Talk:Late Show with David Letterman

The Letterman Monologue after 9-11

The link to the video of Dave giving the monologue on the first post-9/11 "Late Show" no longer works. Perhaps someone can put a link to the transcript of the monologue instead. -- Jalabi99 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Jalabi99 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the text. I have no problems with it. But.. it included a lot of information about Late Night with David Letterman - much of which was on both pages. So I was making an effort to separate the information between the two pages. -Jazz77

The article now makes mention of the various 'extras' on the Letterman show - Biff Henderson, Stephanie Birkitt etc. Now I've always assumed that these were actors playing the part of assistants - i.e. Biff never really does any behind the scenes work. Does anyone know if this is actually the case? DJ Clayworth 15:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I erased the remark concerning the Ed Sullivan theater's "proximity" to the World Trade Center. They were not "close" beyond the fact that they were both on the same island: The WTC was at the end of Manhattan while the Ed Sullivan Theater is in Midtown. The big deal was that Dave was broacasting from New York when everyone was still a nervous wreck, not because he was partically nearby the WTC. --Feitclub 19:41, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

When does the show actually screen on US TV? Dysprosia 05:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Monday to Friday at 11:35:00pm to 12:37:30am on CBS Television Xm2631

I currently uploaded an image of the show's logo graphic. I would've have liked to see an image from the actual opening sequence of the show. A transparent logo would be better. If anyone has one, feel free to change it. Xm2631

Where did the Lseleven.gif image come from? I do not think it is appropriate for the site. There was no special "11th Anniversary" episode of the Late Show, so having that image is bound to create confusion. The logo is a nearly verbatim copy of the Late Night (not Late Show) logo, and using such a logo is bound to create even more confusion in an article about the Late Show. From what I know, no Late Night-esque logo has ever been used on the Late Show. Also, I'm guessing that the logo was created by some random fan out there, not by CBS or Worldwide Pants. Personally, I think there is no reasonable choice but to remove the logo. --Rookkey 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

The article says this: "When asked by Letterman about the incident she said "Jesus Christ" and had to be censored. If the incident had not occurred, this phrase may not have been blocked and yet it was due to a five second delay ordered by CBS."

Can someone tell me for what reason a taped show would need a five-second delay as they have a 6-hour delay between tape and air? —  MusicMaker 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and the article should be edited to reflect this, which kind of defeats the purpose of mentioning her appearance at all. Should it be removed completely?Locano 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the removal, as it was just days after her infamous Superbowl performance, and it was her first appearance after the halftime show anyway.Thankyoubaby 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to remove it, let's go all the way and get rid of that weird broken image that says "Janet Jackson on Letterman". I, however, think it was a pretty memorable interview, although I'm not certain how much publicity it got. Sir Lemming 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Late Show Bear"

What happened to it? I haven't seen anybody put away the "Late Show Bear" for a while... ViperBite 15:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC) They probably just dropped it for a little while. --69.67.229.28 04:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Um...somebody tagged the section for merge, but there's no discussion. So, I'll start it. I support a move of "late show guests" form Letterman's bio to the Late show article. --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This article should be about the person and not about the show. --Maitch 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett

I removed the following sentence from this section:

"At one point in her interview she crawled on the studio floor on all fours calling for an imaginary cat."

I don't seem to recall this ever happening on that night. But unless someone can provide proof, I don't think it should be in the article.

--Lc 04 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick search for keywords. The only mention of the act above is the Wikipedia article. PrometheusX303 12:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the interview in YouTube and there is no such a floor crawling. Letterman didn't thank her for "almost being here", he said "thanks for being here" as he often does. Carlosp420 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dave did say this, but at the very end of the show before the credits before he said Goodnight. --Lc 04 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The next host

What will we do when David stops being the host of this show? Will we just start a new article called "The Late Show with (name of Host)"? Or will we move it to the new name? Just curious about this...--Chile14 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably the same as The Tonight Show. That article gives a brief overview, but there are more detailed presentations at The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Interestingly, there is no The Tonight Show with Steve Allen to cover 1954 - 1957 or The Tonight Show with Jack Paar to cover 1957 - 1962. --rogerd 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be wisest to wait until the new host and title are announced in any case, but it will be awhile before Dave leaves. After all, after Late Night With David Letterman, it's been Late Night With Conan O'Brien... and the full title of the Steve Allen Tonight Show was Tonight, at least originally, while Jack Paar's edition was Tonight Starring Jack Paar. 147.70.242.40 16:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Characters, possibly recurring

Does anyone know about that lady who sometimes shows up at the Late Show. She seems to look Korean, and is the costume designer for the show. She usually likes to disrupt the show by sitting down on the couch, putting on make up in front of the camera, or giving Dave some water during that hot day. Does anybody have a clue about what I'm talking about? I can't find her in any of our articles.--Ed^{talk c E} 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dave calls her "Sue" and she interrupts almost every night these days, always ending in her yelling an insult and storming off. There is also a guy who interrupts Dave's monologue a lot, and there were some skateboarders at one point. Clearly a decision has been made to add more of these random characters to recent shows. There are sometimes people who show up outside the window behind his desk. It's fun. A mention could go in the show "sketches" category. Rugz 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

She's Sue Hum, costume designer for the show. "The guy who interrupts" is Johnny Dark. Fitfatfighter 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

you're a tool. you sound like a tool. and she's just one of many random comedy bits involving the show's staff. and "that hot day" proper or parallel grammar with the rest of that sentence. no one likes a knob who can't speak their own native language. and don't assume she's korean.

Pat Farmer

Not the politician, Pat Farmer of The Late Show. What is he, staff? He normally does the "special reports". "Bird-Flu" and "Behind Pirates of the Carribean 2". Both of them he ends up dying. --Yancyfry jr 04:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is usually referred to as a stagehand. --taestell 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pat Farmer should be mentioned. He goes out does special reports on things and dies during it. --66.218.17.243 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guest Hosts?

Since it's a relative rarity to have Late Night without Letterman, wouldn't it be a good idea to mention the guest hosts (especially after the bypass surgery)? None of those episodes had "the greatest city in the world" in their opening, either. 147.70.242.40 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a piece on Bruce Willis's transformation from guest to host during the heart attack would fit in well here.

Memorable episodes

The stuff in this section is basically the same as part of the David Letterman article (like the heart surgery / February 21's episode sections). I'm not sure what should be done, eg. whether there should be two concurrent pieces or whether one should link to the other. Specifically, the Heart Surgery part of David Letterman vs. the February 21, 2001 'memorable episode' of the Late Show with David Letterman. The latter has less information than the Heart Surgery bit, and I don't think there's any sense in that. — mæstrosync ^{talk&contribs}, 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards' apology is not important enough to include on this page! A few weeks from now no one will even care or remember it. It is insignificant to the show. It should be completely removed. What do you think? Rugz

How can the Crispin Glover episode not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.194.5 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Simmons

He has had a fairly long history with the show, a mention of him in the article seems appropriate. 207.126.230.225 05:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Sir Lemming 14:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was Tom Brokaw

However, Letterman did not let NBC have the final laugh on the matter. On the very first show, after Letterman was introduced, Tom Brokaw accompanied him on stage and wished him luck "within reason". Brokaw then proceeded to retrieve a pair of cue cards stating that "These last 2 jokes are the intellectual property of NBC!", and carried them off stage. As I recall, that was Marv Albert. Does someone know for sure?--Idols of Mud 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It was definately Tom Brokaw Rugz 19:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian Telecast

A LOT of this page is dedicated to expaining the Australian broadcasts of the show, which is totally useless to anybody outside Australia. I think the entire section should either be deleted or a similar section created for every country it is broadcast in. (I favour the former). ChefEm 10:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Letterman vs. Leno

There is no discussion of how Letterman trounced Leno when he move to CBS and how Leno managed to regain the lead? Mark83 00:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Guest Hosts

Wasn't there a something on this page to do with guest hosts when Letterman was ill or something?

Cause I know Paul has hosted, as well as Drew Carey and just recently, Adam Sandler and Motzaball... Mosdefau2 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Great moments in presidential speeches ;; who is doctored into the image?

If you are familiar with this segment "Great moments in presidential speeches" ... take a close look at the clip of the Inaugural address of John F. Kennedy. At the extreme right, there is a man who is clearly "doctored in" to the video. Who is this man? dr.ef.tymac 07:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Late Show announcer Alan Kalter. - Mike Beckham 07:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually, yes, it's either Kalter or Costume Designer Sue Hum... but there was a new guy in there last night. Lambertman 11:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

...who wasn't Tony Mendez. Lambertman 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Small Town News

I don't think it can really be argued that Leno is much more known for his "Headlines" bit than Letterman is for his "Small Town News."

Does anyone know how far back Small Town News goes? I'm guessing he did it during "Late Night," but I'm not sure if it actually precedes Headlines, which I assume he did during his guest-host stints for Carson.

And I'm curious if anyone has any speculation as to why the Late Show has decided to regularly have Small Town News air on the same night as Headlines. Km9000 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is my point. You think the Leno bit is more notable than the Letterman one, probably because you watch Leno. My wife and I have been watching the "Small Town News" bit on Letterman for years without realizing that Leno has something similar, because we can't stand Leno and don't ever watch him. Why don't we just note that they are similar routines and leave out any opinion about which one is better known. I also looked at The Tonight Show with Jay Leno article and saw that there was no reference to the Letterman bit in that article. --rogerd 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Small Town News preceded headlines by at least 6 or 7 years. Dave was doing Small Town News on his morning show in 1980 even before he did it on Late Night. Leno didn't begin guest hosting for Carson until 1986. NIST91 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Widescreen in HD

Ok, so I know that the HD show is broadcast in widescreen, but was the show ever broadcast in widescreen before that, like on standard def digital tv? I would like to add that the show also changed to widescreen as a standard when they changed to HD, but I'm not positive if the first HD broadcast of this show was indeed the first widescreen broadcast too JayKeaton 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

When Dave announced on the show that they were now broadcasting in HD, they would make some jokes about the fact that they were now seen in widescreen as well (like the HD cameo, where a walk-on guest could only be visible on the edge of a wide screen). Not a definitive answer, but since they got new cameras for the switch-over, I'd have to assume that the previous ones would've had to be regular 4:3 anyway.Km9000 07:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Acts

Is there any source for calling the segments of the show "Acts"? To my knowledge, they've always been called "segments". Furthermore, the "audience sweep" lasts for all of 15 seconds: I don't think it could properly be called an "Act". 69.253.193.234 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On Mike McIntee's "Wagoo Gazette" official online recap, he breaks the show down by "acts," and includes the audience sweep as its own act. Nothing wrong with calling them "segments," but if it's good enough for McIntee, I figured it's good enough for Wikipedia.Km9000 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of often played musical pieces in the show?

I was searching for a list of songs often played before/after commercial breaks without luck. Could this be included into the article?

I don't really think that that would be an exclusive list. Paul is pretty good about switching up the music; I don't think he plays any songs more frequently than any others. —  MusicMaker5376 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical Guest Insulted Letterman On Air?

Does anyone remember an episode, probably from the early 90s, where a musical guest insulted Letterman right after performing a song, on air? I vaguely remember the insult sounded kind of "British", something along the lines of "you wanker" or "you tosser". I think the band had wanted to play a cover song, but they weren't allowed to or something along those lines. 70.20.219.41 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable Episodes changes...

I had originally added Top Twelve code into the Memorable Episodes section. Someone else then amended the section to Notable Episodes. This code has been removed as someone decided the change to the Top Ten didn't compare to Sept 11 or Carson's death. My take on this is who decides on what is a Notable Episode? What are the critera and who is deciding on behalf of Wikipdia? Especially since this section has been amended to Notable Episodes. The Top Ten list has been a staple of the show since its beginning. It was mentioned on the show's website how big a change it was; Letterman himself mentioned on the show that night how big it was. Is this Notable? Yes, and I'd like to re-add it. - Starn1973.

The community as a whole decides what is notable. You're comparing the modification of a comedy bit (and a resultant list that was about as painfully unfunny as any celebrity-presented Top Ten ever has been) to major events that transcend the show and affected Dave and many of his viewers on a personal level. And, despite what Dave - who's been known to exaggerate/shovel a load o' crap for comic effect - or the website may say, the length of the Top Ten has been screwed with before: there were a long series of Top 11 lists ("Top Ten Extra!") and at least one Top Nine. Lambertman 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lshowtitle cleaned.png

Image:Lshowtitle cleaned.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Guests Split

The section is fairly lengthy, and it probably could use its own article just to make the Late Show article a little neater. Since someone has suggested it be merged but the topic hasn't been discussed, here's a new discussion. If no one rejects the idea, I'll go ahead and split the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googolme (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I went ahead and split the section Googolme (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should point to a page that actually exists. Then again, I haven't looked, somebody could've edited this on the main page. --72.207.244.139 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode Structure should include 1993 - 2008

The section on "Episode Structure" is now slanted toward current shows. It should be rewritten to be all-inclusive of every show from 1993 to 2008 because things were a lot different in the early days. For example "Act 5" audience sweep didn't occur until several years into the show when Letterman stopped doing his own gags during that break. Also need to mention the original announcer Wendell in the "Act 1" segment as Kalter didn't start until 1995. Phrases such as "on most nights" and "often consists" should be removed from these section to make it more encyclopedic. Rugz (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The billboard

I don't think the billboard item is quite right. I remember that Jay Leno put up a billboard on top of a building near Times Square with his picture saying "We're #1!". Since his show originates from L.A., this could only have been a direct attempt to annoy Letterman. To show he couldn't care less, Dave put up a billboard with his picture and the slogan "We're #2!". But maybe there was also a billboard some other time that said "We're #3!". Does anybody have a citation for any of this?Slobone (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Late Show redirection

The Late Show redirects to this page. It shouldn't, as there's an Australian TV program called The Late Show which ran from 1992-1993, produced by the national free to air network, ABC-TV.

Instead, The Late Show should ideally go to a disambiguation stub, as I'm sure there would have been other programs with this title too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.80.62 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: my reversion

I stated in my edit summary that "Madonna is mentioned elsewhere in the article", which I thought was true. Was the section deleted, or am I imagining its prior existence? - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Madonna had always been in the Notable Episodes section. It should probably be reinstated, as it was fairly big news at the time. —  MusicMaker5376 15:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was a separate section a couple of months ago, but someone (not me) incorporated it into the Notable Episodes. A good idea, methinks. —  MusicMaker5376 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated it since there isn't a discussion about its removal on here. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool/Not Cool

Has the "Cool/Not Cool" segment replaced "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches", or are they alternated? - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been getting to bed earlier lately, but I've only seen "Cool/Not Cool" the one time. — MusicMaker5376 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been at least three, and it was the only Bush pisstake in last night's show, which prompted my question. - 18:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan Kalter's celebrity guest

Can anyone find sources (preferably more than one) that says that this frequently included segment has gone far beyond running gag to the point where it has become tedious beyond belief? This really needs to be made known. I've got to the point of changing channels whenever it comes on. Koro Neil (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Joaquin Pheonix?

Is Joaquin Phoenix's appearance notable on here? Lazylaces (Talk to me) 04:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the notable appearances thing. In a strange way, it might be construed as point-of-view. For example, someone who was watching the show who has issues similar to Phoenix wouldn't have thought his appearance odd. Kind of a stretch, but it's just my opinion. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it became notable due to the ensuing media coverage, about whether or not it was all a big put-on. Similar to the current Palin brouhaha. Speaking of which... Tarc (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palin incident

It has probably earned enough coverage now for a brief mention here, as there has been much talk and coverage of the event in recent weeks. I'd very much like to pry it off the main Dave Letterman article, as it has more to do with something that happened on the show rather than with him personally. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Since someone already tried to paste it in, I fixed it up and restored the citations. So, here we are. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether this section deserves to be in the article or not is a subject for legitimate debate. However, if it is going to be included, having the article saying that Palin accepted Letterman's apology, without including any context for her remarks -- in which she clearly qualified her acceptance of the apology with other comments -- smacks of editorializing contrary to NPOV. Ithizar (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What it "smacks of" are people piling on in this article to get their ideological digs in. There is no reason to include so much verbatim text of who said what. Cover what happened, summarize, and move on. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the information seems to me to be an attempt to get an "idelogical dig" in. The fact that you feel the matter is now closed and that the apology was openly accepted, and that I feel the controversy still exists and that she was attempting to qualify her statements, proves that there is more than one point of view. Perhaps the solution would be to reword the matter into one or two simple sentences that acknowledge the full breadth of Palin's statement without including detailed quotations? Ithizar (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Go create a David Letterman-Sarah Palin controversy article if you feel that strongly about it (but I wouldn't be surprised if such an article would face resistance). Re-hashing the entire episode here is inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have re-edited once more in an attempt to satisfy the points of view being expressed here. I deleted the reference to 'who were visiting New York at the time,' because Letterman insists he was not referring to the daughter who was in New York and therefore such statement seems to promote Palin's POV. I also reworded the sentences about Palin's apology in a way that avoids lengthy direct quotations and yet still preserves NPOV by ensuring that it is noted that her statement was not a simple "apology accepted." If folks here don't find that acceptable, we may have to get some additional comments here because 1 or 2 people on either side does not a concensus make. Ithizar (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain this incident will stand the test of time. Is it really such a big deal? WP:RECENTISM could be at play. I think we should remove the entry and wait and see if it is still 'notable' in a few months. Barrylb (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I think we have to take this in the context of an article about a TV show. This incident may not be something that the general public remembers as a newsworthy article in a few years, but it is certainly notable in the history of the TV show. If the show itself is notable enough to warrant an article, then I feel major events in the history of the show are as well, and an event which caused enough controversy to prompt pickets and calls for the host's firing certainly qualifies. Ithizar (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry this was not a noteable show but an instance of humor that missed the mark. And unless every joke that also misfires goes in it becomes the very definition of WP:Coatrack and WP:Undue. a month from now this will really be forgotten, let's not abuse an encyclopedia to make a point. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it's a tabloid story that has no place in encyclopedia. Rugz (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The popular reaction is what makes it not a tabloid story. The story itself is brief and briefly summarised: a joke was told that may or may not have confused which daughter was referred to (I say nothing as to its appropriateness without the age aspect, except to say that it was fairly typical of many late night jokes), a high-profile mother was upset, an apology was given. In and of itself, it is a blip on the radar. However (and this is a big however): the popular reaction continues not only to be strong, but also to divide along ideological lines. This is unusual for late night talk shows. Because Sarah Palin represents a particular style of Republicanism, that reaction reflects the degree of support/rejection/irrelevancy: definitely of interest in the first Obama year where Palin still represents a "what if". I looked up this story to see if any advertisers had dropped as a result. Not altogether surprised to find a similar battle going on here (and even moreso on the bio talk page). Incidentally, the talk there is correct insofar as mention belonging here, if anywhere. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.160 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You raise a good point that it may make sense if shown to actually affect the show. -- Banjeboi 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of late night jokes which are talked about in the news the following day and beyond. It's what they do. There is nothing about this particular incident that makes it more profound than any other. It did not alter the outcome of an election, nor did it change the course of American history. Just because it is the subject of gossip, even to a fever pitch, does not make it encyclopedic. Use WikiNews if you must. Rugz (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither did the existence of the Late Show With David Letterman, for that matter. By your argument, Rugz, this entire article has no purpose. Let's not confuse measuring instruments with causality. - Tenebris

Wikinews seems like a fine idea they have rather low standards from what I've seen, soem good editors there but a lot of muck like this finds a happy home there as well. This just seems completely unneeded for this article - a bad joke justifiably seen as unfunny; conservatives are "outraged" because this is just so important and Letterman apologizes, Palin accepts apology and we move on to the next days' news. -- Banjeboi 17:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that for a subject to be notable it must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic being discussed. This topic definitely satisfies those guidelines. It has been covered in numerous reliable, mainstream news outlets, at least three of which have been cited. The fact that it did not alter an election or change the course of American history is irrelevant. This is an article about a television show, not World War II. Madonna's appearance, Letterman's heart surgery, and the "feud" with Oprah Winfrey did not result in major historical events either, but they are notable within the context of discussing the television show. So is this. If we want to discuss removing the entirety of the "Notable Episodes" section, I'll listen to that argument. But as long as the section remains, so should the Palin incident. Ithizar (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:OtherStuffExists doesn't support adding negaitive information that seems to violate WP:Undue, WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. This content is already on the Palin article as it lends to her public image. If there is any rliable sources this was more than a blip to this show then present them here so concensus can be determined for using it. -- Banjeboi 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the show, not a repository to list it's thousands of controversial jokes which may or may not have received tabloid or entertainment news coverage. Rugz (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then I maintain that the entire "Notable Episodes" section should go, as it is all similar material. Ithizar (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to meet halfway on the Palin enthusiasts I've moved the text to a new section called "Controversies and Criticisms" and out of "Notable Episodes." I think our standard for "Notable Episodes" should be those episodes which are must-see that one would actually go back to pull the tape to watch again. Rugz (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me, and I appreciate your efforts to find a "middle ground" to allow a consensus to be reached. If others are satisfied with this solution, I am as well. Ithizar (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The "must-see" you describe is purely WP:OR. Need a WP:RS to support that kind of analysis ("Some Renowned TV Critic's Top 10 Letterman Episodes", or "10 most watched episodes" based on Arbitron or syndication use or requests for copyright permission to reuse, for example). Making a whole controversies/criticisms is even worse because it highlights this event as the best-known or most extreme example of it. Giving even more weight to this is not the way to compromise with those who think there was already too much. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed

“ Letterman received criticism for jokes on the June 9, 2009 show about Alaska governor Sarah Palin and one of her daughters. Letterman joked, "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." Noting that it was her 14-year old daughter, Willow, accompanying her at the baseball game, Palin responded by calling the jokes "sexually perverted comments" On the show following the incident, Letterman stated "these are not jokes made about her 14-year old daughter" and that he "would never, never joke about raping a 14-year old." He said that jokes were about Palin's 18 year old daughter, Bristol Palin, while acknowledging the joke was "ugly," "cheap," and "in poor taste."

The following week, following continued controversy, Letterman further addressed the situation, accepting full responsibility and apologizing directly to the Palin family. On June 17, a "Fire David Letterman Protest" took place across the street while the show was taping. Letterman used this as the subject of many jokes in his show including his Top Ten list "Top Ten Things Overheard at the Fire Dave Rally". Palin issued a statement in which she accepted Letterman's apology while calling on such comedy to "evolve".

”

I've removed this as still being quite undue and unneeded. This really seems like it's only serving to soapbox about Palin and Letterman in various ways and it's the very definition of recentism. Yes it was the news of the day, because it was controversial and Palin milked it a bit. And then Letterman apologized - ZOMG! And now everyone has moved on to the next day and the next joke and some other trivial scandal. Is there any evidence of this poor joke changing the show itself? In any way? If there is a psecial Palin-focussed episode then perhaps that would be notable and would reference this bad joke when it happens but until then this is just degrading content that makes Wikipedia look like we follow the scandal sheets and blogs. We don't - we aren't a newspaper and we certainly aren't a gossip sheet. This is an encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 10:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it is getting awfully tiring to deal with this issue ping-ponging between this article and the main Letterman article, and it needs to come to a resolution soon. It certainly does not belong on the BLP of David Letterman, and outside of a stray holdout or two, that angle is pretty much dead as far as I'm concerned. For inclusion here, I'm on the fence. Yes, recentism and tabloid-ish, but it may have had a sufficient, if brief, moment in the sun. It isn't a notable episode per se, as it was a one-liner in the opening monologue, and the apology and explanation was given in a subsequent episode, so if kept it'd warrant a new section. It'd also need some significant trimming, keeping to a basic frame of; initial joke --> OMG she's 14 response --> OMG I wasn't taking about the younger one + apology. The protests were insignificant, as were Letterman's use of them for Top 10 material. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I've been a strong supporter of keeping the information, as I do believe it was notable, I want to work constructively with those here toward consensus on this issue. And I can understand your comments about wanting to keep it brief and keep insignificant information out of it. As such, I've gone ahead and removed the information about the protests and about Letterman's subsequent Top 10 lists. Any suggestions on how to further trim the section without eliminating the pertinent facts? Ithizar (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi (and now also Tarc, thanks to edit-conflicts) here...at this time it appears to be much ado about very little. Lots of things that do make the news one day are quickly gone and wind up being irrelevant or at best a relatively minor issue for the topic at hand. WP:NTEMP and WP:NNC. It's too much about too little. But I'll qualify by adding ",..at this time." If and when this proves to be more than flash-in-the-pan one of many controversial jokes, I would certainly support inclusion on the Late Show page. I definitely would not support inclusion on Letterman's page, because this isn't about him personally except that he happened to deliver the joke and host the show that is involved in the issue. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly concur, and would support including if the issue is shown to somehow have actually influenced this show. I remain unconvinced this was simply just a blip and the flames are being fanned by folks to bring shame on Letterman and Palin - which is not what this encyclopedia is for. In short there remains no consensus to insert this content in any form as of yet. That could change but certainly hasn't yet. Any mention, by the way, would have to be several sentences long to explain sveral aspects thus making it by default too much about too little - ergo WP:Undue. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Tarc particularly here. Unitanode 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the page due to continued warring. There doesn't seem to be a clear enough outcome here yet to conclusively say that this is just reverting against consensus and I note that the IPs that have been reverting have not as yet made any contribution to this discussion. These IPs also have very short SPA contribution histories with similarities both to each other and to other editors in this discussion, all of which points strongly to sockpuppetry. Please establish a firm consensus now here on the inclusion/exclusion of the material. Once that is done further reversion can and will be treated as outright disruption and warring against consensus. If the IPs don't engage and continue warring then the full protection can be dropped to semi. I urge all interested parties to make their case here as the edit warring stops now. Mfield (Oi!) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that the Palin enthusiasts are only interested in making sure Letterman has a stain in his legacy and are not really interested in making a good Wiki article about the show. The man has delivered nearly 100,000 jokes in his career, lighten up. Rugz (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of participating in the discussion here? Everyone claims to be working toward a consensus, but keeps insisting that the page reflect their preferred version while the discussion goes on. Everyone keeps making changes and then insisting that no one else make changes until a consensus is reached. And this is usually how disputes seem to go. No real constructive discussion. Just people digging their feet in the ground and insisting they're way is right. Not to mention comments like the one above questioning the motives of other editors, instead of suggesting ways to reach a consensus. So how does participating here do anything better than just continuing an edit war? Doesn't seem much different to me. 216.12.96.104 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that discussions here are always without purpose. A little farther up, I had been involved in a discussion over how to best trim the information, make it short and to the point, and include it in a way that is encyclopedic and would gain consensus. Unfortunately, it seems that others in the discussion are so adamantly opposed to its inclusion that they simply ignored that discussion and kept deleting the information. I still maintain that this satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and that it is noteworthy in the context of the television show. Did it alter the course of human history? No. But anytime a talk show host makes a gaffe significant enough to receive mainstream, non-tabloid, national news coverage and be forced into an on-air apology, that is notable in the history of the show. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that others here are willing to even discuss the point. Ithizar (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you were that knowledgeable about the show, you would know that this has happened to Letterman hundreds of times before resulting in on-air apologies. Can you name one other time? Why are you not advocating those be mentioned as well? Rugz (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. The mainstream news folks are notoriously incestuous reporting on quite trivial "scandals" of all sorts; interpreting and guessing meanings into the the most trivial of subjects so they are seen by the viewers as being the best choice for information. Witness the feeding frenzy of every minute aspect of Micheal Jackson's death. Yes, mainstream media discuss this - no it's really not that notable. It hasn't seemed to do anything for this subject, or likely even Palin. -- Banjeboi 03:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what form the the info about Palin should take, but I do know it needs to be included. Many people close to Palin have mentioned as a contributing factor to her resignation. Wikipedia doesn't leave out information just because it took place in front of a backdrop of popular entertainment and gossip. All the major news networks have covered it, do we now have a higher bar for inclusion than CNN? This incident will resonant as a key indicator of Palin's character. Eventually it will be documented in Wikipedia. The question is how long will we leave the encyclopedia incomplete? Datacharge (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Check again. This article is not about Palin's career. It's about the Late Show With David Letterman. Rugz (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If something that occurred on the Late Show with David Letterman had an effect on Palin's career, then it is appropriate for the Late Show article. Ithizar (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Unitanode 02:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How did it affect Palin's career? Tarc (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So Joaquin Phoenix's interview is worthy of a paragraph but Palin isn't worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia isn't paper. How does it look when people come to this page on Wikipedia and see a glaring omission, something that they have heard a lot about that isn't even mentioned. It certainly doesn't make us look good.Datacharge (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"But other stuff!" is never a terribly convincing argument. Tarc (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "other stuff" argument, remember that according to WP:Other stuff exists, that can be a valid point in a discussion. It might not be too, but the guideline states, among other thing, "sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." It also states, "[w]hen used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." That is what is being discused here. Being consistent in the content that we provide or exclude. It does not seem consistent to me to include the vast majority of content currently in the "Notable Episodes" section while rejecting the Palin content as being non-notable because it did not have some drastic impact on the history of the show. Virtually none of the incidents in "Notable Episodes" had such an effect, and that does not seem to be the standard generally employed. Ithizar (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as this article is longer than a page the Palin incident deserves a mention. Look if your afraid I am some Palin zealot trying to get her name mentioned, let me assure you that's far from the case. I simply want to correct a rather embarrassing gap in Wikipedia's coverage.Datacharge (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You've offered no valid sources which support the claim that it has changed Palin's career. Wiki is not for original research or personal opinions, the claim must be sourced from a reliable publication. And you've offered not one reason why this incident supercedes the hundreds of other Letterman jokes/apologies/controversies which got media attention in the last 30 years, none of which are mentioned in this article. If you were truly concerned about missing important information you would go out and source all of those as well, not just Palin. As for your imaginary "gap in Wikipedia's coverage," Wikipedia is not a news agency, go to [| WikiNews] for that. Wikipedia has higher criteria for conclusion, which includes consensus -- that hasn't been reached. Furthermore we're not debating Joaquin Phoenix are we? Rugz (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not debating Joaquin Phoenix specifically, but what we are debating is what qualifies as notable for the purpose of the "Notable Episodes" section. Discussing other items in that section, such as Joaquin Phoenix, is relevant as Wikipedia guidelines specifically call for us to be consistent in what is or is not included. Right now, this article is not being consistent. Ithizar (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have time to fill every gap in Wikipedia's coverage which is why I try to fix the ones I see. I'm not looking for a huge entry just a couple sentences. Can we reach a compromise?Datacharge (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ithizar I think that does the job quite nicely. Short and to the point. I think it's probably less than 1/20 of the size of the talk page discussion over it.Datacharge (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, if there is evidence this poor joke led to Palin's resigning as govenor - dubious, IMHO - then please post it here so others can see if and what might be useable. As of yet we have no evidence that this was terribly notable at all and mounting concerns that is only being used to disparage Letterman and likely Palin as well. To insert it here we really should have some strong sourcing that the joke impacted this show is some profound way if at all. -- Banjeboi 11:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion and your standard, which you feel that you can continue imposing regardless of the discussion here. It does not gel with what the consensus here has been nor with Wikipedia's policies. Should you insist on reverting these edits, then I feel it is necessary at this point to go to mediation, as the discussions are no longer constructive. Ithizar (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't have any reliable source cite to support the claim that this episode strongly affected Palin and led to Palin's resigning as govenor? It seems this claim (as yet uncited) is the key to why this episode is more notable than other poor-taste jokes (at least according to the recent direction this discussion has gone). Without a cite, "X's action affected Y in the manner of Z" is completely WP:OR in all respects, and WP:BLP forbids WP editors from analyzing people's actions like that or ascribing additional notability to it. DMacks (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I simply don't understand why some editors are unwilling to have a couple sentences in this article about the Palin incident. Is it really signifigantly less notable than the other episodes mentioned. I am very confused. Doesn't the fact that we have had pages of dialog on this with more than a dozen participants indicate at least a sentence is in order. In my 5 years of using Wikipedia I have never been more confused about an editorial decision. This doesn't make any sense to me. I have never been involved in a mediation request, but I am starting to agree that it might be necessary. There doesn't seem to much give anymore in the discussion. Those against inclusion seem to be unwilling to include this information no matter what compromise is made. As to it's influence on Palin, please read this link: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/letterman_makes.html.Datacharge (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I read it. What's it supposed to be proving? Letterman's a comedian. He makes jokes about lots of people. Is this joke more notable because Palin and her supporters twisted it to mean something he didn't mean, and had some faux outrage for awhile? I don't think so. We simply can not have sections on every joke Letterman does that makes the butt of that joke angry. Unitanode 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a perfect example of trivial mention, sweeping a bunch of these together makes a piles of dust, not a good encyclopedia. And you missed the zinger there - "along with all the other media scrutiny and brickbats thrown her way." Non-partisan sources have been talking about the decision as being a political move to position herself on the national stage so she can freely move around the country and not get bogged down in a state where her influence is - how to put it, tainted by numerous scandals. Let her name Letterman as the reson she quit then you'll have your feeding frenzy. Letterman picks on all politicians and public figures. That Palin tried to milk this and similar incidents into something they weren't only suggests she was planning her "surprise" resignation a while ago. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that the decision for noninclusion seems to be political Benjiboi's remarks are a good example of this. Wikipedia should be as NPOV as possible, you might be right about Palin's motives but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include information about this if we have reliable sources, and thousands of articles in mainstream publications have been published.Datacharge (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

<---undent

Your questioning of Benji's motives aside, the number of news articles is not relevant to this discussion. Having a section on this joke, in my view, gives it undue weight. If it was that important to Palin's career, it should be in her article, not this one. It simply does not stand out as notable in the history of The Late Show. Unitanode 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And it is in her article. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I don't watch that article, so I wasn't aware of that. That's all that's really needed, in my view. Unitanode 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Words explicate motives. Can you really say that this is less notable than the other episode mentioned? And if not why shouldn't it be included if not for political reasons. We could argue all day what I want to know is whether your willing to compromise at all to reach consensus?Datacharge (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

I'm asking you to stop re-inserting this until you have found consensus for inclusion. Unitanode 02:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please link to the policy that says it's consensus for inclusion not deletion that matters. It may well be there but I'd like to review it if you have it handy.Datacharge (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're now both edit warring and editing in a non-collegial manner. I'm not going to revert you, but don't be surprised if you're blocked for edit-warring, as there's clearly no consensus here to add the information, and it appears that there's at least a majority of editors that are against adding this material. Edit-warring against consensus is really frowned upon. Unitanode 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see this guideline for adding material. The material was added, it was reverted out, and it should be discussed now, instead of you edit-warring to force it into the article. Unitanode 03:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I very much hope that more attention is shed on this article. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a number of points regarding interpretations of Wikipedia policy and our present conflict. Oh and Benjiboi/Benjiboi please stop using sock puppets.Datacharge (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I note with interest that you make no specific points as to your "disagreements" with me regarding policy. You simply can't keep trying to force your views into the article without establishing consensus first. The material is on Wikipedia, it's just in the much more appropriate article, Sarah Palin. Unitanode 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Warren Zevon's last performance

Could someone add something about Warren Zevon's last performance on the Late Show and that he is one of the few 'guests' to ever be the only guest in an entire episode? s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.8.93 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)