorable reports of "This Week in God" include..."? -- 4.253.28.225 01:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it could say "Some of Colbert's memorable correspondant reports for the show include..." in place of just the "Memorable reports include..." -- 4.253.28.225 01:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
But how could you really verify it? Saying something's memorable is basically just stating an opinion, albeit a widely agreed upon one. Maybe we could say those certain reports are memorable because they've been viewed online so many times. -- Ambero 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
But having those examples gives insight into why Stephen's so appreciated. Lot's of articles here talk about specific things people have done, just to kind of give an example of what they do. Stephen Colbert is known for being funny and making us laugh, the "memorable reports" are specific examples of him doing what he's known for, so they should stay in. -- Ambero 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we change just one word? Is it really that big of a deal? What else could it say? -- Ambero 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, fine. You do have a point. I wish it could sound more interesting though. I mean, the reason I checked those videos out on Youtube was because this very article said they were "Memorable" and that means they are worth watching, and it made me want to see them. If it just says they are "other" reports... Who cares? It's like, why are they even being mentioned? I'll tell you why! Because they are memorable! Not that anyone would know that NOW... -- Ambero 05:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the article in accordance to the
Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to de-list the article at this time from the
GA list. I encourage the editors of this page to work on improving the article and addressing the concerns listed below. I also encourage the editors to consider resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass
5. It is stable - Pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass
I want to thank the editors for their hardwork and dedication to getting the article up this point. This article has a lot of positive merit and I, again, encourage the editors to continue improving the article and eventually resubmit it for GA consideration. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Agne
02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the concerns above are mostly addressed now. I've expanded the lead, prose-ified the other roles section, removed some of the fair-use images, and cleaned up or partially re-written number of sections. In the process, I added some references, juggled others, and pulled out a few statements we didn't have references for. I expanded the SWC section to include something about the critical response, although I might reword that a bit later, and nixed some of the "other roles" content that seemed irrelevant or very minor; also I added info to the early career section, which could still afford to be fleshed out a bit, I think. Fairly hefty changes, but I'm hoping to bring this up to A or FA-class eventually. -- (Lee) Bailey (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am placing this nomination on hold, with commentary. Please note I am commenting from my POV without having read the previous GA discussion.
All in all, I really like the article. However, it seems as if there is too big of a rush to get this article a GA banner. The grammatical problems are a show stopper. I'm changing the nomination status on hold, but without some serious attention I think this it is still soon to approve. By all means, please ensure the previous reviewer's objections are also addressed. GA nominations may be on hold for seven days -- please notify my talk page with concerns, questions, or requests. I also dropped the WPBio rating to a B-class until this article actually becomes GA-class. / Blaxthos 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to assist in cleaning up this article and getting it to GA-class, however I'm unsure if a GA reviewer can (ethically) actively edit the article... that would violate my ability to objectively evaluate the article. I will do some digging and find out what rules apply. If worse comes to worst, I can delist myself as the reviewer and resubmit the request. My only hesitation there is that the GA candidate list is usually fairly backed up, and I might feel like I was putting more work off on someone else. Will advise. / Blaxthos 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have done some cleanup of several sections. I organized the colbert report section, as well as added some additional info and references on awards & accomplishments. I did an NPOV cleanup in the correspondants dinner section. I think this article is ready for GA status, but due to my contributions, I'm calling for another established editor (anyone who hasn't contributed significantly) to second my approval. There will not be notice of this on the WP:GA candidacy noticeboard, so anyone agreeing on this page will do, and I will elevate to GA. Opinions? / Blaxthos 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So elevated. / Blaxthos 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of back-and-forth edits referring to the pronunciation of Colbert's name. Here is a quote from the cited Time article [10]
"Col-bear" is the correct pronunciation, but he jokes about changing it to "Col-bert" for himself to differentiate himself from his character. Please, no more reverts! -- Tim D 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So it might be affected, but it's definitely not a stage name. -- Bailey (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)My dad always wanted to be Col-BEAR ... so (he) said to us, 'You can be anything you want.' And so we made a choice, and it's about half and half. The girls for the most part are like, 'Get over it, you're Colbert,' but I was so young when this choice was given to us, I think that if somebody woke me up in the middle of the night and slapped me across the face I'd still say Stephen Col-BEAR.
The name Colbert is ultimately French in origin (indeed, one of the main sections of the Louvre is called the Pavillon Colbert), although the name (and presumably the family) spread to Ireland via England. See, e.g., http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/genealogyjen-1097238/jlcd/id8.html, which states:
"COLBERT is said to be of French Huguenot origin, many Colbert families fled into exile many years ago and scattered themselves far and wide, indeed many settled in Ireland , where many Colbert's find they have historic links. To read more on Huguenot exiles visit the Huguenot Webring.
"However, COLBERT is also found in Southern Ireland in the 1400s, long before the Huguenot era. It is possible, that these families came from either England, France or Scotland. The COLBERT surname is well known in South Munster. This name is said to have come to Ireland from England. " I would suggest, therefore, that the text be modified to make it clear that, while Colbert's name is in fact (no joke) French, even though his family may be essentially Irish in origin. In any event, does anyone in fact know his family tree? Or could this be yet another Colbert joke about his past? It wouldn't be the first time a French name has been anglicized in the US, and I wouldn't put it past Colbert to make a joke about that. (I'm sure a fan can tell cite the episode where he insisted, to a Mexican-American guest, that he was not an immigrant French-Canadian but a "French-Frenchian") Ratufa 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected due to frequent vandalsim. / Blaxthos 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That was the funniest vandalism ever. People who do stuff like that are cool -- Ambero 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
hi, i just noticed she's not credited in the pic -- can this be done? it seems an odd little omission. thanks. -- Denstat 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Item: article was deleted. I am editor for colbert.wikia.com, I am now hosting said article. If you don't want to have it here, at least consider an external link to said article. Thank you. Kerojack, Argenta 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything Below is why you should look at Wikipedia for only shits and giggles, you can present anything in a serious enough tone and make it seem plausible, as long as the truthiness of the facts is vague.
In reference to this article: http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/winter2005/alumninews/close-ups/colbert.html "Colbert, 41, was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in South Carolina, the youngest of 11 children." Is this true? Or did this guy get his facts wrong? I thought he was born in South Carolina... -- Fairy Incognito 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, newbie here - under TDS, it says that Colbert won 4 Emmys, whereas under TCR it says that his "only Emmy" came in 2006. Can someone please investigate and clarify? As for where Colbert was born, the Northwestern alumni magazine reporter asked Colbert where he was born and that's where that comes from.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.95.94 ( talk • contribs)
I think that it should be mentioned that Stephen Colbert was listed #2 on the list of Maxim's 10 Hottest TV News Anchors. It may be trivial, but I believe that it would add to the comedy of his work. The link to the specific page is: http://maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?slideId=2514&imgCollectId=121 Sorry, I forgot to login, I'm TheChrisParker
Can I get a citation for this, appearing on the first line? "Stephen Tyrone Colbert [...] is a [...] child panty sniffer [...]". I'm willing to give some benefit of doubt in that he may have jokingly described himself as such on his show or in an interview, though if I were a gambling man, I'd put money on this being a piece of vandalism. --ArcMonkey 75.22.226.144 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Colbert Report section it says that "In May 2006, the New Yorker magazine listed Colbert (along with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show) as one of its top dozen influential persons in media.[39]" I was surprised to see the New Yorker had such lists. Foot note 39 says "^ The New Yorker Magazine's Most Influential People of 2006." However the link goes here: " http://nymag.com/news/features/influentials/16926/" which is clearly New York Magazine. So, could someone please fix this since it is locked.
Because he/she shouldn't have to.
I'm a graphic designer and have picked up on the fact that the main photo of Stephen Colbert is doctored, proof of this is the jagged edge around his face, the plain non-shadowed skin-tone on his face, the lack of shine on the left side of his face where the sun is coming down, the single-coloured flat tuxedo notch. and lighting near the top right of the notch. The photo isn't particularly good even if it were to be a true photo, I think it should be changed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.111.218 ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 December 2006
I wasn't sure if anyone had seen that Colbert's work Truthiness won "Word of the Year" honors. Is this worth adding to the main article? -- Brownings 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we make a section specifically dedicated to Colbert's awards and honors... multiple Emmy awards, pulitzer prize (sp?), word of the year, etc... definitely should be a section instead of buried in his career section. It would help expand the article, too. Anyone wanna volunteer? / Blaxthos 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There isn't, yet, but I propose we create one and restructure the article accordingly. / Blaxthos 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Stephen was named breakout person of the year by Vh1's Big in '06 contest. I don't know if it's worth mentioning or it's a little too fangirl-obsessive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.35 ( talk • contribs)
emmy awards... the show was nominated for four, but one was for best director. steven wasnt the director. jim hoskinson was. steven has won three emmys for his work on the daily show. Brendan19 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Daily Show won Peabodies while he was there. Is he a Peabody winner or is he just joking? I dunno whether to put [[Category:Peabody Award winners]] on or not. Voretus talk 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's just http://colbertnation.com
(Couldn't edit it myself because this is a new account) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamboozler ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Colbert is listed as a "Roman Catholic entertainer" and "American Roman Catholic" in the category listings, but is he really a Catholic? From his satirical performances I would assume he only plays a demented Catholic and isn't really a Christian in real life. From the way he satirized Christianity one would doubt he is one. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comedy Partners now has a copyright notice at the bottom right-hand corner of the page, when highlighted with the mouse. Typing monkey 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's been there for a while. The placement is suggestive of a copyright notice, but neither the word "copyright" nor the copyright symbol appear at all. The full (hidden) text is "2005 2006 Comedy Partners Rights Reserved". It's interesting, but it doesn’t prove anything, since anyone could just as easilly throw up a similar note on their own site. 70.110.107.121
The first cartoon was about Abraxxia. The novel at the site features a chapter about Abbraxia, which was published months before the cartoon aired. There is a Comedy Partners copyright notice on the front page of the site. There are Comedy Central ads all over the site, including video ads with current original content from Comedy Central. It really is a brick wall battle, some people won't believe anything unless they see it on television. Typing monkey 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what anyone believes, though; it matters what can be demonstrated using reliable sources. The Abraxxia thing is interesting, but there's also a bit about Abraxxia on the Colbert Nation website, as well as the non-animated segments on the Report which aired much earlier than the cartoon. With regards to ads and copyright notices, I still think it's worth checking out this awesome site. Even if there's a case to be made for there being some connection between the site and the Colbert Report, the exact relationship remains a mystery -- there's been no official word about this one way or another, and press sources have completely ignored it. Per WP:RS Wikipedia doesn't engage in original research and per WP:NOT, Wikipedia does not break news. If the site is really Colbert's magnum opus, it will be reported by someone eventually. It doesn't hurt the article to wait until then. Bailey (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Pantsman somebody or other has been vandalizing this page, replacing the entire thing with "He has recently admitted he is a homosexual."
First of all, I think your cool. Second, I think we might want to request that you be elected presedent.
Thoughts?
-- Lady Voldything 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just saw Colbert on O'reilly and I was wondering why he didn't have anything good to say about Stewart. He kept saying negative things about him and I am not sure why. Anyone have light to shed on this?
That interview between Bill O'rielly and Jon Stewart, Bill does indeed call the The Daily Show's viewers "Stone Slacker." Stewart doesn't really respond, I think O'rielly might have been trying to bait Stewart into an arguement or something, if it was a joke it wasn't very good. Stewart wasn't laughing. User:Hibbidyhai
It's really incredible how few people actualy understand what Steven Colbert and his writers run the show like. Look: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is obviously intended for a Democratic audience, and at first glance the Colbert Resport might seem as its Republican counter-part, but in reality, they're both Democratic. The Colbert Report and Steven's lines are written to be extremely Republican to expose the bad parts of that way of thought, whereas the Daily Show staff makes it straightforward liberal. In a nutshell: The Colbert Report is reverse psycology. How this ties in with the O'Reilly thing is that Steven was agreeing with him to expose him as an @$$hole, or so I strongly believe.
Removed:
In the January 24, 2007 episode, Colbert referred to Wikipedia in "The Word" section of his show by displaying "Wikipedia" as subtext for his statement that he could create a fact by posting something on a blog, having another blog link to it, and then validating that blog's reporting of the "fact" by referring to it on his show.
Per previous discussions, this is an article about Stephen Colbert the person, and while it's kind of interesting to Wikipedians when he mentions us, it's not really a notable event in the context of his career. The Report has had over 200 shows now, during which time he's made fun of a lot of things, which for the most part are not worth listing individually in this article.
By the same token, I feel the extra description of his O'Reilly interview (tacked on at the end of the "other roles" section, for some reason) would make more sense in the The Colbert Report article than this one. The two appearing on each others' shows was a notable Colbert Report moment, but pointing out specific jokes that Colbert made in one specific interview seems like going into a bit too much detail for a career overview. -- Bailey (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
i want to put in your profile
Steven Colbert tells how it is, doesnt lie, and has no feer. He is famous from strangers with candy and the daily show with jon stawart. But since then hes become a inspiration for many. STEVEN COLBERT IS THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE (and funniest)> COLBERT/STEWART 2008! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Amann32 (
talk •
contribs)
04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi. The first paragraph of the page ends as, 'deadpan comedic delivery'. There is no such word as 'comedic', it should be 'comic'. Please make this change. Thanks.
i found this under whose line is it anyway in wikipedia= In addition, seven years before creating The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert took the fourth spot at a taping in the first season [12]
Colbert has also:
1. Help spread the rumour of the elephant population tripling, by calling for his viewers to record the statement on Wikipedia.
2. Dubbed the phrase "Reality has to be contained" (I forget the exact phrasing he used), which he called viewers to again amend to the Wikipedia entry of 'reality'.
3. Has officially been granted an honorary day in his name in Oshawa, Canada, as the result of a wager held between himself and John Gray, the mayor of Oshawa. This day is remembered on March 20th, Mayor John Gray's birthday.[1]
Apologies on this being a 'weak' link, but the above information is hot off the press.
Dafdaf 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert recently challenged someone as of the end of january 07 to post a check on reality and it was for sale and the first person to post that it was would gain 5$. Unfortunatly, the reality word is / was under construction. There for no money could be gained. As an avid support of Gaining Money, Colbert, And an oshawa generals fan looking for a little payback for the Pants (ps, he does look good in red and white), I tried to post a change. However I could not, as such, I will keep checking so that I may attempt to win the 5$. I posted to the Colbert definition in Wikipedia, however I'm not sure that reality was mentioned there either.
Nathan Duclos Nathanduclos@hotmail.com Oshawa Ontario, Canada
postscript, Is the 5$ in American or Canadian funds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanduclos ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Can an admin please block changes to Stephen Colbert Day, as well? The vandalism is getting very more tiresome and stupid. Thanks Shawn in Montreal 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't something be mentioned about stephen colbert day? After the Saginaw Spirit beat the Oshawa generals? Also, don't forget the Saginaw Spirit named their mascot after him, 'Stephen Cobeagle the Eagle", AND got saginaw fans to throw General Motors quarter reports on the ice at the game he won his day on
I agree that Stephen Colbert Day should be mentioned - either in this article or in Stephen Colbert (character). I certainly expected to find it in one of those two places. CharacterZero | Speak 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The Colbert/Wikipedia battle became more interesting with the overnight Wikilobbying battle last night. Does anyone know why this page was deleted? 21:25 January 30 2007
But Colbert was not the only one to bring up the issue; he got it from the New York Times and other news sources. Colbert just named it. If companies are paying people to "fix" Wikipedia pages, as Microsoft is reported to be doing, than that merits its own page. There is no self-promotion involved, let alone spam. 21:55 January 30 2007.
Please change it from {{ sprotected}} to {{ protected}}. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried to put your entry into the "reality" page but it was locked, Stephen. ;) VX VX 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} I think Wikipedia in popular culture should be added to "see also". Bubba73 (talk), 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of red links on the talk pages of people who joke on this page. It'd be helpful to WP:WARN them. Thanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
whoever is locking this, please fix the link to this week in god, it should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Daily_Show_recurring_segments#This_Week_in_God -- Jaibe 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This wiki introduces him as Stephen Tyrone Colbert. Is that REALLY his middle name? -Northridge01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there something missing from this article? Something that starts with W- and ends with -ikipedia? Shouldn't the Wikipedia article on Stephen Colbert mention how he's probably the world's most prominent Wikipedia critic? Vidor 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
An "award" of sorts, Stephen is credited in Firefox's About dialog. 207.229.164.50 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would add that Dan Bakkedahl joined the daily show after Mr. Colbert left the show - I hesitate to say "replaced" Mr. Colbert, but I think that would be a useful link in Colbert's main article.
Colbert did not leave the Daily Show. He appears as an adjunct to the show, continuing his relationship with it. 70.5.166.167 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And reference 62 should link to the message on the Ben and Jerry's official site ( http://www.benjerry.com/features/americone_dream_index.cfm) rather than to a temporary link at Yahoo news.
The term coined by Stephen Colbert that sums up the current ongoing wars that the USA is involved in, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the War on Terrorism. -- Hanswaldenmaier 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
H2g2bob suggested a merge of this page and Stephen Colbert (character), but did not give a reason on the talk page. Anyone who knows of Stephen Colbert would know that merging these two does not make sense. It is similar to how Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character) both deserve two different pages as these are two different people. Stephen Colbert the actor and comic portrays Stephen Colbert the character, but they are in no way the same person. I removed the merge request. spirit 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Which party is he? Republican or Democrat? 70.149.79.61 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
He claims in the show to be a moderate or independant, however it is obvious that he is a conservative, most likely a registered republican 75.73.121.145 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The Person. In the sho, he "IS A REBUBLICAN".
His exact claim is "i'm a independent that is often mistaken for a republican"-- Wilson 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In his recent episode aired March 28th, 2007 he added Italy to his Axis of Evil and pretended to speak Italian. Obviously the first bit was for humor, and then he went on to speak several more lines without a translation.
Does anyone have any sources to suggest he speaks it, or is this a bit for the show? If so, a note can be added. Geral Corasjo 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I removed the last paragraph of this section, which purports to be information from the economist. I removed it because I saw it as being unsourced, poorly formatted, and not encyclopedic. Asabanuevo put it back after I left a comment on her/his talk page about it. I don't agree with having it there, and will leave it for now with an unsourced tag, but if others can agree on what to do with it, then please let us do whatever is agreed on. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
How tall is he? -- myselfalso 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that he's the greatest living American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.47 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 17 April 2007.
It has been rumored recentley that Colbert will be a popular write in for the up coming 2008 presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.222.149 ( talk) 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction, the following sentence should be clarified:
"Since its debut the series has been successful, earning Colbert four Emmy nominations and an invitation to perform as featured entertainer at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in its first year (2006), in addition to establishing itself as one of Comedy Central's highest rated series."
While I am pretty sure that the writer is referring to the show's first year in 2006, it sounds as if it was the WHCA Dinner's first year, which is obviously not the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeDog ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
For the source for the assertion in the first paragraph that Colbert's routine is portraying opinionmaking fools, see his own assertion in the Onion interview:
The words I used are actually more restrained than Colbert's own. Larry Dunn 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone (or some 'bot) has deleted all spaces within citations. This fucks up editing and diffing the article for everyone else. So, thanks, but no, thanks, stop it. -- Lexein 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think its worth mentioning about his unofficial website and also that if you type "Greatest Living America" in google you would get Stephen Colbert-- Primetimeking 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine is running their "Most Influential" people this year and it looks like Stephen Colbert is actually on top, tied in rating with Nintendo founder Shigeru Miyamoto but coming out ahead due to the number of votes. Should this be included? Franck Drake 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably not until he actually wins it. User:Hibbidyhai
In the article, it states that Colbert is working on a book and the title has not been released. The title is "I Am America (And So Can You!)" and it is available on Amazon.com for pre-order. Annonymous April 29,2007
I think its worth mentioning that Stephen Colbert is a Catholic.-- 66.176.255.84 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with his deafness? -- Starks 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think in the "See Also" section, there should be a link to the "Stephen Colbert (character)" page, which I didn't know exhisted until I found it through another page. At the same time the "(character)" page could use a link back to the original Colbert page in its "See Also" section (thought that's less impotant as the link exists in the first line).
I realize there's a link under the "The Colbert Report" section, but its poorly labeled "in character". This should be rewritten, in addition to the link being added in the "See Also" section, so if you're looking for the link, it's obvious in that section and you don't have to go searching through the body of the article to find it.
This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29
Wadester16 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Is it just me, or was Stephen Colbert granted official Hungarian citizenship last night on the show?!?! Simonyi gave him a friggin' Hungarian passport!! K. Lastochka 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Simonyi also accepted that Colbert was fluent in Hungarian (though that really remains to be seen). Clearly, he'd need to have said more than he did to prove any kind of fluency (fluency which he probably doesn't have). My guess is that the passport is fake, the money is real, and that were Stephen to actually go and visit the site, he might not be fortunate enough to return to the States in one piece. Not if he really wants his own híd, anyway. Remember the whole death-clause? Phantasmbunny 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but Simonyi assured Stephen that they could work around the death-clause. He invited Stephen to visit Budapest, check out the construction site and then they would go from there. Simonyi is in fact the REAL ambassador and thus I assume the official document was real, as for the passport who knows. BTW, does everybody in the United States know the word "híd" now?? K. Lastochka 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone know what the piece of music they play when they exit on the ambassador and Stephen? I assume it's Hungarian, or at least meant to be vaguely.
It is Ferenc Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2. :) Thanks for an excuse to watch that clip again btw--Andras Simonyi has GOT to be the coolest ambassador around. :) Oh--and Simonyi actually DID say the passport IS official! Good grief, Stephen Colbert is a Hungarian citizen. K. Lastochka 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a very good article. I would support it's use as a featured article once the external link problem is cleaned up. It seems once you click on a link it doesn't allow you to link back to the article easily. Otherwise, the content and substance is very good.
BTW-- I think the page can be unprotected. Eight times in 24 hour is not that many compared to some of the other bio pages in Wiki.
Ramsquire 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because he mentioned your site and various other internet fads on his show doesn't mean he's perfect. He deserves a criticisms section or page.
This might be a good place to start: [1]. It's a piece by the Wash Po's Richard Cohen that pretty well expresses my own feelings about Colbert, and is in response to one of Colbert's defining moments. OPen2737 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no criticism section because there is nothing to critisize.
Wikipedia seriously needs to unlock the Stephen Colbert cite, everyone knows that WP is a frickin joke. And without Colbert in the first place, WP wouldn't be getting so much traffic and ad revenue, so why not let him have some fun and lighten up a bit. It's a frickin' website, not the end of the world.
why this article is still locked??
Leotolstoy
20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's give it a go. -- No Guru 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, I completely agree that there's substantial justification for semi-protection but there are drawbacks to that option. My opinion is that it's more important to show that vandalism is routine and manageable on WP; semi-protection shows that vandalism does have a powerful negative effect requiring severe measures. Yes, it's a nuissance to review all the edits made to the page and revert routinely but that's the case for many articles. It's actions like protecting this article that lead to cries of "omg colbert broke wikipedia lol elephants" and encourage people to continue vandalizing since they think it actually has an impact. But if it's troubling lots of editors I can see why it would be necessary to protect so I'm not vehemently opposed to that option either. -- TM 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am unprotecting this article, as it has been semi-protected for 2 months. I'll be watching it closely and if excessive vandalism becomes a problem again, then I guess I'll have to re-protect it. I'm very uncomfortable with having an article protected for this long, however. — bbatsell ¿? 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there has been no discussion that I can see on the lock on the article in 2 months, and was wondering if it still needs to be protected. Thanks! Whereizben 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit uneasy with editors adding back external links to fan sites on this article which were removed by other editors... Why? Well it's clear that those adding the links back ( Nofactzone ( talk · contribs), Snarkivist ( talk · contribs)) are the folk who run the sites: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.
While there has been previous discussion on the article talk page it seems rather minimal... Might be worth looking at this again? Thanks/ wangi 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Colbertnation is the official fan site. Why are we letting other fansites spam here? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it mentions that he is a member of Mensa. What's the source for this? I really want to satisfy my curiousity, too! Fairy Incognito 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article currently has an image of a segment it spells "Even Stevphen", while the Daily Show's 10 !@#$ing years video on its website currently spells the segment Even Stephven. I wasn't sure if they changed the spelling here and there or whatnot so I didn't want to change it myself. If it's a typo, I suggest correction TheHYPO 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
On the actual opening of Even Stepvhen they have the v behind the p and h - therefore shouldn't it be Even Stepvhen? I can't believe I'm arguing the point xD but still - just a thought... -- 143.167.233.7 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if anyone caught this, but during Colbert's appearance on Comedy Central's Night of Too Many Stars, at one point it sounds as though he's referring to himself with a middle name other than "Tyrone". Unfortuately, it's hard to make out, but there's definitely something he says between "Stephen" and "Colbert", possibly beginning with a "K" sound... anyone have a better idea of what he may have been saying? Also, I sort of feel silly mentioning it at this point, since Tyrone has been in the article for so long, but what exactly was our source for "Tyrone", again? -- (Lee) Bailey (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried adding a section to the article about Colbert's mock Wikipedia website, www.wikiality.com, but it was removed. Based on all of the controversy surrounding Wikipedia and Colbert, the site should be mentioned in the article.
Wikiality should be mentioned since it and Truthiness, which were both coined by Colbert, were nominated for words of the year. If the article mentions truthiness, then Wikiality should also be mentioned. And the wikiality site should be mentioned because Colbert included the web address on last night's show.
Maybe someone could also add it to the Wikiality article. I would, but it has semi-protection.
There's a section under "The Daily Show" heading where it states some of the memorable moments of "This Week in God" include a installment in which Stephen cracks up while discussing a Prince Charles scandal, when, in fact, the aforementioned discussion was not part of the "This Week in God" series. It was just a "live report from London" where he corresponded with Jon about not being able to talk about the scandal. I just watched it on Youtube here: [9] -- 4.253.28.225 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The way the next sentence begins, it implies that the next examples are those of the "This Week in God" series though. Maybe it should be worded differently so as not to mislead. -- 4.253.28.225 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about this part: "...and "This Week in God," a weekly report on topics in the news pertaining to religion, presented with the help of "The God Machine". Memorable reports include..." See how that makes it sound like "Memorable reports of "This Week in God" include..."? -- 4.253.28.225 01:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it could say "Some of Colbert's memorable correspondant reports for the show include..." in place of just the "Memorable reports include..." -- 4.253.28.225 01:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
But how could you really verify it? Saying something's memorable is basically just stating an opinion, albeit a widely agreed upon one. Maybe we could say those certain reports are memorable because they've been viewed online so many times. -- Ambero 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
But having those examples gives insight into why Stephen's so appreciated. Lot's of articles here talk about specific things people have done, just to kind of give an example of what they do. Stephen Colbert is known for being funny and making us laugh, the "memorable reports" are specific examples of him doing what he's known for, so they should stay in. -- Ambero 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we change just one word? Is it really that big of a deal? What else could it say? -- Ambero 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, fine. You do have a point. I wish it could sound more interesting though. I mean, the reason I checked those videos out on Youtube was because this very article said they were "Memorable" and that means they are worth watching, and it made me want to see them. If it just says they are "other" reports... Who cares? It's like, why are they even being mentioned? I'll tell you why! Because they are memorable! Not that anyone would know that NOW... -- Ambero 05:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
After reviewing the article in accordance to the
Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to de-list the article at this time from the
GA list. I encourage the editors of this page to work on improving the article and addressing the concerns listed below. I also encourage the editors to consider resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Pass
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass
5. It is stable - Pass
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass
I want to thank the editors for their hardwork and dedication to getting the article up this point. This article has a lot of positive merit and I, again, encourage the editors to continue improving the article and eventually resubmit it for GA consideration. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Agne
02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the concerns above are mostly addressed now. I've expanded the lead, prose-ified the other roles section, removed some of the fair-use images, and cleaned up or partially re-written number of sections. In the process, I added some references, juggled others, and pulled out a few statements we didn't have references for. I expanded the SWC section to include something about the critical response, although I might reword that a bit later, and nixed some of the "other roles" content that seemed irrelevant or very minor; also I added info to the early career section, which could still afford to be fleshed out a bit, I think. Fairly hefty changes, but I'm hoping to bring this up to A or FA-class eventually. -- (Lee) Bailey (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am placing this nomination on hold, with commentary. Please note I am commenting from my POV without having read the previous GA discussion.
All in all, I really like the article. However, it seems as if there is too big of a rush to get this article a GA banner. The grammatical problems are a show stopper. I'm changing the nomination status on hold, but without some serious attention I think this it is still soon to approve. By all means, please ensure the previous reviewer's objections are also addressed. GA nominations may be on hold for seven days -- please notify my talk page with concerns, questions, or requests. I also dropped the WPBio rating to a B-class until this article actually becomes GA-class. / Blaxthos 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to assist in cleaning up this article and getting it to GA-class, however I'm unsure if a GA reviewer can (ethically) actively edit the article... that would violate my ability to objectively evaluate the article. I will do some digging and find out what rules apply. If worse comes to worst, I can delist myself as the reviewer and resubmit the request. My only hesitation there is that the GA candidate list is usually fairly backed up, and I might feel like I was putting more work off on someone else. Will advise. / Blaxthos 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have done some cleanup of several sections. I organized the colbert report section, as well as added some additional info and references on awards & accomplishments. I did an NPOV cleanup in the correspondants dinner section. I think this article is ready for GA status, but due to my contributions, I'm calling for another established editor (anyone who hasn't contributed significantly) to second my approval. There will not be notice of this on the WP:GA candidacy noticeboard, so anyone agreeing on this page will do, and I will elevate to GA. Opinions? / Blaxthos 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So elevated. / Blaxthos 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of back-and-forth edits referring to the pronunciation of Colbert's name. Here is a quote from the cited Time article [10]
"Col-bear" is the correct pronunciation, but he jokes about changing it to "Col-bert" for himself to differentiate himself from his character. Please, no more reverts! -- Tim D 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
So it might be affected, but it's definitely not a stage name. -- Bailey (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)My dad always wanted to be Col-BEAR ... so (he) said to us, 'You can be anything you want.' And so we made a choice, and it's about half and half. The girls for the most part are like, 'Get over it, you're Colbert,' but I was so young when this choice was given to us, I think that if somebody woke me up in the middle of the night and slapped me across the face I'd still say Stephen Col-BEAR.
The name Colbert is ultimately French in origin (indeed, one of the main sections of the Louvre is called the Pavillon Colbert), although the name (and presumably the family) spread to Ireland via England. See, e.g., http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/genealogyjen-1097238/jlcd/id8.html, which states:
"COLBERT is said to be of French Huguenot origin, many Colbert families fled into exile many years ago and scattered themselves far and wide, indeed many settled in Ireland , where many Colbert's find they have historic links. To read more on Huguenot exiles visit the Huguenot Webring.
"However, COLBERT is also found in Southern Ireland in the 1400s, long before the Huguenot era. It is possible, that these families came from either England, France or Scotland. The COLBERT surname is well known in South Munster. This name is said to have come to Ireland from England. " I would suggest, therefore, that the text be modified to make it clear that, while Colbert's name is in fact (no joke) French, even though his family may be essentially Irish in origin. In any event, does anyone in fact know his family tree? Or could this be yet another Colbert joke about his past? It wouldn't be the first time a French name has been anglicized in the US, and I wouldn't put it past Colbert to make a joke about that. (I'm sure a fan can tell cite the episode where he insisted, to a Mexican-American guest, that he was not an immigrant French-Canadian but a "French-Frenchian") Ratufa 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected due to frequent vandalsim. / Blaxthos 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That was the funniest vandalism ever. People who do stuff like that are cool -- Ambero 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
hi, i just noticed she's not credited in the pic -- can this be done? it seems an odd little omission. thanks. -- Denstat 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Item: article was deleted. I am editor for colbert.wikia.com, I am now hosting said article. If you don't want to have it here, at least consider an external link to said article. Thank you. Kerojack, Argenta 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything Below is why you should look at Wikipedia for only shits and giggles, you can present anything in a serious enough tone and make it seem plausible, as long as the truthiness of the facts is vague.
In reference to this article: http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/winter2005/alumninews/close-ups/colbert.html "Colbert, 41, was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in South Carolina, the youngest of 11 children." Is this true? Or did this guy get his facts wrong? I thought he was born in South Carolina... -- Fairy Incognito 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, newbie here - under TDS, it says that Colbert won 4 Emmys, whereas under TCR it says that his "only Emmy" came in 2006. Can someone please investigate and clarify? As for where Colbert was born, the Northwestern alumni magazine reporter asked Colbert where he was born and that's where that comes from.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.95.94 ( talk • contribs)
I think that it should be mentioned that Stephen Colbert was listed #2 on the list of Maxim's 10 Hottest TV News Anchors. It may be trivial, but I believe that it would add to the comedy of his work. The link to the specific page is: http://maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?slideId=2514&imgCollectId=121 Sorry, I forgot to login, I'm TheChrisParker
Can I get a citation for this, appearing on the first line? "Stephen Tyrone Colbert [...] is a [...] child panty sniffer [...]". I'm willing to give some benefit of doubt in that he may have jokingly described himself as such on his show or in an interview, though if I were a gambling man, I'd put money on this being a piece of vandalism. --ArcMonkey 75.22.226.144 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Colbert Report section it says that "In May 2006, the New Yorker magazine listed Colbert (along with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show) as one of its top dozen influential persons in media.[39]" I was surprised to see the New Yorker had such lists. Foot note 39 says "^ The New Yorker Magazine's Most Influential People of 2006." However the link goes here: " http://nymag.com/news/features/influentials/16926/" which is clearly New York Magazine. So, could someone please fix this since it is locked.
Because he/she shouldn't have to.
I'm a graphic designer and have picked up on the fact that the main photo of Stephen Colbert is doctored, proof of this is the jagged edge around his face, the plain non-shadowed skin-tone on his face, the lack of shine on the left side of his face where the sun is coming down, the single-coloured flat tuxedo notch. and lighting near the top right of the notch. The photo isn't particularly good even if it were to be a true photo, I think it should be changed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.111.218 ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 December 2006
I wasn't sure if anyone had seen that Colbert's work Truthiness won "Word of the Year" honors. Is this worth adding to the main article? -- Brownings 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we make a section specifically dedicated to Colbert's awards and honors... multiple Emmy awards, pulitzer prize (sp?), word of the year, etc... definitely should be a section instead of buried in his career section. It would help expand the article, too. Anyone wanna volunteer? / Blaxthos 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There isn't, yet, but I propose we create one and restructure the article accordingly. / Blaxthos 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Stephen was named breakout person of the year by Vh1's Big in '06 contest. I don't know if it's worth mentioning or it's a little too fangirl-obsessive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.35 ( talk • contribs)
emmy awards... the show was nominated for four, but one was for best director. steven wasnt the director. jim hoskinson was. steven has won three emmys for his work on the daily show. Brendan19 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Daily Show won Peabodies while he was there. Is he a Peabody winner or is he just joking? I dunno whether to put [[Category:Peabody Award winners]] on or not. Voretus talk 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's just http://colbertnation.com
(Couldn't edit it myself because this is a new account) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamboozler ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Colbert is listed as a "Roman Catholic entertainer" and "American Roman Catholic" in the category listings, but is he really a Catholic? From his satirical performances I would assume he only plays a demented Catholic and isn't really a Christian in real life. From the way he satirized Christianity one would doubt he is one. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comedy Partners now has a copyright notice at the bottom right-hand corner of the page, when highlighted with the mouse. Typing monkey 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's been there for a while. The placement is suggestive of a copyright notice, but neither the word "copyright" nor the copyright symbol appear at all. The full (hidden) text is "2005 2006 Comedy Partners Rights Reserved". It's interesting, but it doesn’t prove anything, since anyone could just as easilly throw up a similar note on their own site. 70.110.107.121
The first cartoon was about Abraxxia. The novel at the site features a chapter about Abbraxia, which was published months before the cartoon aired. There is a Comedy Partners copyright notice on the front page of the site. There are Comedy Central ads all over the site, including video ads with current original content from Comedy Central. It really is a brick wall battle, some people won't believe anything unless they see it on television. Typing monkey 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what anyone believes, though; it matters what can be demonstrated using reliable sources. The Abraxxia thing is interesting, but there's also a bit about Abraxxia on the Colbert Nation website, as well as the non-animated segments on the Report which aired much earlier than the cartoon. With regards to ads and copyright notices, I still think it's worth checking out this awesome site. Even if there's a case to be made for there being some connection between the site and the Colbert Report, the exact relationship remains a mystery -- there's been no official word about this one way or another, and press sources have completely ignored it. Per WP:RS Wikipedia doesn't engage in original research and per WP:NOT, Wikipedia does not break news. If the site is really Colbert's magnum opus, it will be reported by someone eventually. It doesn't hurt the article to wait until then. Bailey (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Pantsman somebody or other has been vandalizing this page, replacing the entire thing with "He has recently admitted he is a homosexual."
First of all, I think your cool. Second, I think we might want to request that you be elected presedent.
Thoughts?
-- Lady Voldything 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just saw Colbert on O'reilly and I was wondering why he didn't have anything good to say about Stewart. He kept saying negative things about him and I am not sure why. Anyone have light to shed on this?
That interview between Bill O'rielly and Jon Stewart, Bill does indeed call the The Daily Show's viewers "Stone Slacker." Stewart doesn't really respond, I think O'rielly might have been trying to bait Stewart into an arguement or something, if it was a joke it wasn't very good. Stewart wasn't laughing. User:Hibbidyhai
It's really incredible how few people actualy understand what Steven Colbert and his writers run the show like. Look: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is obviously intended for a Democratic audience, and at first glance the Colbert Resport might seem as its Republican counter-part, but in reality, they're both Democratic. The Colbert Report and Steven's lines are written to be extremely Republican to expose the bad parts of that way of thought, whereas the Daily Show staff makes it straightforward liberal. In a nutshell: The Colbert Report is reverse psycology. How this ties in with the O'Reilly thing is that Steven was agreeing with him to expose him as an @$$hole, or so I strongly believe.
Removed:
In the January 24, 2007 episode, Colbert referred to Wikipedia in "The Word" section of his show by displaying "Wikipedia" as subtext for his statement that he could create a fact by posting something on a blog, having another blog link to it, and then validating that blog's reporting of the "fact" by referring to it on his show.
Per previous discussions, this is an article about Stephen Colbert the person, and while it's kind of interesting to Wikipedians when he mentions us, it's not really a notable event in the context of his career. The Report has had over 200 shows now, during which time he's made fun of a lot of things, which for the most part are not worth listing individually in this article.
By the same token, I feel the extra description of his O'Reilly interview (tacked on at the end of the "other roles" section, for some reason) would make more sense in the The Colbert Report article than this one. The two appearing on each others' shows was a notable Colbert Report moment, but pointing out specific jokes that Colbert made in one specific interview seems like going into a bit too much detail for a career overview. -- Bailey (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
i want to put in your profile
Steven Colbert tells how it is, doesnt lie, and has no feer. He is famous from strangers with candy and the daily show with jon stawart. But since then hes become a inspiration for many. STEVEN COLBERT IS THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE (and funniest)> COLBERT/STEWART 2008! —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Amann32 (
talk •
contribs)
04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi. The first paragraph of the page ends as, 'deadpan comedic delivery'. There is no such word as 'comedic', it should be 'comic'. Please make this change. Thanks.
i found this under whose line is it anyway in wikipedia= In addition, seven years before creating The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert took the fourth spot at a taping in the first season [12]
Colbert has also:
1. Help spread the rumour of the elephant population tripling, by calling for his viewers to record the statement on Wikipedia.
2. Dubbed the phrase "Reality has to be contained" (I forget the exact phrasing he used), which he called viewers to again amend to the Wikipedia entry of 'reality'.
3. Has officially been granted an honorary day in his name in Oshawa, Canada, as the result of a wager held between himself and John Gray, the mayor of Oshawa. This day is remembered on March 20th, Mayor John Gray's birthday.[1]
Apologies on this being a 'weak' link, but the above information is hot off the press.
Dafdaf 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert recently challenged someone as of the end of january 07 to post a check on reality and it was for sale and the first person to post that it was would gain 5$. Unfortunatly, the reality word is / was under construction. There for no money could be gained. As an avid support of Gaining Money, Colbert, And an oshawa generals fan looking for a little payback for the Pants (ps, he does look good in red and white), I tried to post a change. However I could not, as such, I will keep checking so that I may attempt to win the 5$. I posted to the Colbert definition in Wikipedia, however I'm not sure that reality was mentioned there either.
Nathan Duclos Nathanduclos@hotmail.com Oshawa Ontario, Canada
postscript, Is the 5$ in American or Canadian funds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanduclos ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Can an admin please block changes to Stephen Colbert Day, as well? The vandalism is getting very more tiresome and stupid. Thanks Shawn in Montreal 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't something be mentioned about stephen colbert day? After the Saginaw Spirit beat the Oshawa generals? Also, don't forget the Saginaw Spirit named their mascot after him, 'Stephen Cobeagle the Eagle", AND got saginaw fans to throw General Motors quarter reports on the ice at the game he won his day on
I agree that Stephen Colbert Day should be mentioned - either in this article or in Stephen Colbert (character). I certainly expected to find it in one of those two places. CharacterZero | Speak 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The Colbert/Wikipedia battle became more interesting with the overnight Wikilobbying battle last night. Does anyone know why this page was deleted? 21:25 January 30 2007
But Colbert was not the only one to bring up the issue; he got it from the New York Times and other news sources. Colbert just named it. If companies are paying people to "fix" Wikipedia pages, as Microsoft is reported to be doing, than that merits its own page. There is no self-promotion involved, let alone spam. 21:55 January 30 2007.
Please change it from {{ sprotected}} to {{ protected}}. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried to put your entry into the "reality" page but it was locked, Stephen. ;) VX VX 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} I think Wikipedia in popular culture should be added to "see also". Bubba73 (talk), 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of red links on the talk pages of people who joke on this page. It'd be helpful to WP:WARN them. Thanks. Xiner ( talk, email) 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
whoever is locking this, please fix the link to this week in god, it should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Daily_Show_recurring_segments#This_Week_in_God -- Jaibe 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This wiki introduces him as Stephen Tyrone Colbert. Is that REALLY his middle name? -Northridge01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there something missing from this article? Something that starts with W- and ends with -ikipedia? Shouldn't the Wikipedia article on Stephen Colbert mention how he's probably the world's most prominent Wikipedia critic? Vidor 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
An "award" of sorts, Stephen is credited in Firefox's About dialog. 207.229.164.50 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would add that Dan Bakkedahl joined the daily show after Mr. Colbert left the show - I hesitate to say "replaced" Mr. Colbert, but I think that would be a useful link in Colbert's main article.
Colbert did not leave the Daily Show. He appears as an adjunct to the show, continuing his relationship with it. 70.5.166.167 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And reference 62 should link to the message on the Ben and Jerry's official site ( http://www.benjerry.com/features/americone_dream_index.cfm) rather than to a temporary link at Yahoo news.
The term coined by Stephen Colbert that sums up the current ongoing wars that the USA is involved in, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the War on Terrorism. -- Hanswaldenmaier 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
H2g2bob suggested a merge of this page and Stephen Colbert (character), but did not give a reason on the talk page. Anyone who knows of Stephen Colbert would know that merging these two does not make sense. It is similar to how Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character) both deserve two different pages as these are two different people. Stephen Colbert the actor and comic portrays Stephen Colbert the character, but they are in no way the same person. I removed the merge request. spirit 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Which party is he? Republican or Democrat? 70.149.79.61 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
He claims in the show to be a moderate or independant, however it is obvious that he is a conservative, most likely a registered republican 75.73.121.145 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The Person. In the sho, he "IS A REBUBLICAN".
His exact claim is "i'm a independent that is often mistaken for a republican"-- Wilson 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
In his recent episode aired March 28th, 2007 he added Italy to his Axis of Evil and pretended to speak Italian. Obviously the first bit was for humor, and then he went on to speak several more lines without a translation.
Does anyone have any sources to suggest he speaks it, or is this a bit for the show? If so, a note can be added. Geral Corasjo 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I removed the last paragraph of this section, which purports to be information from the economist. I removed it because I saw it as being unsourced, poorly formatted, and not encyclopedic. Asabanuevo put it back after I left a comment on her/his talk page about it. I don't agree with having it there, and will leave it for now with an unsourced tag, but if others can agree on what to do with it, then please let us do whatever is agreed on. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
How tall is he? -- myselfalso 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that he's the greatest living American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.47 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 17 April 2007.
It has been rumored recentley that Colbert will be a popular write in for the up coming 2008 presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.222.149 ( talk) 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction, the following sentence should be clarified:
"Since its debut the series has been successful, earning Colbert four Emmy nominations and an invitation to perform as featured entertainer at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in its first year (2006), in addition to establishing itself as one of Comedy Central's highest rated series."
While I am pretty sure that the writer is referring to the show's first year in 2006, it sounds as if it was the WHCA Dinner's first year, which is obviously not the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeDog ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
For the source for the assertion in the first paragraph that Colbert's routine is portraying opinionmaking fools, see his own assertion in the Onion interview:
The words I used are actually more restrained than Colbert's own. Larry Dunn 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone (or some 'bot) has deleted all spaces within citations. This fucks up editing and diffing the article for everyone else. So, thanks, but no, thanks, stop it. -- Lexein 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think its worth mentioning about his unofficial website and also that if you type "Greatest Living America" in google you would get Stephen Colbert-- Primetimeking 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Time Magazine is running their "Most Influential" people this year and it looks like Stephen Colbert is actually on top, tied in rating with Nintendo founder Shigeru Miyamoto but coming out ahead due to the number of votes. Should this be included? Franck Drake 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably not until he actually wins it. User:Hibbidyhai
In the article, it states that Colbert is working on a book and the title has not been released. The title is "I Am America (And So Can You!)" and it is available on Amazon.com for pre-order. Annonymous April 29,2007
I think its worth mentioning that Stephen Colbert is a Catholic.-- 66.176.255.84 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with his deafness? -- Starks 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think in the "See Also" section, there should be a link to the "Stephen Colbert (character)" page, which I didn't know exhisted until I found it through another page. At the same time the "(character)" page could use a link back to the original Colbert page in its "See Also" section (thought that's less impotant as the link exists in the first line).
I realize there's a link under the "The Colbert Report" section, but its poorly labeled "in character". This should be rewritten, in addition to the link being added in the "See Also" section, so if you're looking for the link, it's obvious in that section and you don't have to go searching through the body of the article to find it.
This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29
Wadester16 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)