Talk:Stephen Colbert

Archives
1 2 3

Hungarian citizenship?!?!?

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)

The date of birth on the passport is 1978, so it's unlikely that it's real unless they just happened to be 14 years off on his birth date. --24.149.49.73 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest rumour from Hungary's gossip rags is that they're going to name the bridge Kalber, which is a Hungarian traditional name (if I'm remembering the Anglicized spelling correctly), and pronounced almost identically to Colber(t).Loiosh 05:52, 13 October 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)

Colbert is not a Hungarian citizen -- Colbert was joking and Simonyi was playing along. And the naming committee has announced they're calling it the 'Megyeri hid', all rumors aside. Although I'm beginning wonder how long people will continue to believe Colbert swindled his way into getting a foreign bridge named after him -- anyone else see the urban legend potential in this? -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

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)

Criticisms of Stephen Colbert

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.

The section on the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner has several criticisms. If you have any critical material you'd like included in the article (using reliable sources, conforming to WP:NPOV and other policies), you can present them here or put them in the article right away. Were you thinking of the Geraldo/O'Reilly comments? The reason most people avoid criticizing him (and so why there isn't much criticism to include) is because his character and show are largely a joke, an elaborate parody, and many pundits dismiss Colbert (and Jon Stewart) since they're on Comedy Central, alongside shows like Crank Yankers, etc. --TM 14:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Nerdlogic 14:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possible that someone could cogently criticize some of the themes underlying his gags; OP should post more details on what he wants to criticize. 71.233.210.230 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone could, so long as they did it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Once a notable critic has criticised Colbert, then that criticism can be included (and properly referenced) here--otherwise it violates WP:NOR. Binabik80 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

Why this article is still locked?

why this article is still locked?? Leotolstoy 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to get vandolised once or twice a day, but really not as bad as it was. It might be ok to take the protection off and see what happens.--Twintone 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a continuation of the protection put in place after the wikiality episode, it's a more recent lock that was put in place by User:No Guru about a week ago, which I think is completely unnecessary and should be lifted. --TM 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's give it a go. -- No Guru 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And now there have been 6 acts of vandolism in less than 24 hours. Guh.--Twintone 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just always thought vandalism was the cost of Wikipedia living up to the "anyone can edit" slogan, but looking at the semi-protected category I guess I'm in the minority these days. Judging by the category, getting vandalized 4 times in one day warrants semi-protection now, which means this article more than qualifies for such a protective measure per administrative consensus. --TM 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Midnighters. This page doesn't get vandalized as much as others but it guess it's kind of up the the discretion of people watching the page to see if they don't mind reverting all the edits for the benefits of what Anon user might add positively. I don't have a preference either way.--Twintone 17:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am not a huge fan of semi-protection but in my opinion this article was getting so much vandalism that editors (myself included) were having a hard time reverting all of it. Let's hope things have settled down now. -- No Guru 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we may have been wrong. The vandals may have already come back. This may be an ongoing problem similar to the RuneScape article. Unfortunately, I'd suggest a semi-protect. This is not something we can ignore. -Blackjack48 14:03, 18 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)

Okay, that makes sense. I agree, we can't give in to the vandals. -Blackjack48 22:25, 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)

External links being added by those who run the sites

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.

We assumed that the links were removed as vandalism from the folks at [2] or some other site that perceived a slight, like [3]. The links had been part of the article for a very long time and allowed to stand since...July, I believe? --Snarkivist 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It’s been quite a while since I’ve been by, and I just noticed this accusation that there is some kind of campaign by the delightfully friendly and incredibly attractive members of the tekjansen.com forum to de-list other sites from the External Links section. This is simply not true. Please try to be civil and assume good faith in other editors. This kind of sniping on the talk pages is unnecessary. No one at tekjansen.com has "vandalized" Wikipedia by removing your link. I know that I have not removed any other link, only added a link to the site of the award-winning though as-yet-unpublished Tek Jansen book, which I genuinely believe is authored by Colbert and/or his writers and is a Comedy Central/Comedy Partners site, the quirky, red-headed bastard stepsister of colbertnation.com. I do not own the site, I have no personal interest in promoting it other than I find it interesting and relevant to the subject. The powers that be at tekjansen.com, the most irrationally hated Colbert-related website in the pre-hereafter omniverse, have never been involved in editing this or any other Wikipedia article. Wikipedia guidelines discourage that, as Man In Bl♟ck points out. Just because you do not "recognize" the editors who try to follow those guidelines does not mean that their contributions are vandalism. Wikipedia isn't the private stomping ground of a few self-appointed arbiters...is it? Typing monkey 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread has been dead for nearly a quarter of a year. There is absolutely no reason to try and and re-incite more conflict. I'm one breath short of calling this the t-word. /Blaxthos 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a public page and I've been accused of vandalism, it is not unreasonable to defend myself. The topic is unresolved. The links still come and go. Personally I don't think the links cited belong here but I have not edited them. Typing monkey 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

There are now a substantial number of fan sites, and these two are the only ones that are neither primarily commercial nor plagiarized from other sources (Wikipedia, IMDB, etc.) Do as you like; we have been re-submitting our sites since we believed we were victims of vandalism. The deleters were not editors whose names I recognized. --Snarkivist 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:EP allows for including a link to one major fansite on articles about topics with many fansites, and these days it seems Colbert has enough on an internet-fan presence to qualify for that clause. My opinion is that NoFactZone and Colbert's Heroes are both relevant and informative enough to be included here, but if the rule demands there be only one, we may need to discuss the Heroes and FactZone in that context. Regardless, there's no reason both of them should be gone. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No fact Zone.net was deleted first; after I added it back in, both fan sites were deleted. I think we need to make some kind of decision about this...one site or the other should be included. --24.149.49.73 06:26, 19 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)

There's no such thing as an official fansite. Fansites are run by fans. The Colbert Nation site calls itself a fansite, but it's a joke -- the site is run by Comedy Central, and Colbert constantly mentions it on-air as the official site of the show. CN should be linked to as the official site, regardless of what it calls itself. I'm not sure that has any bearing actual fansite links. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 04:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fansite in that it's the site for fans as opposed to a more-typical official site, rather than a fan-run site, sorry. I still maintain that we shouldn't be letting Nofactzone and Snarkivist advertise here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you disapprove of this any less if the site editors weren't the ones adding them?

Marginally. Then I could ask that user why they added the link. Even then, I'd still not want them unless it was a heck of a reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Respectfully, I'm not sure I understand your strong aversion to the links, Man in Black. Fansites can be a touchy subject, but WP:EL does seem to state that having a representative fansite link is okay, and the way this has been widely interpreted across Wikipedia seems to support the the idea that Heroes and NoFactZone are acceptable. If we were having a debate about whether Wikipedia should have links to fansites at all, I'm not sure where I'd weigh in, but since the precedent has already been established, I think it's fair to bow to that precendent here. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a valid case for adding the two sites described above. First off, a disclaimer, I am not associated with either site, although I do know both their admins. Second, each of the two sites approaches Stephen Colbert differently - NoFactZone is primarily an exhaustive and detailed blog. The admin there spend upwards of two hours daily updating the site so it refelects the latest news/knowledge. I would certainly cite this site as the definitive repository of Colbert knowledge outside of Wikipedia. ColbertHeroes is a repository of published articles, the FAQ end of the equation, and again the admin spends much time ensuring that the information contained therein is up to date. Colbert Nation, however, is blog about the show primarily and is more appropriately added to The Colbert Report entry. I put these comments up for consideration by the senior editors. Kerojack, Argenta 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the editors added them back before anyone else is because the editors are two of the more active people maintaining both the Colbert information on Wikipedia, as well as their external sites. If they hadn't added themselves back in, I would have when I got around to my monthly trawl thru various Wiki pages. Why? Because they're the oldest fan sites on the 'net, and they contribute radically different things. NoFactZone has become the most reliable source on the 'net for general information about Colbert, both character and person, as well as information related to the show. Colbert's Heroes is slowly turning into a FAQ source, as well as a growing archive of first hand reports on episode tapings. These two things alone elevate them above a typical, "I'm going to make a fan page about someone I have a celebrity crush on, look at my sparkling Geocities HTML!" page, and actually turn them into valuable resources.

Yes, Colbert Nation is the "official" fan site... as official as anything else Comedy Central runs. It's not a fan site, and shouldn't be listed as or considered one except in the same sly tongue-in-cheek manner as the show itself does. Colbert Nation is a fan forum maintained by Comedy Central, just like ABC, NBC, Discovery and any other network provides forums for their fans. Those are not considered fan sites, and as such, Colbert Nation shouldn't be, either. ('cept, of course, with tongue in cheek.)Loiosh 05:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I moderate the Colboard, the adjunct message board associated with the Colbert Nation satellite official site. The Colboard is primarily a fan driven message board and with 10,000 members and approaching a quarter of a million posts could probably qualify for its own external link. Recently, Comedy Central opened an "official message board". Whether the latter should be separately identified in addition I leave up to the senior editors. Kerojack, Argenta 21:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Colboard is relevant, but unfortuately, I believe WP:EL doesn't permit linking to message boards. It's fine to link to a site that has message boards and other acceptable content, but not forums themselves. The link to Colbert Nation should cover it anyway, since the Colboard is part of Colbert Nation. -- Bailey^(talk) 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mensa?

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)

If there's no source and nobody can give one, then the information should be removed. --149.10.148.44 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll wait to see if anybody replies before removing it. Fairy Incognito 05:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I went through the history and the Mensa thing was added by 72.19.108.119 who also had this tidbit of wisdom while editing the same day [4]. I'm deleting the Mensa thing immediately. Gdo01 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! It probably was a joke referring to or related to Stephen demanding that genius grant in The Colbert Report. Fairy Incognito 00:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

yes sounds swell to me Dappled Sage 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Even Ste---en?

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)

No, you were correct, so I changed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Fairy Incognito 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Even Stevphen [5] has a whole bunch more Google hits than Even Stephven [6]. And apparantly Comedy Central uses them interchangeably (one of the hosts of "Even Stephven,")[7] (Daily Show: Colbert - Even Stevphen with Ed Helms)[8]. I say we got with the one with more Google hits or we decide that it doesn't matter which one is posted as long as it is Stephven or Stevphen. Gdo01 01:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen What Colbert?

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)

There's a few semi-official places on the web that this can be found. If you go to the Colbert Nation Bio page, it lists his middle name as Tyrone. (Then again, if you read the rest of the page, most all of it is fictitious, so even though ColbertNation.com is Colbert's official "unofficial page", you have to take everything on it with a grain of salt). It is also listed as his middle name on IMDB.com and NNBD.com It can also be found in the recent New York Magazine article: "One difficulty in writing about Colbert is that when you point out things like the fact that he’s a huge Lord of the Rings nerd and has, on his desk, a heavy picture book titled A Tolkien Bestiary, roughly half the readers will think, Hmmm, interesting, while the other half will think, Yes! Yes! Of course! Colbert’s a Tolkien nut! because they worship Stephen Tyrone Colbert and know everything about him.". Also, keep in mind that his family's heritage is reported to be Irish, and County_Tyrone is an Irish location and a common Irish name. Hope this is enough documentation to keep this fact in the Wiki page. Nofactzone 07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really trying to pull that name from the aticle -- it's clearly documented enough that it can be here -- but I'm curious. The name has been in the article forever, but New York Magazine article is the only serious article I've seen to include this detail, and it's quite recent. (The IMDB and NNDB both have s tendency to mirror us, so they're not always useful for verifying what we've already said). Now that I'm thinking about it though, "Tyrone" is in the credits of the Report, which probably makes it enough to go on. I still really want to know what he said last night, though. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiality

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.

The site says: Wikiality is in no way affiliated with Comedy Central, The Colbert Report, or Stephen Colbert, but we'd like to be.

So no, it should be included in this article. -- Tim D 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy? He mentioned us like twice, and there was some vandalism as a result. No big deal. – ClockworkSoul 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

He says alot of things, but they don't all become notable as a result. Also, he didn't coin truthiness (but he did popularize it). If you want to add it again, I won't remove it, but I suspect that somebody else will. – ClockworkSoul 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could also add it to the Wikiality article. I would, but it has semi-protection.

Not "This Week in God"

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)

It says memorable reports from all of his reports. It in no way implies that all these reports were from "This Week in God" that is why the Singing Senators thing is there too. This also was not a "This Week in God" report. Gdo01 00:57, 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)

Is it better now? Gdo01 01:11, 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)

What else could it say? Stephen Colbert did reports for the Daily Show. "This Week in God" is not a report. The only other way I see of fixing this is to say "Besides his work these recurring segment, memorable reports include..." but that would be redundant and long winded. Gdo01 01:29, 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)

Actually, the whole idea certain reports being more memorable than others may be difficult to verify using reliable sources. Unless a source has actually commented on those reports specifically, this may need to be reworked in order to meet Verifability (or Attribution, or whatever). -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 19:25, 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)

I think that would be original research. I suppose what I'm saying is we may not be able to call those segments "memorable" at all. As much as enjoyed the Prince Charles report, the fact that Colbert screwed up on camera and a lot of fans got a kick out of it is probably not encyclopedic, unless someone else has commented on it in a reliable source. I know that text has been in the article for a long time, but verifiability is policy, so it may have to go. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 21:09, 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)

Examples are fine, but we can't claim something is "memorable" without having a source that says so. Memorable is subjective. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 23:06, 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)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Single words can and do matter, particularly when they're the difference between stating a fact and an opinion. And by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. :) -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 00:41, 23 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)

GA De-listing

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

• The Lead is very short and doesn't hold up to the WP:MOS expectation of WP:LEAD. A lead should serve as an adequate summary of the article and the current lead leaves out several notable aspects such as the response and notoriety he got from the Correspondence dinner and the time he spent on "Strangers with Candy".
• The section on Other Roles needs a substantial rewrite. In its current state it is torn between wanting to be a list and wanting to be prose. Similarly the short paragraphs in the section Early Career should be merged or rewritten.
• I would also be aware of some "redundant prose" like the line from Personal Life sections "The emphasis his family placed on intelligence as a desirable trait would lead Colbert to lose his Southern accent when he was still quite young." In addition to being slightly inflammatory, the two points the line makes (His family's emphasis on Intelligence and Colbert's lack of a Southern accent) are made by both the preceding and proceeding lines. There is no need for this line.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

• The article is mostly well referenced with the vast majority of references coming from reliable sources. However, I would strongly encourage the editors look into some of the "redundant cites". For non-controversial details like what the Colbert Report is a parody of and his family life there does not need to be more then a single cite per claim. It can give the appearance of "footnote" clutter and should be trimmed down to which cite provides the best reference support.
• The one exception to the "well referenced" assessment would be the section Other Roles where there are a few unreferenced claims.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Pass

• The article gives ample coverage to the various facets of Colbert's career and personal life. This section garners a "weak pass" because I don't think it delves much into the influence and perception of Colbert's work. For instance, it is mentioned that he was voted by Times as one of the most influential people but there is no reference to what exactly is influential about him that caused Time to include him on this list. Secondly, there is mention to critic's response to the Correspondent's dinner but what about critical perception of the greater body of his work?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

• Despite the "cult status" that Colbert has among his fans (and influence on Wikipedia editors), this article is able to maintain a surprising NPOV tone without being overly flattering of its subject. The editors desire kudos for that.

5. It is stable - Pass

• While the article does seem to be a bit of a vandal target there doesn't seem to that much substantial change being made even though almost 200 edits to the article have been made this month alone (see two versions)

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

• There is a bit of image clutter around the sections on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I would use some editorial judgment on which one or two photos of the 5 best illustrate the topic.

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)

Another serious edit

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)

GA Renomination on hold

I am placing this nomination on hold, with commentary. Please note I am commenting from my POV without having read the previous GA discussion.

• References -- Lots of good sources. I am especially impressed with the attention to detail regarding multiple cites of the same source.
• Copyediting -- By far the biggest deficiency in this article. Malformed, juxtaposed subject/clause agreement, [probably due to] overly complex or downright grammatically incorrect sentences. A few examples (by no means inclusive):

• Stephen Colbert is co-author the satirical text-and-picture novel Wigfield: The Can Do Town That Just Might Not, which was published in 2003 by Hyperion Books.
• The novel was a collaboration between Colbert, Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello, which tells the story of a small town threatened by the impending destruction of a massive dam in photos and fictional interviews.
• He performs regularly as a voice actor on Cartoon Network's Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law, which airs as part of the network's Adult Swim lineup, providing the voices for the recurring characters "Reducto" and "Phil Ken Sebben".

• NPOV -- The article seems to try and balance NPOV by going to extremes. Parts of the article feel cultish, and then it feels like the editors attempt to counterbalance by providing lots of criticism. The awards dinner section feels especially guilty of this. I would suggest giving the article a more consistent mix.
• OR -- Although a lot of it initally feels like original research, almost everything is well referenced/documented. There are still some thorns that kind of stick out, and are emphasized by non-necessary words ("however", etc.). Perhaps the NPOV cleanup suggested would alleviate a lot of this.
• Scope -- Technically, this article hits the high points in what I would expect. A "weak pass" would be my vote, but a little more depth (as opposed to slathering it with references) might be in order.

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)

Followup 1

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)

Followup 2

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)

Looking good, and thank you. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking this over, there are a couple of changes here I'm not so sure about. I like the added info about awards and recognition for the Colbert report, but the bit about "joint-custody" of the Emmy seems like trivia to me. Also, while I like the inception/recognition structure, I'm not sure about the headings themselves, since there's only a paragraph for each. I'm really happy for the cleanup overall, though. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to getting a third opinion, would the first comment here count?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Bailey (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did the headings as an aesthetic thing. Remove them as you see fit. As far as the trivial info (joint custody) -- I literally had just watched the segment while editing, and threw it in. Also remove as needed. Regarding the third opinion -- I think supporting opinions should come from reviewing article in the current state. With that being said, I believe it's ready to be relisted as GA-status, I just want one more uninvolved editor to verify (since I did some of the cleanup myself). This means anyone, not a specific GA-reviewer. I just loves me some consensus and want to avoid any appearance of impropriety.  ;-) /Blaxthos 08:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from -- what's not to love about consensus? -- but this point I think it might be faster just re-nominate, since I'm not sure how many editors are really passing through this page who are both experienced and uninvolved. Also, why did you delist this article from peer review? The PR instructions seem to indicate that it's ok to have more than one peer review, and the request has been open for < 3 days... I'm so confused... -- Bailey^(talk) 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not do due dilligance regarding the re-listed peer review; I assumed it was the old tag. Please re-apply as needed. if there is no objection (or support) within 3 days from today I will elevate to GA status. Comments welcome. /Blaxthos

Elevated to GA status

So elevated. /Blaxthos 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure if I was missing something about the peer review thing, but will probably relist it in a few days after I add a few things, probably at the biography wikiproject's peer review. Thanks again for all your insights/improvements. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Colbert"

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]

Still, after a while, he stops himself. "I think I need to start calling him Col-bear," says the actor, using the correct pronunciation of his surname, "and me Col-bert. It's getting weird."

"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)

I was just about to mention this here too -- the back and forth edits comments were getting a bit silly. Colbert is pronounced "Col-bear" in either context. Colbert is an Irish name, and it's usually pronounced with the T, but Stephen Colbert has always pronounced it without the T. It's what he's called in all of the radio and TV interviews he's done, which are presumably out-of-character and in the article "Great Charlestonian or Greatest Charlestonian", he clarifies:

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.

So it might be affected, but it's definitely not a stage name. -- Bailey^(talk) 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Vandalism and Semi-Protect

The article has been semi-protected due to frequent vandalsim. /Blaxthos 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Colbert has always been a vandalism magnet. This page has been sprotected and unprotected many times before. Hopefully it will trail off eventually. -- Bailey^(talk) 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the dumbest vandalism ever. Why do people do stuff like that? -- Ambero 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Credit Amy Sedaris in "Strangers with Candy" pic

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)

done. :-) -- Bailey^(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Recurring Segments

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)

Actually, the article is now on deletion review, so we'll see what happens. It may wind up being restored. -- Bailey^(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the article is no longer on public view, but could be restored if necessary? If that is the case, could I strongly suggest that if it is deleted completely, a link to my copy be posted, with any suitable disclaimer to protect both wikipedia and colbert.wikia.com? Kerojack, Argenta 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment before. Of the top of my head, I'd think it would make sense to link to that article from The Colbert Report moreso than Stephen Colbert, since it's more about the show than the actor/comedian. Also, you might want to double check on the talk page of WP:EL and see what are guidelines are about linking to external wikis -- I'm not exactly sure of them myself, but they might have a preference about linking directly to the article vs. linking to the main colbert.wikia page. -- Bailey^(talk) 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The information housed in the deleted Colbert Report recurring elements page can now be found on two different sources on the Internet. The original Wiki information can be found at the Colbert Wikia site maintained by Kerojack, Argenta. The information, edited to clean up the original data, can be found temporarily on the Colbert University page at NoFactZone.net. The staff at NoFactZone.net are working on a sister site that takes the original Wiki information and expands it into a static knowledge source for Colbert fans. Hopefully with this new structure, the information will be in a format that will be appropriate for the Colbert fans searching for information not available on Wikipedia. Nofactzone 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Born in Washington D.C.?

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)

There appears to be some confusion about this. Charleston is what seems to be most commonly reported, but Sumter, SC is indicated in a few places, including on a blog on his official site. I'm not sure how Northwestern came up with Washington, but Sumter still seems like the most credible answer; it's close near enough to Charleston to account for some of the reoprts otherwise. -- Bailey^(talk) 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well he's said many times that he's from South Carolina, but not that he was born there. On Letterman, he said he "grew up" outside of Charleston...he also said in that same interview that his hometown is Charleston. Anyway, this all leads me to believe that he was probably born in North Carolina, not Washington D.C. But this article just confused me. Another question: do you happen to know when he got married? --Fairy Incognito 08:49, 11 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 don't have the specific date Colbert was married, but it would have been sometime between 1990 and 1995, if that helps you. His wife was a native of Charleston who grew up a few blocks away from him, but they didn't really know each other until they met again in 1989 while Colbert was visiting his family. Also, the text about Colbert's 2006 Daily Show Emmy says that it was his only win in 2006; he also recieved Emmys for the Daily Show in 2003, 2004 and 2005, but nothing for The Colbert Report so far. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've emailed the author of the NW article, and he's certain Colbert directly stated that he was born in DC. I know this isn't how we usually do things (out of concern for original research), but considering we have conflicting reliable sources, I'm thinking NW may be the source to go with after all. We've certainly got no lack of sources saying he grew up in Charleston, but that's a different issue. I wish I had a better way of divining this, but that's all I've got to go on. -- Bailey^(talk) 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR aside, why don't we either get the author of the NW article to provide a direct quote, or (more preferrable to me) email Colbert or his publicist and simply ask? I'll be glad to send an open email/reply and publish on the web, if so desired. Comments? Would this qualify as original research? /Blaxthos 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would still qualify as original research. The author of the article actually already offered to look through his notes and see if he can come up with the exact quote, but we couldn't really use that since it's not a part of his published article. Again, the NW article is a perfectly reliable source as-is, at least by Wikipedia's standards, so any additional research would just be for peace of mind. If you do want to email his publicist and find something out, I suppose it would be OK to help make an informed decision as to which source we went with -- we just couldn't use the email itself as a source. -- Bailey^(talk) 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! And I had always assumed he was born in South Carolina, so it's a really interesting to learn that he was born in Washington D.C.! I guess he didn't live there too long, though. Now I'm wondering when his family moved to SC. Anyway, I know The Colbert Report is not a reliable source of information, but I'd like to note that I just finished re-watching a clip of Stephen saying he was born in Washington D.C. in his interview with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. --Fairy Incognito 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maxim's 10 Hottest News Anchors

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

Already is. See the last paragraph of the Colbert Report section. -- Bailey^(talk) 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation?

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)

New York Magazine vs. New Yoker Magazine

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.

Why don't you just register? MGlosenger 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Photo of Stephen Colbert is altered

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 (UTC)

I'm no professinoal, but I absolutely assume good faith regarding another users' claim of taking and releasing the photograph for use. Personally, I think it is a decent, candid photograph of the subject. I don't think a retouched photo (removing redeye, etc.) is that big of a deal in any case. I'm inclined to disagree with this assessment; I think it's a fine photo. /Blaxthos 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Doctored"? I believe a photo is doctored if it's trying to show you something that isn't there or hide something that is there, simply retouching a photograph while not trying to change its meaning isn't doctoring. VxP 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the photo was edited to make Colbert stand out more. As it says on the WikiCommons page: "Uploaded cleaned version of same image (run through NeatImage this time, plus some selective contrast and brightness adjustments" Gdo01 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at his shoulder that partially covers the face of the woman in the upper left corner, and the side of his jacket in the lowermost right-side corner. It does look dubious, but could also be the result of a bad photo editor/photoshop editing. Surely there's a better image? ~ UBeR

My guess is the photo was too dark, and someone altered his image to bring it out without washing out the background. No harm, and it's not too bad of a photo. If you think that free photo is poor, check out the one on the Carmen Electra page. Wahkeenah 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Colbert wins "Word of the Year"

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)

Unless it fits in very well somewhere, I think the article [11] on truthiness covers it. -Boss1000 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it in that section now. -Boss1000 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards & Honors Section

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)

...Contrary to my above comment on the word of the year inclusion, if there's a section like this, certainly put that in. -Boss1000 17:33, 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)

Done and done. It was just a cut and paste (that's acceptable, right?). It was already grouped together, just without a definitive section. -Boss1000 19:15, 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)

As long as we're doing Awards & Honors, might as well mention this (just need a verifiable source). /Blaxthos 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the video of the award ceremony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXtZpPGVl1g&NR sorry I don't have an account to sign in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.35 (talk • contribs)

Peabody

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)

He would have been a writer on the show at the time, so I would consider him a Peabody winner. --Tyrone Hunnibi 01:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he proudly display/espouse the award on the "mantle" during his show? /Blaxthos 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Nation link is wrong.

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).

Catholic?

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. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 different citations (3-6) in the main article supporting the fact that he comes from a Catholic family and is a practicing Catholic. If these are incorrectly cited, then that is something that needs to be fixed. Being able to step back and poke fun at something one believes in is not evidence that one doesn't believe in it. —bbatsell ¿? 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The citations are correct as they are interviews with Colbert himself (not in character). He is a devout Catholic but grew up in a family that also cherished intellect and humor. MrBlondNYC 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Word on the street in NYC and Hollywood is that he is in fact a Catholic in the religious sense, but in an ethnic sense himself and his family is Jewish (thus making him a Crypto-Jew, or a "Marrano," both of whom were/are commonly Catholic). --172.135.27.151 07:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is Colbert a Jewish name? Asarelah 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He's got to be Catholic for the previous reasons and because I recall reading an article about his past playing Dungeons & Dragons, and how he questioned why it was so reputed by the leaders of his religion. Speaking of which, if I didn't get that from the article, we should add that... (Oh, I did.) - Boss1000 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

tekjansen.com

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 doesn't mean or prove anything. If it really were a Comedy Central venture, it would have had a copyright notice on it from the beginning, like Colbertnation.com did. --Tyrone Hunnibi 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it hasn't been there since the beginning? Nevertheless, when the copyright notice appeared is irrelevant. It's a public acknowledgment of copyright by Comedy Central. It displays original Comedy Central produced content, is maintained by Comedy Central, is related to Stephen Colbert, and belongs in the links section. Typing monkey 14:47, 17 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

Vandalism

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, try a better insult next time. Second, I think we might want to request temporary semi-protection or blocking, since the edit history indicates that this has happened several times.

Thoughts?

--Lady Voldything 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert and Stewart?

Just saw Colbert on Oreily 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?

O'Reilly is a curmudgeon. Meanwhile, keep in mind these two were acting. I'm sure the thing was pretty much scripted. I'm not saying that on the pages, since I can't prove it, but these were not serious interviews, just fluff pieces. Fun to watch, though. Wahkeenah 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When Stewart was on O'Reilly's show he called people who watch The Daily Show "stoned slackers". And he was actually mad that John Kerry went on Stewart's show instead of his. MrBlondNYC 16:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "he" said that, but if it was O'Reilly, Stewart probably would not disagree. Generally, keep in mind that O'Reilly is a muckraker and an entertainer. He comes from Inside Edition. Don't ever forget that. Wahkeenah 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user may have been wondering why Colbert had nothing good to say about Stewart. And the answer is that he was joking. Colbert didn't mean a thing he said in that interview. Actually watch the show to get a sense of how he was trying to be funny. -- Viewdrix 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If Colbert said that about Stewart's audience, it obviously was a joke. He was commenting during the O'Reilly "interview" about Stewart being a pothead and such (not those exact words). Obviously, all a joke. People make the assumption that O'Reilly is serious all the time. Like when he has this body language expert come in and tell the audience exactly what we expect her to say about whatever public figure she's analyzing. It's Inside Edition stuff. Wahkeenah 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)