Talk:David Letterman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conan and Letterman

David Letterman and Conan Obrian guest stars in the same spin city episode called "Dead dog talking". However Davids part is a voice over only for the dog rags. It should also be noted that is Davids last appearance as a actor outside the Late show. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.129.66 (talk) 03:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Kaufman fight hoax

Jerry Lawler recently admited the on air fight with Andy Kaufman was a "hoax".

Yup.

Popularity

Leno may regularly beat Letterman in the ratings, and has been doing it for years, but when they first went head-to-head, and for some time after, Letterman beat Leno. (I believe the change occurred around the time Hugh Grant appeared on Leno after he was arrested for picking up a prostitute.)

Guests who won't/wouldn't come on the show?

I thought this might be interest (and funny) to include since Letterman has had more problems with this than ANY other talk show host. Recently, Teri Garr made a joke about it in a November 2005 appearance. She said that everytime she got the call to do the show (which was often back on the old show at NBC), she'd think, "Oh no, someone else doesn't want to do the show..." She mentioned Woody Allen, who doesn't do talk shows anymore, but I know he made a rare appearance in a brief Late Show bit in the mid-90's.

Anyway, would this be a good idea? Does anyone know who would make the list? Here's what I can recall:

Guests who probably won't be coming back: Richard Simmons (anyone remember the fire extinguisher incident?) Harvey Pekor (see American Splendor)

Guests who were angered by Dave when he was on NBC but visited the show years later: Sharon Stone Joan Collins Laura Linney

Guests who would not appear for many, many years but finally visited in recent years: Tom Cruise Michelle Pfeiffer Jodie Foster (at the end of the interview, she jokingly explained, "I heard some bad things about you." or something like that) Dustin Hoffman Oprah Winfrey Philip Seymour Hoffman (well, don't think he refused to, but he didn't appear until first quarter of '06) Sean Penn (? again, not sure he refused, but was he on before? Donz?)

I think this topic was even used for a bit on the old show. Something like Vicious Rumors About Guests Who Won't Do Our Show.

Bad form

ZimZalaBim has just demanded that all others cease reverting the article -- but at the same time, ZimZalaBim has him(?)self reverted the article. ZimZalaBim has also demanded that others explain their edits on the talk page -- but has not done so him(?)self here when he(?) reverted the article. [2]

This is at the very least extremely bad form and could quite reasonably be considered inappropriate conduct. It is also reflective of this mindset. 95.89.172.215 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, "The Wrong Version" has to do with editors preferring a version of an article over another when it has been protected from editing. That isn't applicable here, since there is no article protection, currently. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Willow's presence

Is there even any proof that Willow attended the game? I have not seen any photos of her, just photos of her and Rudy. Even Sarah Palin said Willow "accompanied me on the trip" and did not claim she was actually at the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.5.69 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dozens of sources say Willow attended the game. Has any reliable source suggested she was not there?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any citations for these "dozens of sources"? None of the news stories I can find online mention it. The only places I see Willow's attendence mentioned have been in stories about David Letterman's joke. 12.40.5.69 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The articles about the joke are the ones that mention she was at the game, that doesn't mean the sourcing is any less. Cites, 14-year-old Willow, who was at the baseball game in New York., [3], Willow. But Letterman said it's his responsibility that people believed that he intended to target Willow, who had attended a New York Yankees game with her mother.[4], Letterman has said from the beginning that he thought the Palin daughter who attended the Yankee game was Bristol. [5], I could keep on going till I hit a dozen but I see no point.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to a source that isn't about the controversy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/07/2009-06-07_palin_hits_nyc_and_yankees_game.html

The non-Letterman controversy sources, quoting Palin, do not mention Willow being at the game. If you can link to some pictures that would be fine too, there should be plenty of pictures about Sarah Palin for verification.

Before the controversy Willow's presence wasn't anything the press cared about. After the controversy all the sources say she was at the game, and there are no sources that say she was not there. When all the sources that comment on Willow say she was at the game the burden now shifts to you to show that there's a significant viewpoint that says she was not there. That doesn't mean anonomous people on the comments section of an article, or people posting on message boards. That means reliable sources. Do you really think that if Willow was not there there wouldn't be someone blowing the whistle on it? And do you not believe that the press would fall all over themselves rushing to report that Palin had been caught is a lie?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Many people still don't even believe Willow was at the game at all, just at New York. Read below, for just one example, if you want more there is further reading. How can we disprove the fact that someone was at a game or not? I can't prove Willow wasn't there, I wasn't at the game for example. I can only ask you for evidence, the burden of proof is never on the person disbelivieng a claim without evidence. Why isn't there any pictures at all of Willow at the game, there are a lot of Palin pictures. Show me some solid evidence, otherwise we are just taking her word for it do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.239.101 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not taking her word for it we're taking the word of the reporters who've written about it. That's what's needed for the article based on Wikipedias policy od verifiability and reliable sources. The article says Willow is Sarah Palins daughter. I haven't seen the birth certificate or a videotape of the delivery. Does that mean we're just taking Palin's word that Willow really is her daughter?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not! There are other ways of distinguishing whether or not she is her mother, that is a false dichotomy. If there was no evidence for it, however, then it would be an allegation until she proves otherwise no? Most of the reporters reporting were not even actually at the game, as I said, they are taking it upon Palin's assertion.

This is ridiculous. Leave your WP:FRINGE theories for the message boards. The onus is on you to prove that she was not there. Numerous WP:RS validate the claim that she was there. Arzel (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said she was not there and I'm not saying she was not there. But you are asserting she was there, no? If you are asserting it, the burden of proof is always on you. Thus, to take a more neutral stance since we are basing this off of Palin's assertion, then we should acknowledge that. I am not claiming Willow was there, nor am I claiming she was not there. I'm claiming Sarah Palin is alleging that she was there, is this not the case?

The burden of proof is that it's been reported in reliable sources. We've met that burden of proof. Just because you're not satisfied with the level of proof required doesn't mean that it's not proved per wikipedia policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a vast number of reliable sources indicating that she was at the game. There are none which contend that she wasn't. I'm not sure why this is even being disputed. The assertion easily meets the wikipedia standards for factuality and requires no weasel words. Wellspring (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that she left Willow in the hotel room during the game? If she were not at the game there would be hundreds of stories accusing Palin of lying. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did Sarah Palin say that Willow was with her at the game? She said that Willow came with her to New York, I don't recall any quotes of her saying that Willow was with her at the game. 70.242.106.179 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

She says it in the interview with Matt Lauer "It took him a few days for him to think of that excuse, uhhh, no he wasn't talking about my daughter, the girl who was with me at the game, the 14 year old..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6M0FGB6Uo 2:30-2:40

Frankly I have never seen any pictures of Willow at the game. If all we are doing is taking their word for it, I think that's a significant detail in this issue. All news sources have only reported Palin being at the game with Rudy Giuliani. Their claim that "Willow was at the game" may appear to be something inserted to actually support her assertion that Letterman was talking about her.

FWIW, there is a lot of chatter about whether Willow was actually present at the game (see comment thread here). Nothing from reliable sources, of course.... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Once a reliable source picks up the fact that the fringe has challenged Willow's presence at the game, it can be cited as a minority/fringe opinion. Until then, it stays out of the article, since the WP:BURDEN is on those who assert that a controversy exists to provide a reliable source to document that controversy. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is not even a close call. Numerous reliable sources have reported that she was at the game. None have challenged that fact. Therefore, it stays in, and the minority (and unreported on) view that she was not even at the game stays out, until it's reported on by reliable sources. Unitanode 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback lede edit please

{{edit protected}} Hi, in the scuffle over Sarah Palin material my edits to clean up the lede also were reverted; could you please replace the old /present version with:

“ David Michael Letterman (born April 12, 1947) is an American television host and comedian. He is best known as the host of a late night television talk show Late Show with David Letterman broadcast on CBS. He has been a fixture on late night television since the 1982 debut of Late Night with David Letterman; only Johnny Carson, one of Letterman's idols, has had a longer late-night hosting career.

Letterman is also a television and film producer; his company Worldwide Pants produces his show as well as The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson that follows his. Worldwide Pants has also produced several prime-time comedies, the most successful of which was Everybody Loves Raymond, currently in syndication.

Letterman also owns a small share of Rahal Letterman Racing, an IndyCar Series part-time auto racing team, with 1986 Indianapolis 500 winner Bobby Rahal who is a friend.

”

Most of it's minor but we should certainly get the Rahal Letterman Racing out of the lede sentence; I'm not sure it needs to be in the lede at all but this at least is more in compliance with MOS. -- Banjeboi 04:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree here. The racing thing is not what Letterman is notable for at all, and I don't think it should probably even be in the lede. But certainly, what you've written up is better than the current state of affairs. Unitanode 04:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Done - material is unrelated to the disputed text. Thanks for noting the situation. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you! -- Banjeboi 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

David Letterman#Letterman and Sarah Palin - undue

This section is waaaay too big and POV. I t needs to be trimmed back to just the boring details, he made a joke, it was seen as offensive because the younger of the teen daughters was at the game. He apologized, she accepted apology. Let's not create a soapbox here. WP:RFPP can semi-protect the page if it's an anon issue. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Completely agree with you here. Additionally, if this issue continues to boil (in real life, not Wikipedia), would creating a separate article, and linking it from the scaled-down section, be an acceptable option, in your view? Unitanode 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I really can't see it especially now that Palin accepted the apology. If she wanted a grudge with Letterman, for whatever reason, she could have handled it much differently. To her credit I think she sees that media coverage of one scandal after the next isn't helping her career as much as making her a Paris Hilton of politics, and she doesn't need to do that. Letterman's job is to poke fun at all current events. This was a misstep that Palin supporters or conservatives bit into and wouldn't let go. We don't have to aid or validate that however. -- Banjeboi 15:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can certainly see your point. I haven't followed the "scandal" that closely, and wasn't aware that Palin had accepted his apology. This does make it a rather moot point that some message board users continue to attempt to fan the flames a bit (see above). Unitanode 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I just tune out talkradio and most blogs for that very reason. If someone is upset about thier life they shouldn't waste time blaming politicians or famous people, they should work on thier lives. -- Banjeboi 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I have tried moving the material to the Late Show article, as it seems to be more fitting there rather than a bio of Letterman himself, but a handful of SPAs got a bit riled up over that. So at the moment, we unfortunately have long-winded, POV passages in both places. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Arg why did I miss that? Indeed we should look to removing it from here altogether then, it really should only be on the show. -- Banjeboi 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was a "joke," will Letterman soon be making similar "jokes" about Obama's daughters be "knocked up" by pro baseball players? Of course not; Letterman would be fired immediately if he did that. However, it was supposed to be a "joke" just as long as the targets were the daughters of Palin.

Letterman's "joke" was offensive period, not just because the younger of the teen daughters was at the game.

Deleting all mention of Letterman's horrible judgment in making such a "joke" is merely whitewashing the dismal episode. If that is the purpose of this article, to make Letterman look good and to defend his liberal political views, then that's fine. If the purpose, however, is to do an objective article, then it isn't fine to simply cover up the episode and pretend that it is okay to attack a politician's daughters rather than the politician.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk • contribs)

Removed

In June 2009, Letterman was criticized for off-color jokes made about Alaska governor Sarah Palin and one of her daughters, who were visiting New York City at the time and attended a New York Yankees baseball game with Rudy Giulani. Letterman joked, "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game: during the seventh inning stretch, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." Noting that her 14-year-old daughter, Willow, had accompanied her to the game, rather than her 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, Palin responded by calling the jokes "sexually perverted comments". On a 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 stated the joke was about Bristol, while acknowledging it was "ugly", "cheap", and "in poor taste".

The following week, Letterman further addressed the situation, stating that the joke was "beyond flawed" and accepting full responsibility. He apologized to Palin's daughters Bristol and Willow by name, as well as to "the governor and her family, and everybody else who was outraged by the joke". Letterman said he would try to do better in the future. Following the broadcast, Palin issued a statement saying that she accepted Letterman's apology.

I've removed this as wholly Undue per BLP policies. the main TV show article can have a mention of this but this is waay overboard and becoming a WP:Soapbox of some sort. If the main TV article isn't right we can revisit o see where a sentence about this might fit. -- Banjeboi 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I placed the section back in the article where it belongs. There are no BLP issues. Also, if there are BLP issues then they apply to the attempt by Letterman to slander Palin. Moreover this is a major event in Letterman's career and as such it requires mentioning in the main article about Letterman.--InaMaka (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In looking at what high-quality reliable sources state this does deserve a spot but not on these articles, it should likely go on the Sarah Palin article. -- Banjeboi 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. And look! Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman - there it is. -- Banjeboi 04:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP Issues? Seriously, this was a very big issue regarding Letterman. Given your later comments, your apparent bias against Palin appears to be your primary reasoning. Unless you can provide a better reason that this lame attempt at a BLP violation you have to leg to stand. All of this information is reliably sourced and well known and sounds to me like an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Arzel (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's a BLP issue of Undue. Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman does seem appropriate and it's presented there with due weight, or at least it was. Letterman's career is based on poking fun at current events and public figures and he jokes on those things on national TV, rebroadcast worldwide, every night he performs. We don't have a list of his funniest jokes or his biggest misses. It's generally too trivial. This issue seems the height of momentary gossip, sourced or not, it's just not as big of deal worthy of inclusion here. -- Banjeboi 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is your best argument then you really don't have much of an argument. Provide some context as to why the other information in that section is somehow more notable than this incident. Palin is certainly as well known as Oprah at this current junction. I realize there is a lot of hate towards Palin at this time, but that doesn't make this any less of a notable incident. The fact that it is still being talked about today points to the notability of the incident. Arzel (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So David letterman (not the show) calls a specific 14 year old girl a slut, and there are editors in Wikipedia trying to cover it up? A new Wiki-Low.Mantion (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He didn't call anyone a slut. The only form of that word that ever came out of his mouth with regard to any of the Palins was when he said that Sarah Palin was going for the "slutty housewife" look, or something like that. You can vent here if you want to, I guess, but there's no "cover up", especially of things that never happened, such as Letterman calling Willow Palin a "slut." Unitanode 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war - page protected

FYI, the page has been protected from editing for three days due to the frequent back-and-forth over the Palin issue. Please resolve the issue on the talk page; if consensus is reached prior to the end of the three-day period, please alert me (or any other admin) to update the page. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to protect the page. Wikipedia is NOT censored. That is a Wikipedia required. However, I did notice that you protected the page because of edit warring but you did not place an edit warring warning on the talk page of the anon user. That user's IP address is 217.128.249.54. I'm just pointing out because you have been quick to warn those editors that did not agree with your point of view in the past. So we now know where this article is going and my early comments are have fully and completely verified. Your handling of this issue is clearly in bad form. Good Evening.--InaMaka (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your only objection is a seriously weak "don't bury it in another article", which is one of the more commonly used, and patently ridiculous rationales we see around the Wikipedia. There is no reason why this incident should be in the article of Letterman himself; this controversy is about something that happened on the show and thus it should be mentioned on the show article and not here. Your comments above also represent a fundamental lack of understanding of BLP policy. It applies to how we treat material within the Wikipedia, not with how other people treat others in real-life. Ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Completely concur. Unitanode 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as how InaMaka has made repeated accusations here and elsewhere regarding my supposed POV regarding this issue, I feel compelled to come clean and admit that I do, in fact, have a history (and therefore a bias) with regards to this article. Based on my extensive edit history on this article over the past three years (all one of them), I must disclose that I did remove an external link to a Hollywood Reporter article about Letterman's contract negotiations. Obviously, this is directly related to the Palin issue, and as I am therefore hopelessly biased I should recuse myself immediately. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh give me a break! You know that you and another admin who has been repeated reverting my edits and threatening me on my talk page have each other's back. The other editor is CLEARLY on the side of censoring the article by taking one of Letterman's most embarrassing moments as a talk show host and bury it deeply in the child article. You have been assisting that editor. So your argument that you made one edit misses the point entirely--just as you intended with your red herring argument. And the comment is clearly biased in that Benjiboi has jumped in and high-fived you. It is clear where you point of view is and that is fine--just be honest about it. At least with the other editor his edits are so clearly on the side burial and cover up for Letterman that he/she can't hide that fact. Once again, all of the discussion on this page misses the point entirely. The fact is that Letterman had to apologize not once but twice and that has never happened in his career before. It is a historic event in his career and it belongs in his article. Wikipedia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "bury[ing] it deeply in the child article". The premise that a reader cannot find their way to The Late Show With David Letterman as easily as they can to David Letterman is just ridiculous; the show is as notable as the host. Since your argument rests entirely on this false premise, I really don't see how you can be an honest contributor to this discussion. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering it has been removed, in no small part to Benjiboi, from that article as well, your argument doesn't hold much water. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should either go there or it goes nowhere. It certainly has no place in this article, which is what we're discussing right now. Feel free to go argue your case over at the Late Show one. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OFFENDED that InaMaka would accuse anyone of wanting to 'bury it deep inside a child'! HOw sick and perverted! How DARE he do that! that's offensive! </Sarcasm.> ThuranX (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• LOL! Well thanks for coming clean! I think that's just the first of the Twelve-step program so you have a journey ahead of you! -- Banjeboi 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I just don't see this information as having much merit here. From looking into it it seems like she egged it on by claiming the joke was a perverted something against a 14-year-old when clearly it was not; it was about her unwed 18-year-old who was pregnant and also is milking the national spotlight as an unlikely abstinence-only spokesperson. A very short blip on the Palin article(s) is likely all that's needed. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you even been paying attention to the issue? Letterman himself stated that it was the perception of whom the joke was about that started this whole issue, in addition to the degregation of women in general. NOW has also come out against Letterman in defense of Palin. What you are presenting here is your own personal bias against Palin. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Have i been reading reliable sources on this, yes. It's rather dry subject which Palin seemed to milk by going on several TV shows. This makes it somewhat relevant to her and we have Public image of Sarah Palin#Palin and David Letterman already covering this. It was a joke poorly done and received, we don't bother including these per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Content. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of your opinion, but I didn't realize that you Owned wikipedia, or that your research invalidated the opinions of others. Just who are you to decide that this event is not notable? Please present your evidence of BLP violations to which you used as your primary reason of exclusion. Your presumption of undue weight is rather weak compared to some of the other sections in the article like "Letterman and Oprah Winfrey" and the "2007–2008 Writers' strike" which are nothing more than fluff sections. Arzel (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good reason to clean-up those sections which are not casting the subject of this BLP in a negative light or otherwise disparaging way. I don't own this article anymore than anyone else does. I would feel the same way of Palin had made jokes regarding Letterman - is this notable enough and let the reliable sources lede us. In either case we certainly apply WP:Undue. -- Banjeboi 05:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Put back on Sarah Palin/Letterman Dispute

Well, Liberalpedia does this again. Put criticisism of Fox News being conservative biased (Which it is for the most part, but they got some liberals, like Juan), then take off a joke about a 14-year old getting knocked up. Put up Don Imus getting fired for his off-color joke about the Rutgers women's team, Put up a (small) section about the Jamie Foxx/Miley Cyrus incident (Even though the comments were just a little worse and directed to a 16-year old), and put no section up at all about Wanda Sykes' death wish to Rush Limbaugh. This deserves a section. Also, there is a small movement to fire him. This dosen't have to be big, and I think any time you joke about a 14 or 18-year old getting raped, it deserves a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinapanthersfan (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly as notable as the other content in that section. If other editors wish to censor then provide a valid reason why the other content is valid and this is somehow undue weight. Given the noteriety of Sarah Palin this is without a doubt one of the most talked about incidents regarding Letterman within the past few years. Arzel (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not being censored. Unitanode 07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you know the definition of consensus. For one it is NOT a vote. Arzel (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're going to end up blocked if you continue this. Unitanode 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we can sum it up in two sentences at the article on the SHOW, not here. 'Letterman was criticized for an off color joke about Palin's daughter being knocked up at a yankees game. However, Willow, not Bristol, the unwed teenage mother, attended the game, drawing accusations that Letterman was making lewd remarks about an innocent 14 year old, for which Letterman then apologized publicly and repeatedly.' beyond that, we'd have to give balanced coverage, and talk about how despite multiple apologies and clarifications, Palin kept trying to milk it. There are plenty of commentators out there who found that two apologies were enough, and that Palin was just perpetuating it for the press time. The entire thing was a mountain out of a molehill. Letterman made a joke that most people got, Palin whined, he had to explain the joke, more whining, apology, moer whining, apology plus incitement to protest, apology, more whining, more protests, more apologies, media turns on palin, palin accepts apology, nonsense stops, palin resigns. whatever. get over it. ThuranX (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your personal analysis of the motivations and importance of the incident are beside the point just as another editor's negative reaction to the jokes may have been (and FWIW, I'm mostly in agreement with your take). But it seems inconsistent for the silly section about Oprah to be here, and for details about who guest-hosted his show during his health hiatus to be here, and for details on how names of bits changed between the NBC and CBS incarnations of the show to be here, but no mention of the Palin thing (which is arguably the biggest controversy of Letterman's career, having received extensive notice in national news). To the extent that the man is known primarily for his show, the article on the man must indeed include mention of important public incidents related to the show. Jgm (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of those...the Oprah feud and the heart surgery...extended well beyond the show and into Letterman's personal life, which is why they are notable here. The Palin kerfuffle was a news blip for a week or two at most (in the real media...blogs and forum sites and such certainly kept it going for months, but they have no relevance here) about something that happened in the show. It had no impact or lasting significance out in the real world. Nothing changed, no one was fired (for the record, if he had gotten the Imus treatment then it'd absolutely belong here), he apologized (again, in-show) and life went on. I have said before that it probably warrants a mention on the Late Show article, as it at least likely meet the criteria of a notable episode. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says that those extended well beyond the show? You? The Palin issue has been a story for over a month now. If you have a valid reason why it is not notable in comparison to other issues then state them. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One: He said the joke on the show, apologized on the show, and the right wing astro-turfing protestors wanted him fired from the show. Two: At no point did the media in any way tie this to his personal life, personal politics, or anythign outside his role as host of the show, and a bad joke he said on the show. Three: No extended discussion has been made by any WP:RS regarding him and this situation outside ofthe context of the show. Four: Other flaws in the article aren't excuses to create more flaws. I'm sure others will have more reasons. ThuranX (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says? Common sense and sourcing, perhaps? The Oprah-Letterman "feud" went on for a number of years, and since it involved one of the most well-known, richest women in media today, that makes it a wee bit notable. As for having heart bypass surgery, do you really need to be told how that extends beyond the show? The Palin incident has been over with for several weeks now. Other than a brief mention at the tail end of the Palin resignation reports, this "event" has largely disappeared from the public spotlight. hell, it was never even notable enough for an article of its own. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are simply reasons of I don't like it. Provide some valid reason. Given the magnitude of RS's covering those afraid of Palin cannot simply wish it away. Neither of you are the arbitors of what is or is not notable. There are thousands of WP:RS that have talked about this issue. Also I wasn't aware that it needed it's own article to be included. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I noted below, "that you disagree with someone does not invalidate their arguments". Tarc (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of interest: Google search ("David Letterman" "Oprah Winfrey"): ~489,000 hits http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22david+letterman%22+%22oprah+winfrey%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=-9B_wZw06Gg . Google search ("David Letterman" "Sarah Palin") http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22david+letterman%22+%22sarah+palin%22+&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1&fp=kE0CVI1PqvM : ~1.84 Million hits including 5600+ news articles. Your "common sense" is biased and your "sourcing" is provably backwards; the Oprah thing was mostly silly publicity-hounding while this is, like it or not, real news regarding a real public figure. It wasn't "the show" that was forced to apologize, it was David Letterman. It wasn't "the show" that was referenced in 5000+ news articles, it was David Letterman. Yes, his main role is as the host of a show; this incident involved and affected him personally and is appropriate to mention in the bio article. (I do agree the mention here should be brief and the mention in the show article can be more detailed). Jgm (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the Google test, something which sooner or later is called upon in these sorts of things. Quite unreliable, as noted in the linked guideline. Next? Tarc (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're cute: do you actually read the links you so blithely post? You brought up "sourcing" as your reasoning for keeping the Oprah thing while deleting mention of Palin. Perhaps you'd like to actually defend these bald statements with facts rather than just saying that you don't agree over and over. What WP:GOOGLE actually says is that this is a valid test for Notability - Confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles; and Reliable sources - Identifying what sources (and websites) may exist for something. Yes, it's not intended as a "measurement" of anything and must be considered case-by-case; Given that the Google search identifies 5000+ news articles on this topic -- from many, many mainstream outlets as well as admittedly non-neutral sources of all stripes -- I'd say it was a useful test in this case. Do note that none of this has anything to do with whether this situation should have been newsworthy (in some better world). The fact is it was a significant story and one that is likely to be considered important in the long-term arc of Letterman's career. Put it this way: if Letterman were to die in five years, do you not think this incident would be mentioned, at least in passing, in his NYT obituary? Your answer will tell me if you are actually trying to work in good faith here or are just a fanboy trying to keep anything negative out of the article. Jgm (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The point was, the vast majority of google hits are going to be to either unreliable sources, or unrelated ones. That is why it makes for a rather poor point of argument, one that is usually made by some when they have nothing left to fall back on. And no, this pithy incident would not be in an obituary, as it has no relevance to the man's life. I think we're done here. Tarc (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems your point keeps shifting around, but if you are going to claim that this incident was not covered by reliable sources, good luck with that argument. Might as well start here (that's sorted to news content only and from the last 90 days to filter out election-related material). Or, tell you what: you pick any national-media source you'd like and we can check whether this was covered. I know, I know: "yes but this wasn't important news". That, my friend, is the essence of a POV judgement. Frankly, I can't think of any event that is covered in every major mainstream media outlet that would not be considered notable enough to mention in the biographical article for one of the principals involved. Jgm (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to add this material. It's already stale news and made no impact at all in any national debate, nor did it affect either party to any degree...it'd be pretty pointless to add every disagreement between public figures to their respective articles. There are far too many of them and few of them mean anything. RxS (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stale? Yet what programs WWP has in syndication is appropriate for the lead? Sorry, but you pretty much lose any argument if that is notable for the lead and this is not notable. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident is old, minor news. There may have been a push to include it when it was new, but that seems like more of a trend toward recentism. It's not even relevant now, a month after it occurred. Unless there are new sources, it's already outdated and there's no need to put it on a page that deals with the entire career of the subject. Dayewalker (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is an absurd argument. I suppose by that logic we can wipe just about everything off of WP becuase it is not currently "In the news." This is an encyclopedia and to be written from a historical point of view. It certainly was a major issue within the career of DL. Can you name a single other incident regarding DL that has garnered this much of a story. Arzel (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling a good faith comment "absurd" isn't being very civil. Since you've started an RFC on this, I'd advise you not to treat other editors who come to this page to give their opinion with the same bad faith.

Off the top of my head for important issues in his life I'd say his heart attack, hosting the Oscars, and his move away from NBC to CBS. The Palin incident is more along the lines of his profanity-laced interview with Madonna, the Crispin Glover attack, or Drew Barrymore's stripshow. While I agree there are events in this article that are given undue weight, I disagree completely that the Sarah Palin incident is more notable than any of the other events in his career. Dayewalker (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the definition of Consensus. Consensus is a general agreement, a unanimity of agreement. It is NOT a vote. Consensus can also change. From what I can see here there are at least 4 editors that feel it should be included. There are roughly the same that do not want it included.

Reasons to not include have been stated:

• Undue Weight. However, in comparison to other issues included in the section this fails.

• BLP issues. No specific BLP issue has been stated so I don't see the issue.

• Not Notable. This is simply incredulous. There have been literally thousands of articles written about this incident.

• Belongs in the show article. Somewhat valid, however some of those same editors have removed it from that article for the same reasons which makes it hard to AGF.

Please provide some valid reason why this should not be in the article.Arzel (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity, one tendentious holdout does not hold up the works. The reasons for removing the material fm this article have been stated, and they are more than valid. That you disagree with someone does not invalidate their arguments. A lesson you'd be wise to learn in a collaborative project such as this. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One? There is more than one, but I see your goal is simply Censor. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to say "censor" over and over doesn't make it any more true. Discussion was had, with consensus reached that the material doesn't belong here. This talkpage is not the place for you to simply espouse your views about Letterman, Palin, et al. Unitanode 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just where is your consensus? The only thing close to a consensus was the consensus we had regarding what to put into the article. Then Ben came along and said it was Undue Weight and deleted the section with a few others coming in and saying yes delete it. That my friend is not consensus. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Numerous editors have demonstrated, by their own statements, with various, sometimes coinciding, sometimes independent reasonings, that the material isn't germane to this article, but to the show's article. That more people have given reasons and statements against it, and shown partial, if not full agreement with others on the reasoning, does demonstrate consensus. ThuranX (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy of Notability

Seriously. This - Worldwide Pants has also produced several prime-time comedies, the most successful of which was Everybody Loves Raymond, currently in syndication. is notable for the lead in an article about David Letterman, yet the incident with Palin is not? Arzel (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the Palin thing is even now old news. Everybody Loves Raymond was a hugely popular sitcom and remains so now in syndication. RxS (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. This article is NOT about WWP or Everybody Loves Raymond. Why is it in the lead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs)

You're suggesting an equivalence between Everybody Loves Raymond and the Palin thing where there is none. RxS (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On this, I agree with Arzel, that the WWP isn't needed for the intro. Moving it to the summary of WWP in this article would be better, leaving a description in the intro of WWP as a successful production company, perhaps. That is, WWP should be in the intro, the specificity of the series produced should not. ThuranX (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could say

Letterman is also a television and film producer whose company, Worldwide Pants, produces his show, The Late Late Show With Craig Ferguson, as well as several successful prime-time comedies.

That would balance the need to summarize the article with avoiding too much extraneous detail better covered elsewhere?ThuranX (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin/RfC

I have submitted an RfC regarding whether this content should be included. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Representation

I, like I'm guessing many others, would prefer to see this this articles get back to its core, rather than going on ad nauseum about the affair. In that regard, I've got a question. I was watching The Late Shift again, and I was wondering, who is David currently represented by? A big deal was made about how he was represented by CAA, so I'm wondering, who now? Mainly.generic (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• After doing a lot of searching and not being able to find anything current, it crossed my mind that his agent would probably be mentioned in coverage of Letterman's contract renewal. Bingo: "The host is repped by CAA and attorney Jim Jackoway" (as of June 2009). I'll try to add this info to the article. Propaniac (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Mainly.generic (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are guessing wrongly. Next time don't guess. Ask. That's what the community is about. This article has turned into a public whitewash for letterman, which is shameless. 149.254.56.45 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Early Career - missing info?

Should we assume that the "Weatherman" section begins in 1969? There are no dates other than the ABC gig. Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could refresh my memory so we can add one more bit of Letterman trivia.

Early in the 70's, on one of the Indy stations - could have been WLWI, I don't recall - there was a late-night movie show hosted by a local comedian. That is, I must have assumed he was a local comedian, don't recall exactly, can't recall his name either. The target audience, frankly, was hippies and stoners. Which explains my lack of recall. I'll be lucky if anyone else remembers this. The guy looked a bit hipster-ish. I remember him doing an impression of an amoeba. Pretty freaky.

One night I turned on the show and, I swear to God, there was David Letterman. I'm pretty sure this was before I ever caught his weather bit, because my impression was something like "Who's this cornball?" I think he may have replaced the former freak host. I may not have watched again, since the freakiness had been removed. Bummer, dude.

So, pardon my casual and fact-lacking conversation, but I've been wondering about this for years. Anybody know the details? What year, what channel, was this Dave's first TV gig, or concurrent with the weather gig, etc etc. GXIndiana (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish last name?

Is he Jewish? His surname sounds Jewish... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Yes he is. Us jews are proud over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.15.6 (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not Jewish. There's a detailed family tree of David Letterman here. His paternal ancestry appears to be mainly/mostly British Isles, and his last name tracks back to an ancestor named Baker Letterman, born 1820 in North Carolina, who changed his name from "Leatherman" (an English surname). Letterman's mother's ancestry is German. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

'Verdict: Sadly, not a Jew.' http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=571 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.44.209 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

David Letterman is Jewish. He said so in an episode of Letterman show. I posted the full reference to the episode, date and time, but that reference was removed by an administrator. Also, many Jews have German names: Spielberg, Beckham, Portman, Goldman, Goldberg, Silverstein, etc. David is Jewish, he said so himself. You dont follow his show?

You're aware it is a comedy show right? He has also claimed to have the strength of 10 men... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On the mother's side, nobody has been of Jewish faith ever http://www.whilgedieck.homepage.t-online.de/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.73.122 (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP edit-warring to add a monstrous table to the article

Discuss below, I'm sick of dealing with him. If consensus is for the monstrous table, I won't stand in the way. The IP has already violated 3RR to keep it in, though, and refused to start a discussion here to gather consensus for it, so I think that says as much as we might need to know about his intentions. UnitAnode 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please do not question my motivations. I spent hours creating this table, and you have been incredibly hostile to me for it. I don't understand why. I am new to wikipedia, and I certainly won't continue to participate after this incident. I was only trying to improve the page about David Letterman. With awards season upon us, I wondered how many nominations he had received. I figured wikipedia would have the answer. I noticed that the pages of other performers who had been nominated several times had tables that chronicled their awards. I was simply trying to bring Letterman's page in line with that standard practice. Other performers, such as Meryl Streep, have much more "monstrous" tables. Letterman's table, by contrast, is concise -- especially for someone with 52 (!) Emmy nominations. (I want to say, as well, I had no idea he had so many nominations when I began making the table. Mind you, these are his own nominations, not that of his show, which has even more!) Indeed, I approached the table with concision in mind. I went to the Emmy and Daytime Emmy Award websites and searched their histories, painstakingly wrote out the code, and inserted the information, year by year. I think the table does a good job visualizing his awards. One can now see, as they can with other performers, details about his awards, which they could not have otherwise done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  I practically begged you to open a discussion here about it. I even suggested perhaps a stand-alone list article for you. You refused to do so, or to take any of my suggestions. Consensus may even come down on your side in the matter. However, once you make an addition to an article, and it's challenged, you take the time to go to the talkpage and discuss it. You don't just keep adding it again and again. UnitAnode 06:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  Again, I am new to wikipedia. I didn't know any of those procedures, and when you accused me of not discussing the changes, I indicated that I had discussed it on the revision history page. I thought that was where this discussion took place because you had made comments there. I reponded to you there. I didn't even know what a discussion page was until 30 minutes ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

  Also: I am not a "him." Hard as it may be to believe, I am a "her." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear 76.169.55.70: I think you will make a wonderful Wikipedian. You should register. It only takes 30 seconds. The fact that you spent a long time preparing the table means that you care about contributing. Welcome. Please register, drop me a line on my talk page, and I will help you in any way that I can. Cheers, and good-on-ya! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have removed the table, given that it is clear there is currently no support for inclusion in its present form. I've also outlined this on the IP's talk page, explained the problems associated with edit warring, and encouraged her to discuss this further on this talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be an main article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one more example of how new contributors are discouraged to engage with wikipedia, as also journals/magazine have noted recently. He has all the rights to keep editing wikipedia as anonymous, ignore the "You should register. It only takes 30 seconds." warnings and not be discriminated for this.--Sum (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Many other performers have similar tables on their pages, and much larger tables too. Clearly these tables are standard practice. This hostility is discouraging and petty to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Summerwithmoron: My post was a welcoming gesture. It was not a "warning". Of course, SHE has the right to edit anonymously and is very welcome to do so. I encourage editors to register as it helps them interact with other editors and be more constructive. Please read the post I wrote to the IP editor again and note the tone and content. Please read your last post again and note the tone and content. Please be polite and assume good faith. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had any feedback on my suggestion, so, if nobody has any objections, I will create an article for the table with a {{main}} in the Letterman article. If it gets speedied, c'est la vie. The Letterman article is already very big, and the table really puts it over the top. Naming suggestions? Objections? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to those who have been encouraging. Unfortunately, I don't feel I can continue to participate in Wikipedia after this harrowing experience. As a last gesture, I would like to make the case for this table, again. I simply feel that its exclusion stems from something like religious zeal about safeguarding this page, in the face of standard practice. I have looked at other performers' pages and seen little or no discussion about their tables. I also notice that wikipedia has sanctioned the creation of these tables, in several ways. You can see Wikipidia encourage these tables on WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Academy Awards/Table Codes, WikiProject Television. I can find literally endless numbers of performers with such tables. These performers have even larger tables than David Letterman: Meryl Streep, Steven Spielberg, Kate Winslet, Judi Dench, and Helen Mirren, to name only a very few. Many other television personalities have these tables, such as Jerry Seinfeld, Ray Romano, and Chris Rock. Performers' pages without such tables look terribly untidy. Indeed, these tables seem especially popular among performers who have been heavily nominated, and these tables appear on these performers' pages, not as a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created List of David Letterman awards and moved the table there. I am sorry to hear that you won't continue to participate. I hope you reconsider. A suggestion if you do stay: Try to "discuss" the matter. Read what people have written and respond to it. Rhetoric fails but a good ol' "back-and-forth" discussion really gets things solved. All the best to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Honestly, the table is hideously long, clunky, and repetitive. The reader does not need to see row after row after row of the same nomination for 20+ years. This should be redone in simple prose, noting how many consecutive years he has been nominated and what years he has won. I appreciate Anna's attempt to compromise with a rather tendentious IP anon, but in the end the separate article probably won't be needed. BTW, checking on several of the "endless numbers of performers" suggested by the anon shows no such tables at all, just simple lists for award nominations. But actors and directors aren't really comparable IMO to a late show host; better examples would have been Dick Cavett or Jay Leno, which do not have clutter such as this. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Presenting the information in a more compact and efficient format, and returning it to the article is fine with me. I certainly agree with the point that it is repetitive. Your other points are reasonable too. I am just pleased that the argument has stopped, and that a potentially productive editor may remain at Wikipedia and edit. And Tarc, you are hereby blocked from using adjectives for 24 hours. ;) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay Leno and Dick Cavett haven't been heavily nominated. I was trying to give examples of other performers who have been heavily nominated as an example of how past editors have handled that situation. I can't believe I spent all that time working on this, trying to resemble what other editors have done, in good faith, and this is how it's treated, with disgust ("ugh") and disdain. Critics of wikipedia are right; it is cult-like.

None of the examples you cite look even remotely like what you tried to do here. The closest is List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep, but actors will be nominated for such a wide variety of awards and categories that a table in that person's case works quite well. Letterman is a late night talk show host, and just about the only thing he is going to come up for is the same Emmy category, year after year after year. This is a collaborative editing project; you presented an editing change and it has been pretty much turned down. Stop taking it so personally. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Stop taking it so personally." I don't understand why some of the language directed at me has been so aggressive. I made several reverts in the beginning, not knowing the procedure. I tried to explain that. I tried to explain my good intentions. I really was just trying to improve the page. I have since been bombarded with derisive comments. Leave me alone! Stop emailing, posting, or however else people can contact me on here. Please, I am begging you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.55.70 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Extortion vs Blackmail

Shouldn't the section regarding the "extortion attempt" be relabeled as a "blackmail attempt"? Blackmail is defined as a threat to reveal something shameful about you unless you give up something of value (eg: money). Extortion, on the other hand, is making the threat of bodily harm to you or your loved ones or damage to your property unless you give up something of value. Halderman was accused of unveiling Letterman's affairs in the form of a screenplay. When did he ever make any threats of violence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.4.1 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam

For a person Letterman's age, there was one enormous, enormous issue which overshadowed everything else -- Vietnam. How was Letterman able, with poor grades, to remain in college and avoid the draft which claimed millions of other men his age? Ignoring this issue consigns the bio to a huge amount of incompleteness.

It is one thing to speculate as to possible reasons Letterman might have been deferred. However, a real biographical article would replace such speculation with facts.

I was drafted in 1968 myself and know a great deal about the process. What is said below about it simply isn't accurate. Letterman was an ideal age to be drafted, and according to the article Letterman was a mediocre student, and then his first jobs were in fields which would not have afforded him any exemption from the draft.

I understand that fans of Letterman want to hide the facts, but what value does a biographical article have if it leaves out key facts about the biggest war of Letterman's lifetime?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the article needs a special section on why you're a jackass? What part of "lottery" do you not understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.81 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well among other reasons, his eyesight is not great. He could have other medical issues as well, which gave him exemption from selective service. He was also older when the draft was in full-force. They are keen to get 18/19/20 year-old guys, not 23/24/25+ year-old guys because they get less return on their investment. Also, keep in mind the draft is/was fairly random in itself and not every eligible man was drafted. Adding a section for speculation on why he was not drafted is unnecessary.98.225.230.65 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is "ignoring" the issue, if there are any reliable sources that discuss the issue, feel free to bring them up here for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not urging that a section for speculation be added, but that the facts be ascertained as a basic element of a full biography. Sure, Letterman could have had visual or other health problems, but what are the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk • contribs)

Not every American male of that age was drafted. Secondly, if there is a reliable source, then find it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This issue seems to be (deservedly) dead now, but for what it is worth Letterman mentioned once on the show that his place in the draft lottery was very near the end of the list and this is why he was not drafted. He mentioned that it was just sheer luck that kept him out of the war. 99.192.79.179 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

David Letterman's draft number was not selected. He is born April 12, that makes his draft number 346 in the '69 lotteries, only the first 195 dates were called. http://www.landscaper.net/draft.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.225.90 (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "in your pants"

Having heard the tagline of "in your pants on both Lettermans show and Fergusons show, I would venture to guess it has something to do with influence from earlier comediens. I have gone through Wikipedia and Lettermans Wikipedia bio and can not find an origin........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.197.216 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dave I have been watching you for 30 years we love your show. My wife and I will be married 49 years this June and would love to see your show inperson We did see you inperson about 8 years ago we live in Knoxville TN We left NY in 1972moved to Florida left Florida in 2006 moved to TN to be near our kids .We come to NY about every other year to see family and friends and always try to see you but only able to see one time hope to see you in June.

Richard & Regina Metersky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.92.56 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Page's Name

I'd like to submit for consideration the idea that this article should be titled "Dave Letterman," not "David Letterman". Small detail, I know, but I get the feeling that he prefers it, as he is now introduced every night by his announcer as "Dave Letterman". I think he'd prefer it, and that's what's important. After all, Johnny Carson's article is titled as such, not "John Carson."

Just a thought I thought I should share. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies and critisism

Hello, I cleaned up the article a bit and rearranged the sections. I had added a paragraph about the Palin daughter-jokes Letterman made and had to appologize for, but it was reverted [6]. I'll put it back, if nobody objects. I also think that a “Letterman and Leno” section should be added. And by the way, since the death threat, everybody knows that Letterman is not Jewish, even those who formerly thought that secretaries of Presbyterian churches have Jewish sons. Ajnem (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. Does somebody have a better title than “Controversies an critisism”?

I wonder if the Palin thing is just a tempest in a teapot, and while it hit the news a while back, is it that important now? basically my concern is WP:UNDUE. I remember Dave making a joke about Carol Channing back in the early 80s and her actually threatening a lawsuit. The line he used was "Carrol Channing, denture wearer, condom user" or some such thing. That is nowhere to be found (and rightfully so). Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It may not be important, nothing about Letterman is, but most of the decent newspapers referred to it in connection with the blackmail and sex scandal which broke shortly afterwards. And it imo is notable that he had to issue a formal apology, after he tried to get out of it with a non-apology. And the jokes were very very out of place, even if there may not be as much sensitivity about child sex abuse in the US as in many western European countries, where he probably would have lost his job over that kind of thing, but there he wouldn't have made the jokes in the first place. So my answer is, yes, from a non-USamerican point of view it is "important", more so than the death threat, which are a dime a dozen. Ajnem (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The joke was not about child sex abuse, that is pretty damned close to a BLP violation. The idea that people in the US are not sensitive to child sex crimes is just off the wall and bizarre. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh that joke above I referred to was about Martha Raye, not Carrol Channing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

He formally apologized for that remark as well. Tempest, teapot and WP:RECENTISM come to mind for the joke about the family of the woman that did not finish her term as governor of Alaska. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may add my thoughts: I think there's definitely no cause to mention the Sarah Palin thing, it was a pretty miniscule occurrence and not really notable in the context of Dave's entire life. If he had meant the remark as a joke about child sex, it'd be fair, but it wasn't meant that way. That, to me, is the difference: intention. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why do you guys object to mentioning the Palin daughter incident? Bizarre is the right word, that's what these jokes are, they are not funny, besides being in very bad taste, to put it midly. They generated critizism including controversy about an apology, because they come out of an age, when jokes like that were the norm, and are therefore worth mentioning - or is critizism of Letterman not allowed in the article? If you really think that outside of the US anybody with Letterman's TV-status would even dream of making that kind of jokes in public about a politicians teen-age daughter, no matter how young, you imo better think again. And, for crying out loud, whatever Letterman's intentions were, his jokes were about a (14 year old) teen-age girl being the object of men's (presumed/alleged) sexual interest in teen-age girls. That's why he had to issue the kind of apology he made [7], not because he made fun of the newly publicly aquired taste in sexual abstinence of 18 year old Bristol Palin - or in his own words: "I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception of the joke by viewers" [8].
For the notability of the incident see: usatoday, nydailynews, latimes, latimes, foxnews, huffingtonpost, tampabay, csmonitor, usnews, politico, nytimes, thedailybeast,
guardian, telegraph, spiegel, and so on, Ajnem (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dwayne Robert Post

Did someone just randomly make this name up? No sources noted in the article mention that he was born with this name. 62.242.177.131 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That should be deleted. That is not his name. Debora1111 (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing terms - talk show > variety show?

I think "talk show" *as it is used today* requires the bulk of a show to consist of dialogue between host and guest, possibly even extending to audience participation. The fact that a large proportion of Letterman is the monologue already calls into question this categorizations applicability. Add to this the frequency of musical/standup acts, the increasing prevalence of productions (skits) that while original, and sometimes unscripted, are nonetheless hardly talk show material, and what you have is variety programming. So why don't we update the terms?

Furthermore, while it might be infinitely more commonplace to hear "that talk show" when referring to Letterman and similarly formatted shows, that doesn't mean it's wrong to use more precise terminology in something like an encyclopedia article. I'm just starting a petition up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.123.8 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the Late Show calls it a talk show. All other shows of this genre are also called talk shows. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're writing "There's no problem because of some other articles", and I'm hearing "This problem is not confined only to this article". Let's let other users chime in now! - 24.190.123.8 (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes let's. I figure though if most of our articles do this it also may be the right thing. Thanks for taking this to talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk show is an industry classification (used in ratings, awards, etc), as well as almost universal usage - two good reasons to leave it alone! Perhaps more important, the core of this show (and most of the others) is talk; so the definition says a lot more than the vague 'variety' which probably covers a huge range of programming. Changing would be neither useful nor desireable. The risk of confusion or misunderstanding is negligible. Heenan73 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan

The article states that "Ed Sullivan taped his show, 1948-1971". Videotape was not available in broadcast quality until Ampex produced 2" quad format in 1956. There must be a good way to re-cast the sentence. Rainbow-five (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast or presented perhaps? Oh and good catch. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What about Letterman's on-show political activism?

Letterman lost a lot of fans, and viewers, in the lead up to and following the 2008 election season. How can this be left out of any thorough description of the man and his career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.108.21 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

First you would need a source. Second, you should look at the policy about undue weight WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

After the intern scandals, he seems to have gone politically "holy", can't find TV critic who mentions this. It seems that he does his own pre-show warm-ups, since there is usually an insider joke with camera facing the referenced audience member. A LexisNexis search might provide the answers. Also on Michael Parkinson's show, both Cher & Jennifer Lopez remarked that he is not an unpleasant _______, as compared to Letterman (no one has posted a clip from these episodes on youtube yet).Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

I can't help but notice that many of the subsections under "controversies" aren't controversies at all: his reaction to the writer's strike, Carson, and his death threat aren't controversial in the slightest. Thoughts? Inanygivenhole (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In Seinfeld's Web series "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee," Letterman refers to his son having a "stepfather." Has Letterman's wife divorced him and remarried? If so, the divorce should be recorded in the sidebar under "Spouse." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.204.250 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lutheran?

Can't help but notice that Note #128 is a pretty weak source for citing Letterman as a Lutheran. I'm not sure he's ever spoken much about his religious beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.246.207 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Gap in teeth? Technical term?

In the entry for Jay Leno, it mentions the technical term for his pronounced jaw: mandibular prognathism. I know that there's a technical dental term for the gap between Letterman's front teeth. Can someone provide that term here (in Talk)? Should it be added somewhere in the Main Article page? 50.177.91.141 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of the RETIREMENT Segment

Obviously, as today is 20 May 2015, we're going to need a good writer to upgrade the retirement paragraph with relevant details drawn from the Final Show, Letterman's mid to long range old-age plans, his transition to private life, and the network's transition to his successor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.145.242 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on David Letterman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130203052315/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bzbq8X8qZE to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bzbq8X8qZE#t32s
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130908113731/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUabP1JDCZA to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUabP1JDCZA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130908103557/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bk6zFrTYMk to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bk6zFrTYMk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130203052258/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFavsfq3wjo to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFavsfq3wjo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130908113619/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTkTdZx1haA to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTkTdZx1haA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120422224920/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7US7PU6tidM&gl=US&hl=en to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7US7PU6tidM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111111023335/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBgDHhmSrAo to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBgDHhmSrAo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325215551/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/thedishrag/2009/03/ok-theres-somet.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/03/ok-theres-somet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150510020845/http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/realestate/26m_man_realestate_braden_keil.htm?page=2 to http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/realestate/26m_man_realestate_braden_keil.htm?page=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Letterman the racist

Quote: "Germany is mad at the United States for the NSA eavesdropping. This, ladies and gentlemen, from the country that gave us the Gestapo." –David Letterman Found here: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/currentevents/a/NSA-Jokes.htm Many of his superficial remarks are simply racist. There is no Gestapo in Germany today. His racism should ne included in teh article. Ontologix (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no.... There is zero chance that calling someone a racist without impeccable sources would make it into a BLP. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Overlap of Dave relationship with Merrill and Regina

There seem to be inconsistencies in how and when Dave relationship started with Regina and when his relationship ended with Merrill.

First of all is there is there any real evidence that Dave dated both at the same time? I am not denying it but Dave has never really acknowledged it except for his comment one that he did not behave very well in last 2 years of his relationship with Merrill. although It was during those 2 Years he he met Regina. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Contentious unsourced material removed from talk page per WP:BLP

Something need to be said about [Contentious unsourced material removed from talk page per WP:BLP]. Everyone on the shows knew. The stories were well spread and legendary. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC).

I agree that these stories may be reasonable to include in Wikipedia if there is any source. However, since there is no source for these stories, I have removed them from the article, following WP:BLP, which directs removal of any contentious material immediately which is unsourced or poorly sourced. TamaraOH (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Contentious unsourced material removed from talk page per WP:BLP

Dave had a [Contentious unsourced material removed from talk page per WP:BLP]. It widely known about in the industry that [Contentious unsourced material removed from talk page per WP:BLP]. BreoncoUSA1 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this information may be reasonable to include in Wikipedia if there is any source. However, since there is no source for this information, I have removed it from the article, following WP:BLP, which directs removal of any contentious material immediately which is unsourced or poorly sourced. TamaraOH (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David Letterman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218144132/http://www.charlierose.com:80/view/interview/6364 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6364
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314045142/http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-07/entertainment/letterman.show.ratings_1_local-people-meters-rating-points-viewers?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ to http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-07/entertainment/letterman.show.ratings_1_local-people-meters-rating-points-viewers?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110416021903/http://www.tv.com:80/is-david-letterman-ready-to-be-done-with-the-late-show/story/25084.html to http://www.tv.com/is-david-letterman-ready-to-be-done-with-the-late-show/story/25084.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102203501/http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2692 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2692
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109035635/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/169937-Dustin-Hoffman-David-Letterman-Natalia-Makarova-Buddy-Guy-Led-Zeppelin-Are-Kennedy-Center-Honorees to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/169937-Dustin-Hoffman-David-Letterman-Natalia-Makarova-Buddy-Guy-Led-Zeppelin-Are-Kennedy-Center-Honorees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Cincinnati Reds fan

David Letterman is a Cincinnati Reds fan verified from this article. Where does this fall under Wikipedia:Notability? I know he is a late-night comedian, but he is involved with Rahal Letterman Lanigan Racing which is auto racing team. FunksBrother (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Technically, notability refers to whether something deserves an article. It might be noteworthy to mention in this article that Letterman is a Reds fan; however, the source you linked to doesn't say that he is one. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

David Letterman and Pearl Jam

Letterman inducted Pearl Jam into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with a rather long and impactful speech. There doesn't seem to be any mention of Pearl Jam or Eddie Vedder in the article at all and Letterman seems to hold Pearl Jam (Eddie Vedder especially) very close to his heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.186.40.244 (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Why don't you write a sentence or two about it? Make sure to include reliable sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Cigars?

Some mention of Letterman's evident passion for cigars would be appreciated. E.g, what brand/make does he smoke? BMJ-pdx (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)