![]() | 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 |
When a plane crashes a block from the studio while the audience is waiting in line and witnesses it it is sort of a big deal. It will definitely go into Daily Show taping lore. But my REFERENCED addition was deleted here
Several episodes of The Daily Show have addressed the paucity of female correspondants. Samantha Bee has done several segments lampooning this. I think this should be explored more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.73 ( talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems like there should be something about the showdown with Jim Cramer here, as it was talked about on virtually every news outlet. It is also an example of Stewart's influence (as when his criticism killed the show Crossfire), his ability to ask hard-hitting questions, and his critique of the media (speaking of which--the media played this up as a personal conflict, and even Cramer seemed to take it primarily as personal chastisement, when the larger goal was to demand responsible financial reporting). 24.245.42.233 ( talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
So let's bring it over here. (Could also copy the summary from Cramer's page.) 24.245.42.233 ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't there a link to the guest/episode list? What happened? -- little Alex ( talk) 08:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I went to edit to add More4 (as Bleeping/Pixellation section implies, it is broadcast daily in the UK) but think better in the section.
Then I saw a comment "Please do not add your regional channel" or something like that. Now, excuse me but that is blatant WP:POV. To list a particular channel guide would be inappropriate; but to state that it is broadcast on a freely available UK station four nights a week (I assume just a day later than the US since it runs Tues-Fri) is plain nuts--- this is notable.
And although in the UK now I started watching it when it first came on Paramount Comedy Central about ten years ago. to respond to another Q, Jon Stewart was on then, I think he has been from the start; but it was not renamed from "The Daily Show" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" until a little later (I think he was Executive Producer, whatever that actually means in real life).
If no comments added I will simply remove the WP:POV comment suggesting this is purely a US article, tag it as being purely POV (which was done before, not by me, and removed as no reason was given), or americocentric, or simply mark for prod. I don't like getting that grumbly, since I have no contention with the article really beyond comments in the plaintext that say don't add your own channels etc-- but unless one actually takes some action nothing gets done, so I am quite willing to mark that section at the very least.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
SimonTrew ( talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly can't understand why this article hasn't been flagged for rewrite. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic entry describing a television show. However, it reads like an interview with Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert is even offhandedly introduced as "Colbert" within major sections. If you want to cite Colbert as a source, then cite him properly and within style guidelines. Davjosmes ( talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Today's Time poll, while not the same question and Gibson is replaced with Diane Sawyer, may be worth noting as the results are near identical to the "Most Trusted Name in News" poll so far thus highlighting Stewart's claim that he was the "None of the Above" option. -- 69.31.182.109 ( talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been a single episode of TDS Global Edition on CNN International in 2010. While the show is still listed on its website¹, it's no longer part of its schedule². Comedy Central Germany also used to show the Global Edition on Sundays as well as on its website for a week afterwards, but while the show info page is still up³, no video has been posted in 2010 either. Is it safe to assume that the Global Edition is gone for good?
¹) http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/daily.show
²) http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/schedules/europe
³) http://www.comedycentral.de/index.php/Shows/Detail/id/999284 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.62.232 ( talk) 14:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that we need to follow the same form as other late night talk shows. Ex: The Tonight Show does list Jay Leno as the host, but has a seperate page for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I think we should have The Daily Show and THE DAILY SHOW with JON STEWART. We may also like to create a Daily Show page for the Kilborn era, such as was done with the Johnny Carson and Conan O'Brien eras of The Tonight Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhayes1995 ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone please put fact and who tags after the "liberal bias" statement in the lead. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 ( talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Jon Stewart does admit he's a liberal, but he's nowhere near as biased as Colbert is. Colbert used to be funny when Republicans were actually in power, so making fun of them all the time was justified. But they have nearly zero power in Washington and all he does is go after Republicans now... PokeHomsar ( talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I came to the page as a visitor looking for the list of episodes (as a great many do), and could not find it. I am certain that many visitors experience the same.
I made that "excessive and pointless" section so that visitors can find the episode list easily. Your move of that { { Main } } template to "Celebrity interviews" section still makes it hard to find. How are visitors to know that a list of episodes is to be found under "Celebrity interviews" in a { { main } } link entitled "List of The Daily Show guests"??
I am, however, grateful that you did not remove it all together, as it is needed in the article. But where it is now does not serve the visitors very well. I suggest returning it to its previously, highly visible place, or, present some other solution. Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Main}}
template, adding it under the "Celebrity interviews" section would still allow logical access without further lengthening and complicating an already brimming page. If this is still not satisfactory, a link can be added to "See also" as well. However, creating an entire heading for the benefit of one link is not how Wikipedia operates; please see
Wikipedia:Layout#Body_sections. While not explicitly stated within the policy, it clearly indicates that a section should contain at least some content (at least a paragraph) and not clutter the TOC or the document itself.{{Main}}
template under "Celebrity interviews" is at all confusing; it seems absolutely logical to me: what are you looking for? Guests. What are the guests involved in? A celebrity interview. It's one degree of separation. Perhaps a more logical solution than just tacking on another empty section is to simply rename "Celebrity interviews" to the more logical and accurate "Guest interviews". I think overall this solution would serve as a happy medium between our two ideas (I prefer finding middle ground rather than arguing over whose binary position is most correct).{{main}}
template]."I recall a year or so back there was a link to established fan-sites for the show (and for the presenter for that matter). Now they've gone. Any particular reason? My interest is as the owner-operator of "The Jon Stewart Experience" web site, gallery and forum. Rest assured I am not expecting a link back or anything like that, I just wondered why the links went. Kerojack, Argenta ( talk) 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Does a single blogger making a single statement about a single event really warrant its own section? I have to question the fact that this accusation is even included along both those lines as well as the fact that it is totally slanted to current events. Just thought I'd open a discussion on it since no one seems to notice that it's been added. Xenocide Talk| Contributions 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Two images that could be used in this article. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 13:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where it would fit in the article, but it should probably be mentioned that there is a german adaption/remake called the "heute-show" running on the public-service channel "zdf" since 2009. It's pretty much a 1:1 copy of all the concepts of the daily show, except its target is obviously mostly german politics and media. (International topics are also covered though.) It aired monthly at first, now weekly. I could not find any english-language resources except an overly negative blog-post about the first episode ( http://www.me-blogs-it.com/the-heute-show-a-bad-copy-of-the-daily-show-ill-also-touch-upon-wwii-and-the-eu-21-06-2009). It's also on imdb and the german wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.12.148 ( talk) 08:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
6 months later and it's still there?? Doesn't wikipedia have a tag for something that flared up briefly but was never really significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.134 ( talk) 03:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Why would it not still be here after six months? The material is encyclopedic, so naturally it has permanent relevance. This isn't Wikinews, after all. AS for significance, it was significant enough for the staffs of both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to address it. Beyond that, significance is subjective. I fixed the errors that occurred during the paring-down, such as attributing Munn's statements to Sarah Hepola, as well as including Jezebel's rebuttal to her. Nightscream ( talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the errors, no worries. Happens to everyone. For my part, sorry if I neglected to see this discussion to its conclusion before re-adding more detail. :-)
Regarding the rebuttal, neutrality and balance would seem to require us to include Iris Carmon's rebuttal. Part of her rebuttal is to address the accusation that she only interviewed former non-regulars. Her point that her piece was about on-air performers and behind-the-scenes writers, and that she tried to interview the current production staff, who declined, are valid. Without mentioning that, the idea might be conveyed that she chose to only interview former employees and not current ones. If the current staff are going to decline to be interviewed, and then criticize Carmon for not interviewing them, then Carmon's reply that she tried to and was rebuffed need to be mentioned, so that the reader can draw the most informed conclusion. It is also pertinent to include Carmon's response that she wasn't insulting anyone's looks or speaking out of petty jealousy. Nightscream ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (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 |
When a plane crashes a block from the studio while the audience is waiting in line and witnesses it it is sort of a big deal. It will definitely go into Daily Show taping lore. But my REFERENCED addition was deleted here
Several episodes of The Daily Show have addressed the paucity of female correspondants. Samantha Bee has done several segments lampooning this. I think this should be explored more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.73 ( talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems like there should be something about the showdown with Jim Cramer here, as it was talked about on virtually every news outlet. It is also an example of Stewart's influence (as when his criticism killed the show Crossfire), his ability to ask hard-hitting questions, and his critique of the media (speaking of which--the media played this up as a personal conflict, and even Cramer seemed to take it primarily as personal chastisement, when the larger goal was to demand responsible financial reporting). 24.245.42.233 ( talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
So let's bring it over here. (Could also copy the summary from Cramer's page.) 24.245.42.233 ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't there a link to the guest/episode list? What happened? -- little Alex ( talk) 08:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I went to edit to add More4 (as Bleeping/Pixellation section implies, it is broadcast daily in the UK) but think better in the section.
Then I saw a comment "Please do not add your regional channel" or something like that. Now, excuse me but that is blatant WP:POV. To list a particular channel guide would be inappropriate; but to state that it is broadcast on a freely available UK station four nights a week (I assume just a day later than the US since it runs Tues-Fri) is plain nuts--- this is notable.
And although in the UK now I started watching it when it first came on Paramount Comedy Central about ten years ago. to respond to another Q, Jon Stewart was on then, I think he has been from the start; but it was not renamed from "The Daily Show" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" until a little later (I think he was Executive Producer, whatever that actually means in real life).
If no comments added I will simply remove the WP:POV comment suggesting this is purely a US article, tag it as being purely POV (which was done before, not by me, and removed as no reason was given), or americocentric, or simply mark for prod. I don't like getting that grumbly, since I have no contention with the article really beyond comments in the plaintext that say don't add your own channels etc-- but unless one actually takes some action nothing gets done, so I am quite willing to mark that section at the very least.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
SimonTrew ( talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly can't understand why this article hasn't been flagged for rewrite. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic entry describing a television show. However, it reads like an interview with Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert is even offhandedly introduced as "Colbert" within major sections. If you want to cite Colbert as a source, then cite him properly and within style guidelines. Davjosmes ( talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Today's Time poll, while not the same question and Gibson is replaced with Diane Sawyer, may be worth noting as the results are near identical to the "Most Trusted Name in News" poll so far thus highlighting Stewart's claim that he was the "None of the Above" option. -- 69.31.182.109 ( talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been a single episode of TDS Global Edition on CNN International in 2010. While the show is still listed on its website¹, it's no longer part of its schedule². Comedy Central Germany also used to show the Global Edition on Sundays as well as on its website for a week afterwards, but while the show info page is still up³, no video has been posted in 2010 either. Is it safe to assume that the Global Edition is gone for good?
¹) http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/daily.show
²) http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/schedules/europe
³) http://www.comedycentral.de/index.php/Shows/Detail/id/999284 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.62.232 ( talk) 14:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that we need to follow the same form as other late night talk shows. Ex: The Tonight Show does list Jay Leno as the host, but has a seperate page for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I think we should have The Daily Show and THE DAILY SHOW with JON STEWART. We may also like to create a Daily Show page for the Kilborn era, such as was done with the Johnny Carson and Conan O'Brien eras of The Tonight Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhayes1995 ( talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone please put fact and who tags after the "liberal bias" statement in the lead. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 ( talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Jon Stewart does admit he's a liberal, but he's nowhere near as biased as Colbert is. Colbert used to be funny when Republicans were actually in power, so making fun of them all the time was justified. But they have nearly zero power in Washington and all he does is go after Republicans now... PokeHomsar ( talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I came to the page as a visitor looking for the list of episodes (as a great many do), and could not find it. I am certain that many visitors experience the same.
I made that "excessive and pointless" section so that visitors can find the episode list easily. Your move of that { { Main } } template to "Celebrity interviews" section still makes it hard to find. How are visitors to know that a list of episodes is to be found under "Celebrity interviews" in a { { main } } link entitled "List of The Daily Show guests"??
I am, however, grateful that you did not remove it all together, as it is needed in the article. But where it is now does not serve the visitors very well. I suggest returning it to its previously, highly visible place, or, present some other solution. Best, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Main}}
template, adding it under the "Celebrity interviews" section would still allow logical access without further lengthening and complicating an already brimming page. If this is still not satisfactory, a link can be added to "See also" as well. However, creating an entire heading for the benefit of one link is not how Wikipedia operates; please see
Wikipedia:Layout#Body_sections. While not explicitly stated within the policy, it clearly indicates that a section should contain at least some content (at least a paragraph) and not clutter the TOC or the document itself.{{Main}}
template under "Celebrity interviews" is at all confusing; it seems absolutely logical to me: what are you looking for? Guests. What are the guests involved in? A celebrity interview. It's one degree of separation. Perhaps a more logical solution than just tacking on another empty section is to simply rename "Celebrity interviews" to the more logical and accurate "Guest interviews". I think overall this solution would serve as a happy medium between our two ideas (I prefer finding middle ground rather than arguing over whose binary position is most correct).{{main}}
template]."I recall a year or so back there was a link to established fan-sites for the show (and for the presenter for that matter). Now they've gone. Any particular reason? My interest is as the owner-operator of "The Jon Stewart Experience" web site, gallery and forum. Rest assured I am not expecting a link back or anything like that, I just wondered why the links went. Kerojack, Argenta ( talk) 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Does a single blogger making a single statement about a single event really warrant its own section? I have to question the fact that this accusation is even included along both those lines as well as the fact that it is totally slanted to current events. Just thought I'd open a discussion on it since no one seems to notice that it's been added. Xenocide Talk| Contributions 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Two images that could be used in this article. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 13:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where it would fit in the article, but it should probably be mentioned that there is a german adaption/remake called the "heute-show" running on the public-service channel "zdf" since 2009. It's pretty much a 1:1 copy of all the concepts of the daily show, except its target is obviously mostly german politics and media. (International topics are also covered though.) It aired monthly at first, now weekly. I could not find any english-language resources except an overly negative blog-post about the first episode ( http://www.me-blogs-it.com/the-heute-show-a-bad-copy-of-the-daily-show-ill-also-touch-upon-wwii-and-the-eu-21-06-2009). It's also on imdb and the german wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.12.148 ( talk) 08:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
6 months later and it's still there?? Doesn't wikipedia have a tag for something that flared up briefly but was never really significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.134 ( talk) 03:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Why would it not still be here after six months? The material is encyclopedic, so naturally it has permanent relevance. This isn't Wikinews, after all. AS for significance, it was significant enough for the staffs of both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to address it. Beyond that, significance is subjective. I fixed the errors that occurred during the paring-down, such as attributing Munn's statements to Sarah Hepola, as well as including Jezebel's rebuttal to her. Nightscream ( talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the errors, no worries. Happens to everyone. For my part, sorry if I neglected to see this discussion to its conclusion before re-adding more detail. :-)
Regarding the rebuttal, neutrality and balance would seem to require us to include Iris Carmon's rebuttal. Part of her rebuttal is to address the accusation that she only interviewed former non-regulars. Her point that her piece was about on-air performers and behind-the-scenes writers, and that she tried to interview the current production staff, who declined, are valid. Without mentioning that, the idea might be conveyed that she chose to only interview former employees and not current ones. If the current staff are going to decline to be interviewed, and then criticize Carmon for not interviewing them, then Carmon's reply that she tried to and was rebuffed need to be mentioned, so that the reader can draw the most informed conclusion. It is also pertinent to include Carmon's response that she wasn't insulting anyone's looks or speaking out of petty jealousy. Nightscream ( talk) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)