Jump to content

Talk:Jon Stewart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.144.36.2 (talk) at 21:25, 7 June 2011 (Anthony Weiner: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Batman is he!

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why isn't he allowed to be named batman, since he said he was... as far as you know he could be batman.... And if that isn't allowed, there should be something about it....

Pat 61 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSGƒoleyFour04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Wayne might disagree with you. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler alert, dude? Sheesh! MikeWazowski (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that he isn't Bruce Wayne? Do you know them personally? Pat 61 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The creator of Wikipedia itself was sitting right next to Jon when he said that. If Jon's statement wasn't true don't you think Jimmy would have done something? I mean if the maker of this site himself doesn't mind it should be added. And protecting this article was ridiculous, it's just a few bored people having a little fun, no one will care tomorrow. Talk about overreacting, good lord. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that is vandalism. The admin did great by protecting it. →GƒoleyFour04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't vandalism, I would like you to give me a reason of how this is vandalism... Pat 61 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:VAND; "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I would say that is compromising Wikipedia. →GƒoleyFour04:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia's policy we should get a consensus whether or not Jon Stewart is a reliable source on Jon Stewart, and if this Jimmy guy and his dubious website can be trusted as sources. Under policy we should begin a poll, or else that is blatant bias. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this contributes to his person. It explains how he is and what kind of person he is. I don't see that as compromising... Pat 61 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, think it's time to call it a wrap on this particular joke. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources! DP76764 (Talk) 05:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dp76764 is saying that Jon Stewart ISN'T an extraordinary source? That is defaming his character! I think he knows who he is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.232.24 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.204.67.142, 6 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

Education: College of William & Mary, 1984

Source: https://alumni.wm.edu/notable_alumni/jon_stewart.shtml

98.204.67.142 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is not specific enough. Where do you want this information added? The {{Infobox comedian}} template does not seem to provide a space for "education". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an award or honor

In 2000, when he was labeled a Democrat, he generally agreed but described his political affiliation as "more socialist or independent" than Democratic.[81]

Uhh.. being named a democrat or an independent is not an award or honor...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement dosen't say it is an award or an honor, so....what is your point, exactly?--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "Honors and Awards" section. 88.217.15.137 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it is. Point taken. Indeed, that is the wrong section for that comment. Not sure where it does belong, though. Or even if it needs to be included at all. Thoughts, anyone?--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was a Moderate or "Left-leaning". Phearson (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books Section

Someone needs to add in his 2011 53rd Annual Grammy Award for Earth (The Book).

Suggestion:

Earth (The Book): A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race is the 2010 humor book written by Jon Stewart and other writers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It is a sequel to America (The Book), and was released on September 21, 2010. On February 13th, 2011, Earth (The Book) took home a Grammy Award from the 2011 53rd Annual Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album.


The Daily Show

In regards to added content for 1/11/2011 show: Referenced. Cited. NPOV. Notable for: Personal interruption of the show for Stewart's own personal reasons. A quick search on Google for "tuscon shootings jon stewart" reveals how notable and unusual people felt his monologue was. Returns approximately as many results and references as his Harry Truman war criminal accusation. "jon stewart monologue" returns more Tuscon-related results than 9/11-related results. People are looking for this information about Stewart, not The Daily Show. Stewart rarely uses the show for somber, serious monologues. In fact, excluding apologies, he's only done it one other time and that was after the events of 9/11. Please discuss this content's relevance, appropriateness for this article, or other issues you have here before reverting or removing to avoid edit warring - as this is cited and referenced NPOV material. Please and thank you.

Criticism on the Daily Show

A recent controversy has engulfed Stewart with regard to Pakistan, and it should be reflected in his profile as it is gaining momentum day by day and the talk of town on Facebook, twitter and social networks, WIKIPEDIA EDITORS IGNORING THE SAME is simply a show of BIAS and "pro West" favoritism then objective journalism and realistic information portrayal, I am saddened already by Mr or Miss Moboshgu's deletion of the same, unless Wikipedia is a covert CIA information arm you will probably take world views on your articles a LOT more seriously then it appears you are.

"Surprisingly Jon Stewart had a fan following in Pakistan which has increasingly turned swiftly against him and even hate / venom filled post his Daily Show on May 3, and May 19, 2011. A profanity filled email widely circulated and posted on Facebook and other sites follows. From a neutral perspective, while it shows the anguish of the Pakistanis at a "friends" mistreatment, it doesn't portray fact, as a Pakistani I do believe that talk show hosts have nothing to do with foreign policy or national defense strategies, hence the email and it's content are mistargeted under the assumption that somehow Jon Stewart can "make a difference" on the US position globally. The same letter modified to PotUS or the Pentagon would perhaps make better sense, and that too from Pakistani leadership then civilians, hence people like the writer should aim at fixing the mess Pakistan is in first, before addressing foreign powers who are following their own policies that have little to do with Pakistan's interest."

Source http://www.facebook.com/notes/bilal-ahmed/worth-reading-an-open-letter-to-jon-stewart-critical-of-the-diatribe-we-hear-on-/158140304251879 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring-Jon-Stewart-to-Pakistan/127187470626294 http://changepakistannow.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranokazmi (talkcontribs)

Imranokazmi, we'd be happy to include any content that is notable and supported by reliable sources. Your criticisms and suggestions, however, do not contain any sources that meet wikipedia's quality standards. Anyone can make a facebook page or a blog and neither shows evidence that the issue you address is in any way notable to anyone outside of a very animated, but very small group. You will need to find mention of this issue in an notable news source (e.g. coverage in Al-Jazeera) before it can be deemed of broad enough interest to be included here.--Louiedog (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email to Mobsohgu

Dear Moboshgu :)

The aim of the contribution is INDEED to improve the article, this should be a NEW section in the article, CONTROVERSY ON PAKISTAN, it has generated enough media interest and wikipedia NOT reflecting it is simply poor quality of information to the end user, I hope you will study it more carefully as I believe you simply assumed someone put up an email up there, that was not the case.

Imran

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Jon Stewart are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Pi Kappa Alpha

This page is protected so I can't edit it, but Jon Stewart is not a brother of Pi Kappa Alpha. I attend William and Mary, and it's widely known that Stewart dropped Pike during pledging. He was never initiated as a brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.146.104 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be "well known", but the frat's official site says otherwise. [1] - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Weiner

It is not disputed that Mr Stewart considers Anthony Weiner a friend. (Ref. Daily Show bit on Weiner.."He's my friend.") One is judged by the friends they keep.