Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3


What is the weird text before the date of birth?

IPA. Lesgles (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert is GOD.

It is the pronounciation of his name using the international phonetic alphabet (IPA).

I think that should be changed to something that is meaningful to readers.
Maybe keep the IPA spelling, and add an approximate English pronunciation (such as "kohl-BEHR") that can be more easily sounded out by those with no knowledge of IPA?--~e.o.t.d~ 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead could it be Kohl-BEARi think that would be better—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
IPA is the worldwide standard of pronunciation. Sparsefarce 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the template to {{IPA2|ˈkoʊlbɝˈ}} (i.e., Template:IPA2), which links to the IPA page, to belay confusion. --Renice 11:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn’t we also add the pronunciation of his from before he was famous?--Greasysteve13 12:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Marina Corps

The "Marina Corps" part should simply read "marina core": the spelling of "corps" should be "core."

Tek Jansen

There's been some controversy over the Tek Jansen link (Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne, a Tek Jansen Adventure, which is being published online by "Tyrone" at Although the webmaster claims he can't reveal that he is or is not actually Stephen Colbert, any fan will immediately recognize his voice. Even though no one can verify that it's "real", the link should stay up in the external links section so people can decide for themselves whether it's a hoax by a clever fan or a clever stealth marketing campaign. Typing monkey 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can second this. I am a paid, lifetime member of the site and I am confident from what I have read in the private, members-only portions of the site that this is a legitimate work of Colbert or his writing staff. GBH 10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put this back up half a dozen times, the hostility towards the site being included with the other links is very strange. There is no reason this link should be omitted from the External Links section. The site has tons of content related to Stephen Colbert. The argument that it's "speculative" that Colbert is involved is irrelevant. The site is as valid as any of the other fan site links in the External Links section, none of which are constantly removed like this. People should be allowed to find it and decide for themselves what it's about. Typing monkey 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled this link again, because, quite frankly, Wikipedia's guidelines suggest including fansites only "on articles about topics with many fansites" and then limiting it to one or two representative picks. Wikipedia:External Links also specifies that we should not include sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or sites objectionable amounts of advertising -- the Tek Jansen site is both. Unless we have some sort of firm evidence that this is Colbert, it's not very relevant, and having the link here lends it more credibility than I'm really comfortable with, given that this may be just a blatant rip-off of Colbert's identity and intellectual property. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Makaristos 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, Comedy Central is aware of the site (it links to Comedy Central several times on each page) and isn't concerned about the site's use of Colbert's identity and intellectual property. The 'mystery' is part of the joke. The site does not require membership. It is just as 'real' as, which no one has a problem with including in the links section. Typing monkey 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that the site links back to Comedy Central proves anything. It's possible they don't care. It's also possible the site has already been issued a cease and desist order -- lawsuits take forever. The point is that we don't know, and probably won't until either the site gets shut down or Colbert 'fesses up. is mentioned constantly by Stephen Colbert himself on the Colbert Report, so I think there's a pretty obvious difference. As for the membership bit, I see that they're giving some content away for free, but the site does seem to be selling "lifetime" memberships via paypal. That makes it pretty much a paysite with limited free content. Pretty sketchy, if you ask me. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many, lengthy discussions within the forums of Tek Jansen where the legitimacy is discussed as length. There have been at least three dozen reasons put forward as to proof of legitimacy. The site doesn't even have popups, you can't really call the advertising excessive. Even the non-member forums don't have any ads at all, not even Comedy Central. Limited free content isn't true either. There's hundreds of pages of free content, and maybe 20 or so for members only. This is another example of the ignorant trying to make decisions that impact everyone. Do some actual research before reaching conclusions. If you go through all the discussion on Tek Jansen you'll understand.

Limited means just that: limited. The site gives away some content and sells the rest. And I don't think it's ignorant to say we don't conclusively know who runs the site. All we really have to go on is a guy on an anonymously-registered website saying he may or may not be Stephen Colbert. Wikipedia does have rules about what it links to, and quite frankly, that falls short. I'm not depriving anyone of the right to decide for themselves, as any reader of Wikipedia is still entitled to use Google. If you're a member of that site and you'd like the link to appear here, please, hop on the members-only forum and ask Stephen to read us a passage from his online book the next time he's joking about Tek Jansen on the show. That would clear a lot up. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Mr. Lee Baily - This has been done more than once. There have been single episodes of CR with as many as 5 references to persons, discussion and individual jokes FROM the website (as in, the website made the joke or discussion, THEN it appeared on the Report). There are passages on it that appeared there before they were on Colbert Nation. Read the DOUBTING THOMII category of the forums for specific examples. And if it is a fan site, let's ax all the fan sites and not just one that you personally don't approve of.

This has nothing to do with "fan sites I personally don't approve of". If it's a fan site, Wikipedia has guidelines about when to link to fansites. They suggest one respresentative pick in the event that the subject of the article has a significant number of fansites. Mr. Colbert does not have many fansites to speak of. Therefore, fansites don't really belong here at all. Regarding your proof, I have looked around the thread you pointed to, but haven't found the incidents your refer to. If Stephen really has confirmed this in some way on the show, please tell me the specifics of what was said, and point me to an episode so I can verify it. I don't have the time to read through an entire category on your forum looking for hints and doing investigative research just to add a link to an article, but if you spell it out for me, chances are pretty good I'll be able to get my hands on the episode in question and verify this proof of which you speak. Until then, I really can only go on the fact that the site itself says that it is "maybe Stephen, maybe not", which doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for an official link. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 03:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I second User:Lee Bailey's point. (The guidelines being referred to herein are Wikipedia:External links guidelines, incidentally, for reference.) We just can't go listing things willy-nilly, as I have pointed out. Makaristos 04:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusion because regardless of the authorship (which is not provable by either side of this debate), it is a "unique resource beyond what the article here would otherwise have," and contains "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article." Anyone interested in Stephen Colbert would be interested in the site. It's not exactly a fansite, it's an unusual and unique situation. Typing monkey 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ask Mr. Lee Baily to please not take my discussion as an argument. These are not "my forums" and I'm not going to go digging around through the show to find the proof any more than you are to go through the forums. This isn't my hobby and it isn't my passion, and I'm not willing to put my neck on the line for it. I'm just saying the proof exists whether or not you're willing to find it. I think it's undemocratic of you to cut parts of an entry because you don't feel like checking it out. I have a lot of favorite threads that oscilate in value because of edits made without reason such as this. Also, I could not disagree more strongly that Stephen Colbert does not have a lot of fan sites. I guess I should find out how many would qualify, but I've seen at least a dozen.

Honestly, I do sympathesize with your point, but I stand by my position about the link. I don't think I'm being undemocratic -- I will certainly drop this point if I see a significant number of editors here disagree. Generally speaking, however, Wikipedia's policies support the idea that the burden of making a case for the inclusion of information falls on the person wanting to include it. We do not, as a rule, "err on the side of inclusion", as nice as that thought may seem. In fact, I did read rather a lot of the forum thread you referred me to -- the closest I came to finding "proof" the site is run by Colbert was a collection of crypic statments made by a moderator there, and some discussion of "proof" which is not well explained coming from the point of view of someone not following the Tek novel or the board. I'm not saying this to be argumentative -- if you think this link should be added because there's reason to believe it's actually Colbert's site, based on statements made on his show (as you have implied) I'd be very interested to hear about this from you or anyone else who knows about it -- I'm just not about to read through what ultimately may amount to a novel-length piece of fanfiction looking for similarties while paying for the privilege. Given me some good hints and I'll look into it, but providing external links is really a very minor part of Wikipedia's purpose. I don't see it as the end of the world I'm wrong here and a link gets left out because there was no consensus to include it, and the party interested in seeing the link included declined provide compelling evidence as to why this is a meaningful link.
With regard to the question of whether the link has value if it's not Colbert's site, that's a trickier question. I believe the guideline you have cited -- "unique resource beyond what the article here would otherwise have" -- is usually a reason for adding a link only when there aren't other concerns which would prevent a link from being added. The potential violation of Mr. Colbert's intellectual property, commercial nature of the site, and potential for the perception that Wikipedia endorses the site's content as actually coming from Mr. Colbert -- my take on this is that all of those concerns would come before adding a link like this one. As for the number of fansites Colbert has, I apparently haven't seen quite as many as you've seen, but am willing to look into that, and have also opened the issue up to larger discussion. Still, if the site turns out not to be Colbert's, it's questionable in my mind as to whether this would count as a "unique resource" for information about Colbert. Other than that one individual has written a frighteningly large amount of fanfiction about him, what would the link really tell us in that case? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 07:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That helps me understand the situation. Should we also be careful about including things like the uncut Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner? I believe that's a good and invalauble resource, but it's inclusion is clearly unauthorized. Film Portal does not have the broadcast rights to the clip. They have not paid C-Span for the rights to use it. I think it is dangerous for Wikipedia to endorse and promote a site that is actively engaged in illegally using copyright protected material. Clearly we must be cautious when recommending that readers download illegal material.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Yes, I think you're right about the Correspondents' Dinner link -- that got by me. I believe Google and iTunes purchased the rights to use the video, so it makes sense to include links to those and not to the unauthorized distributions, which are redundant anyway. The bit about the dinner I believe was added very swiftly after the event itself, and some editors got a bit over-eager with adding extra links to make up for other ones which kept going down. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed two new things that lead me further to believe that the Tek Jansen site might actually be the work of Stephen Colbert. There's an automated "top referring sites" script on Tek Jansen, and one of the top referring sites is Colbert Nation. That means that Colbert Nation is directly linking to If we're assuming Colbert Nation is real (which I always have) this would be basically an authorization that it's somehow officially connected. Secondly, there's been a major rebuild on Colbert Nation, and the coding is visually difficult to look at and not cross-browser compatible (I attempted to read it via FireFox and had trouble so severe I had to switch over to Internet Explorer.) This says to me that the normal standards of quality I use to determine whether or not something is a professional product does not apply to projects related to Stephen Colbert, such as Colbert Nation or Tek Jansen. This is a topic I think we might want to reconsider, but I'd also like it addressed somewhere on the article about how Colbert Nation constantly claims to be a "fan site" when there is very real reasons to believe otherwise. That is confusion I think should be resolved for persons who are not as familiar with the show as many of us seem to be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Problem is, I still can't find a link to on the anywhere on the actual Colbert Nation site. If Colbert Nation is directly linking to Tek Jansen, where's the link? If it were the top referring site, wouldn't that link be easy to find? Honestly, if the tek site is making this kind of claim and there's not a link there, I think this is a dead giveaway the site is a fake. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It claims to be generated as an automated script. If whoever runs Tek Jansen wanted to be a fake they could just throw in the same Comedy Central copyright that's on Colbert Nation and that would end the discussion. For that matter, they would probably say it's "real" when it isn't on the about page, but that's not the case either. If the goal was to commit fraud it would be a pretty easy matter, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Do you have some personal knowledge, opinion or emotions that you haven't divulged? (Has anybody tried to seek proof of this or are we discarding the possibility without consideration.) Also, if they're going to fake out the top referrers list, why would they list their own site ( as a top referrer? That's pure nonsense. I think your mind is made up and I'd love to know if there's a motivation you haven't shared. When we find out this is an authorized work, will those of us who knew it all along get an apology?

Drop the BS. This is a simple issue. Produce even one link to from Comedy Central or and the matter will be settled. If none can be produced, that proves that the script's results are falsified. If the script is remotely accurate, it should be exceedingly easy to confirm the Tek Jansen site's affiliation with Colbert Nation. That's that. -Silence 08:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is probably linked from the newly-activated forums. However, here’s another thought: Suppose there is someone or many someones using the Central server to read and / or contribute to the site. That would explain all the traffic from that direction, and the absence of a link. Typing.monkey 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have in fact made an attempt to verify the claim that is Colbert's site, but have come up with nothing. I really just don't want to include the link until I have concrete evidence that it's Colbert's site -- no ulterior motive. I don't know why I'd owe anyone an apology either -- have I done something to harm you? The site itself is deliberately vague about its ownership. There are at least a dozen ways Stephen Colbert could prove the site is his if he wanted to. Obviously, either it's not his site, or he doesn't really care whether there's a link to it on Wikipedia. Why should you? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument that it shouldn’t be linked because it cannot be verified as “real” or because Stephen Colbert has not himself asked that it be linked is just ridiculous. Why should it matter whether it is “Colbert’s site” or not? That is something no one has ever been able to answer. There are links to three fan sites in the External Links section - Colbert’s Heroes, No Fact Zone.Net and Stephen Colbert Online (all of which are great and wonderful and to be made much over). Tekjansen has been online longer than any of them, and the forums are more active than any of them. There is a particular hostility to the tekjansen site that is irrational and inconsistent with the treatment of other sites in the external links section. As to why should I (or anyone) care whether it is linked, why should you care? Why should anyone care about linking anything, or care about editing this page in general? Why should I have to explain why I care? Why do you hate America, sir? -- I honestly do not understand why fans of Stephen Colbert and the Colbert Report do not see the similarity in writing style. I think it is easier to believe that Colbert and/or his writing corps are producing the material found on the site. No fan, no matter how crazed, could singlehandedly produce all that material in the same demented voice with such consistency. There are nearly six pounds of science fiction genius to be found over there, and I am truly sad that you, the Heroes, are not enjoying it as you could and should be. Typing.monkey 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I come off as hostile. I only ask why the above poster cares so much because apparently, he or she feels entitled to an apology over this in the event that I turn out to be wrong, which suggests a level of personal investment in this that I can't quite wrap my brain around. As for my motives, I've seen no compelling evidence that the site is Colbert's, and if it isn't, it's not just a fansite, it's a fansite which is both impersonating a public figure and selling a service based directly on violation of another individual's intellectual property rights. I don't see why you believe it's irrationally hostile of me to want to act cautiously in this situation, but you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I think that regardless of whether the site is real or not, whoever designed it has probably accepted by now that there are certain tradeoffs inherent in going with the conceit of ambiguous authorship -- It's probably benefitting the site in more places than it's harmed it, but there are a handful of places in the word where that kind of vagueness is going to hurt your overall traffic-generating stategy. Wikipedia is of those places. It's not personal. I'd do the same for any site which claimed to be celebrity's without offering evidence. I'm just not comfortable with the site's claim. That's it. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lee, Comedy Central announced in late July that the Tek Jansen character would be serialized in a comic. If the Tek Jansen site were truly ripping off its intellectual property, I can't imagine that it would allow the site to continue. is not ripping off Comedy Central’s intellectual property any more than other sites with images of Colbert as Colbert (the character), which are taken directly from the Comedy Central site, particularly those sites that use ads, and are therefore also commercial ventures. The site's author is not "impersonating a public figure," he is explicitly denying that he is probably not impersonating a public figure, not that it matters. You may not be able to reconcile it in your head, but surely you know in your *gut* that the link belongs on this page. If it bothers you that it seems like an endorsement, why not use it with some sort of disclaiming statement to that effect.Typing.monkey 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because a disclaiming statement, besides looking silly, would establish a lousy precident for Wikipedia's link inclusion policies. We'd be in effect saying it's okay to include a link which may or may not be relevant, may or may not be useful, may or may not contain content which Wikipedia generally does not link to, as long as you label it. That's defeating the point of having linking policies, IMHO. As for the rest, I could guess all day about what seems like reasonable behavior for Comedy Central or Stephen Colbert or the Tek Jansen site or anyone else, but I'd still be guessing. You are aware that when Stephen Colbert speaks favorably about going with what you know from the gut and ignoring the facts, he's playing a character, correct? Elephants aside, Wikipedia does aim to be "facty", not "truthy". -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but the following arguments have never been addressed: 1) Assuming it is not associated with Stephen Colbert directly, it should be listed as a fan site for the same reasons that the other fan sites are listed. 2) It does not violate Colbert's intellectual property any more than Colbert fansites that run ads, since both are making money (or attempting to) off Colbert's name and image. 3) The site contains a wealth of original content that is a unique resource that would not be otherwise included in the Wikipedia article. These are both facts and truths. And I am willing to submit to a lie-detector test, if necessary, although I think I'm the only one who remembers your TV show. Also: If you're going to be so hyper-vigilant about the external links guidelines, you should not have included any site which was inserted by the site owner, but Colbert's Heroes got an enthusiastic response from the same people who are splitting hairs about the tekjansen link. I don't think Colbert's Heroes should be removed from the external links section, I'm just pointing out that enforcement of the rules is inconsistently applied. btw, congratulations on the "good article" designation, which it is. With one exception. Typing monkey 23:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. You claim there's no difference between the tek site and any other fansite listed here? Of the fansites listed, two out of three have no advertising at all. One of them has a single, small ad at the bottom of the page. The Tek site not only has multiple, huge, animated ads on the front page, it offers paid memberships, and apparently has a full-time webmaster who is paid to run the site. There's a difference there. The other sites listed are obviously not profit-making ventures, while the tek site gives every appearance of being potentially profitable. As for the wealth of original content, it's original content alright. However, it's not original content about Stephen Colbert in any meaningful way. If the site isn't his, this is a fan fiction site: it doesn't discuss Colbert, or the Colbert Report, or the Daily Show, or any such thing. It borrows a character mentioned a few times and runs off in its own direction. The forums don't even have specific sections pertaining to Colbert the person or the Colbert Report; it's all about the fiction and the site. Unlicenced derivative works are not unique resources pertaining to the subject of the article where the subject of the article is the copyright holder. In any case, I think this discussion is well beyond the point of productivity. If you'll agree to it, I'm going to put in a request for mediation. This is a waste of both of our time. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The revolution will not be verified. Mediate away.Typing monkey 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • On second thought, I believe a straw poll would be more appropriate than mediation at this point.Typing monkey 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now this is just ridiculous and incredibly rude. There is a Wikipedia page for Stephen Colbert’s Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure. There is no reason the "See Also" section should not refer to it, as it does to other Wikipedia articles that refer to Colbert, and adding it is not "vandalism." There is unreasonable hostility to the very idea of Tek Jansen among the editors here that is inexplicable. Typing monkey 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because all the content in that article is already contained in other articles that are linked to from 'see also' -- specifically the Colbert Report recurring elements article. I didn't call it vandalism, I just questioned it's relevance as a 'see also' since it's somewhat redundant here. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • How can it be redundant when it is not previously mentioned?Typing monkey 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This does not explain why reference to the CC insider article about the upcoming book has also been deleted. Colbert's observations about "wikiality" are playing out in the controversy over Apparently the arguments about whether the website is 'licensed' have so clouded the judgment and closed the mind of the Wikipedia editors who dislike the site, that even mention of the fact that a Tek Jansen book is going to be published, by Oni Press, in a genuine paper-and-ink, soon-to-be-in-a-bookstore-near-you version, is immediately deleted from any page that mentions Colbert. Is there a reason for this that is rooted in verifiable fact or is it just a grudge held by consensus against the inclusion of this clearly relevant bit of information?Typing monkey 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any idea about that. I've never removed any link related to the Oni Comic; you might check the page's history to figure out who did. As far as I know, there's no reason to doubt that the comic is being released. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought this was going to be mediated (or something like that). Can we just call in a pro to get a real answer and get on with out lives already? An editor has been working to contact Comedy Central, have they confirmed or denied it or was that just nonsense talk for the sake of sounding official? According even to Mr. Lee Bailey, he is the LAST editor willing to express doubt of this links validity, and even that with hesitation. If it's a question of legality, we know Comedy Central has been contacted repeatedly over the past 8 months the site has been online (according to editors on this and other related discussion pages) but they haven't said one thing against it. Have they confirmed Colbert Nation or are we just deducing that's legit too? When this comes out as real, I don't want an apology because you're wrong, I want an apology because of your less than friendly tone and general rudeness. Sorry Colbert "vandalized" the Wiki, don't take it out on others who are trying to help make it better. GBH
It's evident from the comments on this talk page -- some made quite recently -- that I am not the only editor who has expressed doubt that the Tek Jansen site is Colbert's, or that it belongs here. Beyond that, it doesn't even matter what anyone believes. Wikipedia adds information on the basis of evidence, not on belief. If I've sounded rude, I haven't intended to -- I've been told I sometimes come off a little unfriendly in print. One of the perils of commincating in an online venue is not having gesture and facial expression to do off of, and whatnot. I do apologize if I've said or done anything that seemed rude, though. Naturally, I have been a little frustrated, because this is indeed taking up a lot of my time recently. You have to understand, I'm have nothing against the site or anyone involved with it. Colbert Nation is seperate situation because it's registered to a company owned by Codmedy Central, and referenced commonly on the Colbert Report.
Is there a reason this can't just wait? From looking over the tekjansen site, the word there is that there's some sort of big announcement on the horizon. If there's an announcement about the site from an official source, I absolutely will support a link being here. I just think it's premature to add anything now, when technically, we still don't know what's going on. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

These are direct quotes from Lee Bailey on the topic of what it will take to get the link added:
"A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation has made an attempt to contact Stephen Colbert through his staff." My talk page.
"If Colbert wants to promote his site here, all he needs to do is make a trivial effort to establish his identity..." My talk page.
"Colbert...or a representative might want to bother to have a fifteen minute discussion which would allow tek-related information to happily coexist with Wikipedia's policies." My talk page.
"[Colbert's] still welcome to send me email if he'd like." Hewhorulestheworld's talk page.
This is completely outside of Wikipedia guidelines.Typing monkey 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I added * Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure, an "unauthorized fan site" with Comedy Central videos, links and advertisements. == If you want to look at what limited empirical evidence there is, the fact that Comedy Central is using the site to promote the roast of William Shatner (an add I havent' seen anywhere else one the web) should be enough to perhaps tip the scales... and "if" you've seemed rude? IF!!!???? Oh honey, wehre do we go from here?

I re-added the Tek Jansen link -- as one of the Colbert Report recurring elements, it belongs here. (BTW, sign your posts.) --Renice 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The site doesn't just link back to Comedy Central -- it is supported with Comedy Central banner ads. Clearly it isn't the product of some opportunistic rogue web designer. Arguments to cut the link are befuddled by an odd confusion of parody and reality. --Renice 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The site made their own flash banners that link to Comedy Central. I could make banner ads for Pepsi and put them on my personal website and that still doesn't mean that Pepsi runs the site. Nothing on the is hosted on any well known Comedy Central domain name. The site has Google text ads, unlike any Comedy Central site. Videos are hosted on Google Video not Comedy Central's online video service.
It's a marginal site riding the coattails of the Colbert Report and while that may be novel, it's not that useful. Shall I go on? --waffle iron talk 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This argument is so out of touch. The newly redesigned site claims the novel as Colbert's and has 2 of the chapters up -- and guess what? They match! And they were posted on the site first. He's a writer! He writes stuff that he's trying to sell. Big surprise. --Renice 19:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
cf. and and stop being obtuse. --Renice 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
All the official Comedy Central sites, including Colbert Nation, have copyright and privacy policy hosted on and written as a real legal document and this one doesn't. Because has some overlapping content, but that doesn't preclude someone from copying and pasting from Colbert Nation, an official site. --waffle iron talk 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The ones from have had passages exactly read on the Colbert Report by Colbert. is fan fiction that expands on the stuff from the official site. --waffle iron talk 19:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they do. The chapters on the CN site are excerpts.
    This is nearly the most elaborate paranoic set of illogical arguments I have ever seen. I hope you will have the balls to apologize on my talk page when you get a clue. Keep watching -- it's coming. --Renice 20:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • WG: The chapter excerpt that's on the CN site skips the first 2 paragraphs that are on the tekjansen site, but otherwise it's the same text. And it would have been impossible for an 'opportunistic fan' to have beat Colbert in posting the same verbiage... unless Colbert is behind The CN site hosts fan fiction, btw.
There is no link on that page just the string tekjansen which is in the URI. I mean really. The pasages were from two episodes where Colbert read from the fictional work. The owner of transcribed the segments and then later the dialog was posted on the official site, Also, Colbert Nation was redesigned a couple months back so it's even harder to verify. --waffle iron talk 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Highlight the lower right hand corner of the main page on with your mouse. It's the same copyright info as is on - "2005, 2006, Comedy Partners, Rights Reserved." The show is playing a game with/on its fans. 02:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

the name colbert

it is scottish

That site also says that its English so we still dont' know for sure.

It's primarily a French name, but as there have been waves of migration of French people (both Catholics and Huguenots) to the British Isles over the past millenium, today there are people there with the name. Funnyhat 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

extensive quotes on both Colbert Report and WHCD

I think it's probably a good idea to limit both these sections combined to 3-6, and put the rest in WikiQuote. --kizzle 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Most article have a similar policy of limiting quotes. I'll go do that now. Kerowyn 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes, apparently, Doctor. In the 2006-06-08 show, Colbert announced he had received an honorary doctorate degree. In this show, he placed his new framed doctorate diploma on his mantlepiece. --pbryan 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He was awarded the Degree after the Commencement Address he gave at Knoz University this year.SalvadorRodriguez 22:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited the article to reflect the date his Executive Producer credit changed. June 6th had it as "Stephen Colbert", June 7th had no producer credit, and June 8th was the date it was updated. Lyrrad0 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Colbert fan sites

Colbert's Heroes and Nofactzone are both blogs, being posted by their maintainers and contributing no useful information to this article (as neither is even close to a reliable source. Their presence here is nothing but advertising. Please don't replace them in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the sites are a "reliable source". I can at least speak for myself when I say that my site provides links to all sources of information, most of which is from mainstream media (which counts as reliable data for the sake of Wiki credibility). provides topical documented news on a daily basis, as well as episode guides, and other links relating to Stephen Colbert that while relevant to the specific topic of the Wiki article, are considered too much minutae to feature in Wiki. The issue is whether fan sites are permissible on Wiki sites featuring famous personalities. In this case, we're talking about two sites who have estabished themselves for months and are considered reliable in the fact that they stay on topic and provide current relevant data with documentation to said data. This is the criteria as mentioned in the WP:EL. Yes, I am helping to promote, but that's becuase I feel it is a relevant site in regards to this topic. Fan sites are permissible as long as they are relevant to the topic and updated on a regular basis so as to add substance to the Wikipedia article in which they are linked. Both of these sites have proven consistently to meet this criteria. Nofactzone 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Colbert's Heroes isn't a blog--listing site updates reverse-chronologically does not make a blog. There is plenty of original content on the site other than links to other places. I don't know why you have got such a vendetta against all fan sites when you haven't even looked over the sites in question. -- 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

They're blogs, and they're not very useful for building this article. Please advertise elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While the entry page of does have a blog format, the site also has many static pages with data valuable to readers looking for information about Stephen Colbert, including a news archive featuring an organized and documented source of news articles featuring Stephen Colbert available on the web. This page alone makes the site a valuable companion piece to this Wiki article. Nofactzone 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. The useful subpage is linked on the talk page, where anyone who may need it can access it. No need to link your blog in the article, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) has many other interesting and useful links pertaining to Stephen Colbert and his career than simply the above link. And not everyone is going to be visiting the Talk page. I only linked that site as an example of the relevance of my site to the subject. Using your logic, I could post any link on this talk site and technically is being represented on Wiki. But clearly having a link on the talk page is not nearly as relevant to the people searching for information about Stephen Colbert as actually having a link on the main page. Yes, justifying a link to my site on the main page is blatantly self-promoting, I’ll admit that, but you're missing the big picture. I put the effort into my site so that there is a comprehensive, up-to-the-minute news source available to fans of Colbert who want to find out more information about him. My site covers topics that will never be covered on this site because they are too topical and current. The site is updated daily with news articles from numerous sources, such as blogs such as the Huffington Post, magazines, daily newspapers and television interviews. Because of the thoroughness of my site, it continuously has the most updated and comprehensive news about Stephen Colbert available online. The point of external links is to give the readers of the article more sources of information for the topic in the article. does this unequivocally. Also, may I just state that my site is a labor of love – it is not commercial in any sense of the word and I make no money on this site. I do this because I enjoy providing information in a format that allows the site to stay fresh. Nofactzone 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends on what definition of "blog" you're going on here. One site uses blogging software and posts daily entries; one does not. Neither site is what I would call a "blog."

Colbert has a posse

Why does this link keep getting re-inserted? It doesn't contribute anything to the article, there's no substantive information on that page, and it's referenced nowhere here. It seems like a total vanity link insertion to me, and I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Please provide a rationale for its inclusion here or it'll just keep getting reverted out. Thank you. Makaristos 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a purely commercial link, to sell stickers, reason enough for deletion.Michael Dorosh 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Project is designed to make no money. Stickers are not being sold to make a profit. I have recently read the submission criteria for Winkipedia and I will now stop submitting this link.You are all doing great work by being on top of things and catching submissions like mine. Kudos to you all.

--Snarkivist 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)===Colbert's Heroes===

Is the link to this fan site really necessary, in the same vein as the above? It's not referenced in the article, and it doesn't really contribute to anything here. Also, we're in danger of starting down a slippery slope (again) of putting in every Colbert fan site out there. Why do we need that? Makaristos 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far as I can tell, it's the only active, non-Comedy Central run fan site on the web right now, and as I understand it, it's currently under active recruitment for content and such. While I agree that adding every "omgColbertRocks!" Geocities page might be a bit much, it does seem odd that this page only has official sites listed, when many other celeb pages do have fan sites. Is there some larger policy at work here that people in general should be aware of? Or that could be tagged in comments, such as "we're not going to list fan sites unless they're officially connected to the show" or somesuch? --Loiosh 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Loiosh
I'm the person who runs the site in question, and inserted the link. It is in fact the only fan site that I know of (other than the Comedy Central-run Colbert Nation) that has been updated in the last three years. If you don't want to go down a slippery slope of "if we add one fan site, then we'll have to add all of them," then that's a fine policy as such. If you don't think it's a related or relevant link, then that's fine too, but I thought that section of links includes related sites other than those cited in the article. It's not a commercial site by any means. The link may be more appropriate on the "Colbert Report" article, if anywhere at all. --Snarkivist 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If this is true (and admittedly, I'm not much for celebrities, so I don't really know how other pages handle this issue), perhaps it is appropriate. What if we had a separate category of external links for it (and similar sites, were any to reveal themselves) so that we wouldn't be confusing it with other link categories such as reference information? Makaristos 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can look at how other celebrity articles handle fan pages, since I'm not much of a star-watcher myself. A separate category sounds like a good idea, or putting it on the show page (since the site is dedicated more to the show itself than to Mr. Colbert.) I only know of one other site, called The Colbertic Realm, which was abandoned in 2003 but is still online. There may be others, but they're not easily found. --Snarkivist 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Makaristos 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
There's definitely a precedent for listing fan sites...look at the external links section for (shudder) Britney Spears. It's split into "official/other sites," and her IMDB page and one large fan site are listed under "other." Britney_spears#External_links The entry for Zach Braff lists one of his fan sites in the poorly organized "external links" as well. Personally, I like the "official/unofficial" split as in Spears' article, which leaves room for more sites as needed. --Snarkivist 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I support Snarkivist's proposal to list his fan site, provided its content remains relevant. It would appear in line with practice in other articles - as long as the site contributes information not found here at wikipedia, which I believe is the policy for external links.Michael Dorosh 21:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Michael. It's hard to say that it has totally original content since there are a few sections of the site not up yet. I would say that the fan forum devoted to the show is completely unique, as are episode recaps.Snarkivist 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm convinced. Set it up! Makaristos 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see this part of the discussion. I pulled out the link to the Heroes site based on the line in Wikipedia: External Links which suggests that articles about subjects with large numbers of fansites may include a single link to a representitive fan site, and other articles shouldn't link to fansites at all. This does contradict what I've seen in other articles, so I'm curious as to what everybody else thinks. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't read that part of the style guide. Hmm. What does everyone else think--and is that why Tek was yanked too? In any case, there are more and more fan sites appearing in the last few months, including the posse site, the Colbertocrats site, Tek Jansen (if indeed that is run by a fan, and I believe it is), etc. I suppose it depends on what one considers a "large" number of fan sites. Zach Braff, to use the example I used before, only has a half-dozen sites that I can find, and he has one linked on his Wikipedia entry. --Snarkivist 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this partly figured into why I removed the Tek Jansen link, but please see the above Tek Jansen section of this talk page for further thoughts on that. I do really wish there was a guideline on what constitutes a "large number" of fansites. On the other hand, I don't think going by the precident set by other articles really helps much -- it seems that virutally everyone has fansite links if even one can be found, and most articles blatantly ignore the "one representive pick" concept in favor of listing any fansites they can find. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about this, but it seems like, if we're going by the guideline at all, we should acknowledge that some people have very large numbers of fansites (major movie stars, teen idols, anyone associated with a huge scifi-fantasy fandom) and virtually everyone else who has ever appeared on screen has a handful of fansites just by the nature of their existance. Since this is a guideline, though, it might be fair to simply ignore it (like everyone else seems to be doing). Maybe just go with one solid pick? -- Lee Bailey(talk) 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever the other people working on the entry think is right, since I haven't done a ton of writing on this entry (I work more on The Colbert Report entry.) It's true that the fan site rule is observed more in the breach than not. --Snarkivist 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be only one fansite listed, don't categorize the Tek Jansen site as such -- the Tek Jansen character and the 'adventure book-in-progress', Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne, are recurring elements on Colbert's show. Therefore, the link to it should be retained on that merit alone. --Renice 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to it should be retained on the "recurring elements page," if any. However, the project is an attempt to profit off the name and image of Stephen Colbert and the intellectual property of Comedy Central (the Tek Jansen "book.") The number of ads on that site boggles the sane Web designer's mind. --Snarkivist 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I readded the link to this site. I am waiting on a verdict for, but I feel that this fan site is relevant for this page. Fan sites are acceptable on personal pages according to WP:EL rules as long as they are relevant and topical, and there aren't an excess amount of links. Nofactzone 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One fan site is allowed as long as it is a representative sample and the subject already has multiple sites devoted to him/her. Both of our sites have been linked from the entry for months now and this was approved by the main editors of the page--why delete them now? Are we both being punished because Nofactzone added her own link back in after it was deleted? It's starting to appear that way, and this concerns me. --Snarkivist 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


What does everyone think about this link? ? It doesn't seem to have much substance other than photos and Adsense ads. --Snarkivist 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Makaristos 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Videos

Colbert Videos keeps getting added, presumably by the Webmaster. Thoughts? It's a collection of clips that are already on the Web (mostly on YouTube) --Snarkivist 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful with including videos of any kind unless there is some means of knowing that they are authorized. The show is on 4-5 times a day plus it can be legally downloaded on iTunes, I think including links to video sites endorses piracy. It certainly makes it more likely. User:GBH 01:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is so, then why is now listed as one of the first external links? --Snarkivist 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)t̪
Don't know what revision you are looking at but mine shows that that link was deleted at 14:12, October 9, 2006 (EST) Gdo01 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted it. --Snarkivist 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that this site was removed from this page, and wanted to make sure that it was still acceptable to the moderators of this board that a link to this site is available on this page. This is the first time this link has been removed since its original inclusion to the main Stephen Colbert Wiki page in July 2006. is a Colbert-centric news site (Think Google meets Technorati, but only talking about Stephen Colbert). It is updated daily and extremely relevant to the subject. The site features news articles, relevant blog posts in the blogosphere, news from the Colbert Nation, and many other Colbert-related information. It receives thousands of hits a week and is considered by many to be one of the most topical and relevant Stephen Colbert fan sites on the web. All data on this site is thoroughly documented to its original source and has been linked to by such credible blogging sites such as Huffington Post and TV Squad. I feel that it is an acceptable link per WP:EL 1.2. I feel it definitely qualifies as one of the more relevant Stephen Colbert fan sites on the web. I readded the link to this page. Nofactzone 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen and Melinda Gates foundation

Does anyone have any more infromation about the Stephen and Melinda Gates foundation Colbert founded? I've heard Stephen mention this before and think it would be fair to mention his philanthropy in the article. Sysrpl 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke, I believe. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a charity founded by Bill Gates and his wife. I get the impression that the fictional Stephen Colbert makes more money than the real-life version. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a joke. Like nearly everything else he mentions on his show. There is no reason to include it on this page. Makaristos 18:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It may not be a joke. On a recent episode of the show, billionaire Mort Zuckerman suggested that he would give Colbert $10,000 to start a charitable foundation. Colbert then declared that he would name it the "Stephen and Melinda Gates Foundation."
Considering that Zuckerman had just been removed from the On Notice board and the fact that the entire interview period is usually hyperbole and steering the guest, I don't think Zuckerman or Colbert meant it. --Gdo01 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It was a joke. And one of the most obvious ones in the show's history. It's a blatantly silly parody of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and there's barely even a pretense of seriousness; like most of the rest of the Colbert Report, it's just a point of satire that is frequently called-back to. Next topic? -Silence 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In case this hasn't been settled, it is definitely a joke. Big time. Steven actually had a picture of Bill Gates and his wife on screen, then replaced Gate's head with his own! No attempt was made to make it even appear serious, and it's a running joke they keep going back to. It is also similar to other jokes made about wealthy people in the past where Stephen "suggested" he be named the heir to their fortunes, among other instances. -IsaacJ

Oh no, it's true, I tell you! Colbert himself mentioned on his show that he received a wonderful grant from the foundation allowing him to have Tek Jansen (his "New" adventures) published as an animated cartoon. Disembellisher 01:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use screen captures

I believe Wikipedia's rule about the fair use of screen captures is no more than one per series. Presently, we've got two from Birdman, and two from the Report (including the one that's just the credits). I'm going to go ahead and pull the extra ones out, unless I'm misinterpreted this. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Colbert plays more than one character on Harvey Birdman, though. I would think fair use would allow images of others characters he plays on the show, like Reducto.--Ryan! 07:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there appears to be some conflicting information about fair use of screenshots across various places in Wikipedia. I'm trying to get some answers about that right now, but I'll be glad to restore any images to the article that turn out to be allowable. In the meantime, if anyone knows more about Wikipedia's specific interpretation of fair use than me, feel free to chime in! 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Description of these roles is available on the Harvey Birdman page anyway, isn't it? --Snarkivist 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It would appear I was incorrect in my interpretation of this rule, but since fair use calls for "significant discussion" of the image in question, I've left out dear Reducto for now, since that's probably material better covered in Birdman-related pages. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reorganized a bit...

... so take a look, and let me know if any of this doesn't work for you. Mostly I added info, moved "other roles" below the Colbert Report, and added an early career section. Next up, attempting to find all the typos that inevitably occur when I try and type more than thirty letters at a time, and re-adding any lost wiki-links. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


The article says nothing about it. I'll remove the category until someone provides a source that he is actually Irish-American. Mad Jack 08:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He's from a family of 11 kids and he's a Roman Catholic.

Quotes section

Many (if not most) of the quotes presently listed should in fact be attributed to his character on The Colbert Report. The presentation as it is now is misleading. 05:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What purpose does the quotes section actually serve? Is this an encyclopedia or a fan site?Michael Dorosh 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are WAY too many quotes from the AP correspondents dinner. Lets get rid of the less important ones or link to wikiquote. St.isaac 22:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Endangering Information Precluded

Where his children go to school is irrelevant to this article; placing this information on the web potentially endangers them, and should not be reverted. In fact, it should be deleted from the Wikipedia servers.

Davidkevin 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%, for what it's worth. I don't think that the town where he lives was even named on the entry previously, was it? That's elsewhere on the Web but doesn't need to be included in the article. --Snarkivist 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted Hitler

Why does Ted Hitler link here and not to The Colbert Report where the name Ted Hitler is actually mentioned?--Gdo01 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ted Hitler has never come up on The Colbert Report that I know of. It was a one-time joke on The Daily Show, and really should be removed from the "Colbert Report" page as well. --Snarkivist 07:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've redirected to Stephen Colbert (character). -- Zanimum 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

More Images?

I was reading the talk about screen caps but what about images from the press release page? All we need to do is shrink them down and upload them to wiki servers! -James 7-25-2006

No, no, no. Fair use images should only be used if needed. since we don't need any more images to illustrate the article, we shouldn't add anymore than we already have. -- Zanimum 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideal number of quotes?

We seem to be getting the "article may be too long" warning. It looks as though the article text itself, without trivia or quotes, is reasonably sized, but the quote list is getting pretty massive. Can we come to an agreement about how many quotes is a fair number so we don't have to keep cutting stuff out? Wikiquote is probably a better place for all the "This is the Colbert Report" jokes. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the quotes are one liners and/or make no sense outside of context (an excited statement). I say we limit to 3 quotes for each section. I believe that is the guideline. --waffle iron talk 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and quote that isn't in the article main should be only on Wikiquote. -- Zanimum 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow up question: what do we do about the fact that all but one or two of the quotes not from the WHCA dinner are from the Colbert Report -- and thus in character, rather than coming from the "real life" Colbert? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true. Since we have a Wikipedia article called Stephen Colbert (character), we should have a Wikiquote article with the same title. -- Zanimum 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Since most of the quotes in the article are "fanboy" in-jokes, I've just removed them IAW this discussion. I think the White House dinner quotes should all be jettisoned as well, or moved to the article on the White House Dinner. They add little to the article. If they can be incorporated into the article in a section on his comedic style, they would be appropriate. At present they are just a laundry list.Michael Dorosh 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Just a heads up, unless anyone thinks it would be a bad idea, I'm going to archive this page soon, since it has become quite long. If anyone wants to me to move any particular threads of this conversation over to the new page to keep those topics open, let me know below. I think the discussion of quotes is still an "open topic", but much of what's above it is at this point inactive (and I'm eager to archive the "endangering information" thread for obvious reasons). Thanks. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert on Wikipedia

See the show on right now. —Steven G. Johnson 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"I love Wikipedia: any site that has a longer entry on truthiness than on Lutherans has its priorities straight."

Despite what Colbert says, can we refrain from editing this until the show is over? ArbiterOne 03:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert on Wikipedia

Colbert has just typed something into this page Obviously he added the part about the elephant population... duh! Of coarse I edited it to quadrupled instead of tripled... it sounds more truthie...--Purecara 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the aforementioned "truthie" edit - it's sad that people are resorting to vandalizing the talk page.--~e.o.t.d~ 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert's use of the Gateway computer is sure to have a positive impact on their sales.--Purecara 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oregon will always be Idaho's Portugal...------Purecara 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For when the page is unlocked and back in working order, someone could add this to the trivia section:

  • On July 31, 2006, Stephen tells viewers to edit the Elephant page on Wikipedia to claim that "The number of elephants has tripled in the past six months". Literally seconds later the edit was made but the page was promptly protected against further edits and corrected.

Coolnat2004 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

out of curiosity did stephen colbert actually type something onto wikipedia? if so where and what version? 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was him. If it was, I think he would have spelled his own name right (see this revision). And the IP is from Glen Rock, PA. ArbiterOne 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he typed anything on the elephant page, but this edit (made by User:Stephencolbert) does seem suspicious: The Colbert Report recurring elements
-- MyrddinEmrys 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection, edits by Colbert?

Okay, obviously I missed something. What just happened? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 03:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert just did a segment about Wikipedia on the show, in which he supposedly made an edit to the Wikipedia article about himself. I've been unable to verify this, as the Wikipedia site itself seems a bit unstable in this area.ArbiterOne 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dammit Colbert, why the hell did you do this? Klosterdev 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe now? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I watched the show, if he had have edited this article it would have been done several hours previous due to the fact that his show is recorded earlier in the evening. Also, his 'editing' during the show was so quick it was obvious that he was pretending.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me how people all over the web think he was actually editing the page live on TV. There are many people in the world who think that everything you see on TV is live and that scares me. Do they not understand the illusion of television? Vaginsh 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone know... exactly how long should we expect the page to be fully protected? I was actually hoping to work on this article tonight, which of course isn't going to happen now. Bad timing, I know, but I'd still like to know if there's a norm in situations such as this. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Usually hours, or maybe a day: then we try unprotection, but if vandalism returns right away, protection comes back, and so forth, until everything dies down. There's nothing new here: high-profile articles get this treatment fairly often. Just wait until the next presidential election. Antandrus (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply. I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to experience a major election, but judging from this, I'll probably just stick to editing kittens and dandelions for the entire month of November to avoid the stress. Still hoping this gets to semi-unprotected status soon, otherwise I'm going have to find another article to work on before I go into Wikiholic withdrawal. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
ROFL, what a strange coincidence. I recently added one of my kittens to Kitten due to it being a useful picture of what a kitten looks like when it has opened its eyes for the first time. Here ya go!
A kitten that has opened its eyes for the first time.

, enjoy ;)

-- That Guy, From That Show! 05:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For now, at least, it makes sense to keep a note on the Colbert page, regarding the incident. While his report was amusing, the resulting direct call for vandalization, and the resulting changes to many pages are worthy of being able to point to, if at least temporarily. E1ven 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It doesn't hurt the article in any significant way to report it and its notability can be worked out in the near future especially due to TIVO/PVR users who will see the episode tomorrow.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That Guy, you stripped the section about what edited/suggested be vandalized.. While I may have been overly verbose, That section could be replaced in a single line. Restoring a version of it, at least, make sense.
Yes, mention about vandalism on wikipedia articles is a self-reference and should not be mentioned. See Self-reference for more information.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If we talk about "vandalism on Wikipedia", rather than "He vandalized these pages", we should be OK. E1ven
True, if worded quite carefully so that it doesn't look like something that belongs on a talk page.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Those who say, "This statement has no place here, if you really want to add it, let's discuss it and reach a consensus".

Are you idiots? You criticize Stephen for saying, "All we need to do is to convince a majority of people that some factoid is true". But you fail to see the error in YOUR OWN ways.

When someone disagrees with the majority comes along and makes a change, the changes are deleted and removed by the MAJORITY. So, Stephen's got a point. I have seen false information time and time again on Wikipedia and when I tried to change it, I was asked for citations when I provided the citations I was told they were not credible sources. OK, but some Joe Shmoes blog is a more credible source eh? Just goes to show you that Wikipedia is a joke.

'When someone disagrees with the majority comes along and makes a change, the changes are deleted and removed by the MAJORITY.'
You haven't observed how consensus is most often reached on Wikipedia. It isn't usually a 'real' majority that is involved with consensus, it's the most active editors for any particular article that tend to determine consensus amongst themselves. But, it was a comedy show so it was a broad generalization that would seem amusing to most viewers.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine is a majority of active editors. I don't see how that qualification affects his argument. Inactive editors don't enter into it, obviously.Typing monkey 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on July 31 show

Let's try to come to agreement here. There really shouldn't be more than two references in this article to last night's show -- one quick paragraph at the end of the Colbert Report section and one quote at the bottom. Here's what I've done, drawing upon the previous versions:

TCR: Most recently, on July 31, 2006, Colbert referenced Wikipedia on a segment of the show, featuring "wikiality" as the word of the day. Jokingly, he instructed viewers to edit the elephant article to falsely reflect that the elephant population has tripled in the past six months.

Quotes: "I'll examine Wikipedia in a segment tonight, which you will be able to read about on Wikipedia in about 15 minutes."

If you think this should be elaborated further, make your case here. Otherwise, repeated editing of the article is inappropriate and reflects poorly on WP. -- Padjet1 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually convinced it belongs here at all. Maybe in the Colbert Report article, but this page is a comedian's biography. The "wikiality" incident was really just a single joke among many on a show that airs four nights a week, and has no special relevance to his career. Wikipedia shouldn't over-represent Wikipedia-related topics; it's unprofessional. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My main goal was to restore order; a two sentence paragraph seemed like a decent compromise between the competing opinions, particularly regarding those users who were scattering references throughout the article. As for the quote, I thought it was pretty funny and arguably more appropriately mentioned than some others already on the list. -- Padjet1 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A fair enough goal, but in the long term, it's a compromise to the integrity of the article. Before the incident occured, there was already a growing consensus to cut down the quote section to 3-5 quotes, since most of them are pretty irrelevant. This seems like a trivia item at most, and certainly doesn't belong in the summary style Colbert Report section. It's depressing to me that at least in this article, the efforts by regular Wikipedians to add self-referential information about this incident have seemingly been more disruptive then any real vandalism caused by the episode. How long until we can move beyond it? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (via edit conflict)
It does seem more appropriate for the The Colbert Report article, and perhaps the Stephen Colbert (character) article than this one. Perhaps just a link here? --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If the actual consensus is to remove the reference, by all means go ahead. I edited only to reflect what I perceived as an effort to mention it without regard to form or style. If that has now subsided, I'm in full agreement that a main-body mention of last night's show is probably a bit too self-referential, and belongs on the main TCR article if at all. As for the quotes, I haven't been party to the previous discussions, so I have no objection to condensing. -- Padjet1 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry -- I didn't mean to single out your edit in particular, and I do appreciate the attempt to rephrase things in the least disruptive way until some semblance of consensus is reached. I'm just being impatient -- my fault. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries -- I didn't take any offense. I think it's nice to see constructive discourse having a positive impact. -- Padjet1 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bailey- I think in regards to relevance that on the main Stephen Site, you could put a reference saying "Wikiality - see 'The Colbert Report' entry" and put a more detailed mention on The Colbert Report main site. As already stated, this is a single bit on a 4x a week show. But I do think an entry on Wikiality should be in the Colbert family of Wiki sites, just not on the main Stephen Colbert page. Nofactzone (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm more of the mind to wait and see about "Wikiality" -- it could wind up exploding into a big thing, like truthiness, or it could be completely missed by the wider non-wiki world -- but that's a finer point. My main concern is really that it doesn't belong in every Colbert related article on Wikipedia -- that's just overdoing it. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you there, that it should not be on every page. This site is going to be high profile for a few days and its best that it be managed with long-term credibility in mind. Nofactzone(talk) 15:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed some of the self-reference (the administrative actions are not appropriate material for the entry) without affecting the information on the episode as it pertains to the man (which is what this article is about). I also improved the accuracy of the statements (he pretended to edit those pages, he didn't actually do so during the show...and there's significant doubt that he edited them at all just for the joke). ju66l3r 22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I was worried I would come to this article and see way too much space devoted to his mentions of Wikipedia, etc. I'm very glad that did not happen. In order to be covered in the article one would need evidence that the incident is important enough to warrant coverage. If a reliable source can be shown that supports the information being important enough to cover then we should, but not before that. - Taxman Talk 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia in popular culture#Vandalism of Wikipedia in popular culture mentions Colbert. A simple see also could calm people until no remembers the incident, and we can delete the link. -- Zanimum 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking for input

Still looking for input on the inclusion of the link to The site claims that it is the work of Stephen Colbert, even though it "can't legally say" that it is the work of Stephen Colbert. I've pulled it out a number of times, because it appears there's no concensus to keep it, despite being added repeatedly by someone who appears to be inserting the link to the promote the site. I'm concerned there's a conflict with WP:LIVING and WP:EL among other things. You can see the previous discussion here, but I'd like a few more opinions on this, if at all possible. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)

  • I want to point out that there are at least three people in the discussion above who have argued for inclusion. I always sign my comments. It is not a one-monkey campaign, as you're suggesting.Typing monkey 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Despite what Colbert-the-character would have us think, Wikipedia does not determine fact by headcount. is not verifiably a creation of Colbert. If it were, then it would deserve a mention in the article, and a link. It also does not have any significant content about the subject of this article. Therefore, at best it could be included as a fan site. But the point of linking to a fan site is so that people can see what fans have to say about the subject of the article. tekjansen fails again. –RHolton– 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No one suggested that Wikipedia "determines fact by headcount." Wikipedia does encourage the use of straw polls prior to requests for comment or mediation on disputed edits. The argument that there is no content relating to Colbert reveals that you have not read more than a page or two of the site.Typing monkey 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
My above comment about "headcount" was not in response to your suggestion for a straw poll. Look at the date/time on the signatures; my post was about 2 hours before yours. I was responding to your comment immediately above mine that there were 3 others who supported your position. It was just a bit too close to Colbert-the-character's "Wikiality" commments. I'm no big fan of straw polls, but they have their uses.
As far as my not having read more than a page or two of the site--you're absolutely correct (well, maybe 3 or 4...). I see no point in linking to a site if the reader will have to search for relevant information. If there's a particular page on the site that a reader searching for information on Colbert would find relevant, then point us to it. Until then, I'll stand by my original assessment.–RHolton– 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • External links aren't all that valuable unless they can serve as reliable references or are particularly prominent sites about a subject. Unless there is verifiable importance for the site, leave it out. Burden of proof should be that it meets the standards in WP:EL. If there's doubt, leave it out. - Taxman Talk 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The site has more traffic than any other fansite listed with the exception of, so the prominence argument favors inclusion.Typing monkey 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The argument that it's a "particularly prominent site about the subject", though, goes back to the issue of relevance to the subject, which there is still no consensus on. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This link should not be included. Bailey has it right. It is not verifiable, does not conform to WP:BLP standards, let alone WP:EL standards. It isn't relevant to Stephen Colbert the real person. Unless incontrovertible proof comes to light that Colbert or Comedy Central is involved in that site, it shouldn't even be considered. --Ibis3 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please read the "about" page of the site. Clearly "Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad 7" is relevant to the topic. Even if it is not written by Colbert or owned by Comedy Central (both of which are denied), it is as relevant as any other fan forum dealing with Colbert's report. Regardless, the "proofs" you want are available for those who really look, rather than give the problem their cursory attention before jumping on the bandwagon. I am not going to point anyone directly to them, which would violate the spirit of the site.Typing monkey 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is indeed as relevant as any other fan forum. Since we don't link to fan forums then we shouldn't link to this site. DJ Clayworth 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This page links to three fan forums. This has been discussed at length. Please make an effort, folksTyping monkey 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If one has to search for hidden indications of possible evidence, that does not meet the standard for verifiability. If Colbert promotes the site on his show, as he does with colbertnation, that would be incontrovertible proof. As a 'tribute' site it fails to meet the standard of relevance to Colbert the actor. Moreover, the site is full of ads & solicits visitors to pay money to subscribe. I'm beginning to suspect that you have a vested interest in this site ("still despised by Wikipedia" according to the tagline). Give it up.Ibis3 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no vested interest in the site. My only vested interest is in the Truth, sir. By the way, the slogan changes randomly. My personal favorite: 'As mostly true as most of Wikipedia'Typing monkey 18:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Origin of before it was its own site carrying the Alpha Squad 7 novel was a blog run by a character called Frank Witt. On one of Witt's old blog pages is a note about the current novel and a reference (this made in Jan 06) that more content was going up on the new site. The only impression one could have gotten from the Witt blog post (which interestingly redirects to Witt's newer blog after a matter of seconds) is that the site is a fan fiction site that relies on gullibility of users to believe that the online novel is actually written by Stephen Colbert. The site is therefore ripping people off in order to self fund itself and of course having a link on wikipedia would increase traffic to it. Call me cynical if you like but I really hate sites that cash in on a celebrity's popularity like this. I expect a rebuttal from typing monkey shortly but then he is a full member of that site.Kerojack, Argenta 05:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Old Blog the text is the same on both this page and the new site word for word. Kerojack, Argenta 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The same entry and a link to TekJansen as the blogger's own work can be seen on this more static blog, which clearly belongs to someone other than Stephen Colbert. --Snarkivist 06:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kerojack. That seems pretty incontrovertible. This link goes against the legal consideration mentioned in WP:EL: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." So to whomever keeps adding it: stop it!--Ibis3 12:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just a link to quoting the opening paragraph. pre-dates the blog entry. The argument has no merit. You might as well say it originated at monkey 01:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Idaho's Portugal?

It's oh so tempting to add in here that Stephen Colbert is Jon Stewart's Spiro Agnew... XSG 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, please don't. Somnabot 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course not; that would be vandalism. Still, I think it would be appreciated humor... XSG 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of "detournement"

I'm not sure the use of the word 'detournement' in the opening paragraph is technically correct. As the linked article makes clear, detournement is "similar to satirical parody, but employs more direct reuse or faithful mimicry of the original works rather than constructing a new work which merely alludes strongly to the original." The Colbert Report is certainly original satire and makes limited use of recontextualized media (i.e.: The Word segment, 'interview' with Tom Delay). Put another way: The Report is satire that occasionally utilizes the tactics of detournement, but is not itself detournement. Does that make sense to anyone else?

I was going to argue this a few days ago, but never got around to it. The Report is satirical, it's parody, but considering it's sometimes very exaggerated, and sometimes just entirely goofy, detournement really isn't the word, imho. I'd go with parody. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording to read satirical parody, though that might read as kind of redundant. Either way it's better than detournement, which is a pretty specific term, and not entirely correct in this context. --TM 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Colberrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundra X (talkcontribs)

  • Tagged for speedy deletion; please don't add made up stuff to WP. NawlinWiki 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, now it's an AFD, since its creator, User:Tundra X, removed the speedy tag w/o explanation. NawlinWiki 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Attention significant authors: GFDL violation on

Significant contributors to this and other Colbert-related articles should consider sending the host ( of and DMCA Takedown requests. The sites currently feature direct, unlicensed copies of Wikipedia content, including this article. Neither site complies with the GFDL. Because I am not a significant contributor, I cannot do this myself. --Davidstrauss 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to get into a virtual pissing contest, but is meant as both a parody site and a tribute to the Colbert Report. Most of the content that is based on Wikipedia articles has either been removed, or significantly altered in a satirical manner. I am neither a site administrator or it's owner, but for the most part, our intent is not malicious in any way, and we're simply trying to build something amusing and entertaining. I am, incidentally, speaking for, .net is not affiliated with us, so I cannot speak as to their intent. We have no desire to violate any copyright laws, though my understanding of fair use allows us to parody without consent, though we have no desire to create any animosity. We simply have an absent administrator, and have no offical to speak for the site. ~Comeback Shane! 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Parody is fair use. See Typing monkey 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions sought on enhanced(?) picture of Colbert

I've taken the first/main picture of Colbert in this article[1] and tried to enhance it a bit: [2]

I've blurred and slightly darkened the background to make Colbert stand out a bit, lightened him and fixed the colors. Overall, I think the result is a bit more presentable. But I'd like to hear other opinions before putting it in the article.

Thanks to Kelly Martin, btw, for the original photo. -- noosphere 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take the absence of comments on the enhanced pic to mean that no one cares. So I'll just be bold and replace the existing pic with the enhanced version. -- noosphere 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get a chance to say anything before! I think your version is definitely an improvement, Noosphere. The color correction in particular makes a big difference. Thanks for offering it. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) I'm glad you like it. -- noosphere 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert's Politics

On last night's show (Aug. 9), Colbert stated that he was an independent. I'm not sure if this was a joke of sorts, but we should reconsider the line under "personal life" that says he's a democrat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Uh that was Stephen Colbert (character)(Colbert in the show) not the real Colbert (the Colbert he is in real life). The democrat comment was actually said by Colbert himself in a non-TV context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdo01 (talkcontribs)
First, we can't be sure when to seperate character from real Colbert. We base a lot of information on what he says on his show, or from research conducted based on his comments on the show. Secondly, the comment was in Entertainment Weekley, an entertainment magazine not a source that would be considered reliable by most, if not all of the academic community--something like JAMA, USA Today, and even National Geographic. Furthermore, how can we be sure that he wasn't in character for the interview with the entertainment magazine? Lastly, I'm not sure of the exact date of the article, but it seems that its about 2 years old, as it refers to the DNC, and Colbert merely as a "Daily Show Correspondent." Values and opinions change in 2 years time. I'm not saying replace democrat with independent, I'm merely saying that we should remove the sentence altogether, as we can't be certain of his political beliefs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Just to add on, I'm not saying that certain sources shouldn't or can't be used when no other source is available. The Entertainment Weekley article was fine. All I'm saying is that based on last night's show, as well as the date of the article, reasonable doubt as to its current validity has been raised, and therefore we have a responsibility to remove information that we can't be 100% certain of. Of course, if someone can find a more current article, something post Daily Show, '04 election, etc., that can replace the old cource, that would be great.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
He is a Democrat. When Jon Stewart's wife, Tracey, gave birth to his son in 2004, before The Colbert Report had even been conceived, Colbert hosted The Daily Show as himself (while Stewart spent time with his wife and son). During the interview segment, he told the guest while trying to make a point, "Now, I'm a democrat..." If I remember correctly, I believe the segment originally aired on July 5, 2004.--Ryan! 21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And thats supposed to be more reliable than last night's episode of the Colbert Report? C'mon. . .I think that if Gdo01 has a problem with using the Colbert Report as a source, then using a 2 year old episode of the Daily Show is worse. And again, that was 2 years ago. Find a current RELIABLE source and I'll withdraw my objection.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I've changed my mind. Basing a party affiliation on a few words said years ago is not strong evidence. Even in that interview Colbert said he does not really like politics so he might be a disillusioned voter. If he firmly declares himself a Democrat again to any source then this should be put back.Gdo01 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The line called Colbert a "self-described Democrat". Colbert has repeatedly stated in multiple cited sources that he is plays a character on the Colbert Report, and a character with political views that differ from his own. So I don't think using older interviews -- including the Daily Show mention -- is less reliable than the Report at all. It seems like we have source enough to say he's a self-described Democrat -- considering he's said it twice, he isn't interviewed all that often, and we've had no evidence which indicates he's changed his party affiliation or political views since 2004. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand me, My point in quoting Stephen Colbert while he was hosting The Daily Show, as opposed to The Colbert Report, was that he plays a character on The Colbert Report, and that character's beliefs are different from his own. That should be obvious from the article itself, but you can hear Stephen Colbert, the real Stephen Colbert, discuss this here. When he described himself on The Daily Show, he was describing himself, not the character that was later conceived for The Colbert Report. Anytime Colbert describes his beliefs on The Colbert Report, it applies to Stephen Colbert (character), not this article. Other sources must be found. Like The Daily Show, Washington Post, and Entertainment Weekly.--Ryan! 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article cleary states, "Colbert hosts the show in-character as a blustery right-wing pundit." So anything he states on the show should be taken to be in-character, and not representative of Colbert's views. -- noosphere 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Proquest to the rescue. I've got a Washington Post article from last October in which Howard Kurtz speaks to Colbert, and Colbert says he's a Democrat. Along with the Entertainment Weekly interview, I think that should do. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 04:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That is as close to a reliable source as we're likely to get. The conversation here is reminiscent of those old ladies at the grocery store checkout stands who think that the National Enquirer is real.Michael Dorosh 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's real, I've seen it. Lot's of times. Of course they occasionally make factual errors such as a front page picture characterised as being a literal hole to hell from which more than a dozen demons emerged, on the freeway, which was in fact a hole in a city streeet through which a gas main had exploded. So I wouldn't vouch for their fact checking.User:Pedant 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The references to Colbert being a democrat and his support for Ned Lamont should be removed unitl sources can be found. The second of these statements is completely unsupported unless you count him having Lamont on his show.
I agree that the Lamont reference should be cited or be deleted but it is well established throught the two sources given (Washington Post and Entertainment Weekly) that Colbert is a Democrat.Gdo01 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I pulled this out of an recent article of New York [3], which had Colbert on the cover: "The politics of Colbert, the person, are more difficult to unravel—“I’m not a political person, and I certainly don’t have the answers,” is his refrain." Although definitely not conclusive I think it does make the point that Colbert, the person, does not designate himself as being an active member of the Democratic party. There is another section in this article that sheds a little more light on the politics of Colbert the person: "He loves Richard Nixon. He has a 1972 Nixon campaign poster on the wall of his office. He points at it and says, “He was so liberal! Look at what he was running on. He started the EPA. He opened China. He gave 18-year-olds the vote. His issues were education, drugs, women, minorities, youth involvement, ending the draft, and improving the environment. John Kerry couldn’t have run on this! What would I give for a Nixon?”" The politics of Colbert the person do not seem to fit into the two party system that America currently uses. Therefore the statement that he is a Democrat should be replaced with a statement that Colbert, the person, although "probably?" a liberal generally doesn't allign himself with either party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Except that Colbert is definitely aligned with a party; he has publicly stated that he is a Democrat repeatly, which has been cited in the article. He's said so in an interview with the Washington Post, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, and while speaking out-of-character on the Daily Show while filling in for Jon Stewart. Which is why the article says he's a self-described Democrat -- that's what he says he is, regardless of how political he is, or if his specific beliefs are private or hard to disentangle, or even if he's fond of Richard Nixon. Seperate issues. He says he's a Democrat, therefore he is a "self-described Democrat". -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Why is the anecdote about O'reilly calling for a boycott on the "personal life" section? While humorous, it really serves no purpose in a biography. Comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I was wondering this too. I have no idea why its there. I say delete and merge that paragraph with the one above it.Gdo01 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ban

The article has a link stating that Mr. Colbert is banned from Wikipedia because of his statements on his show, but the link is to a site off, a small sports-news site apparently. If he's banned from Wikipedia, we should link to the official statement of that within Wikipedia, if not, the claim should be withdrawn since it cannot be verified. --Wingsandsword 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. As I understand it, Stephen Colbert himself hasn't been banned; the account was blocked because it was the name of a well-known person and violated WP:U. He could have replied to Tawker's messages, confirmed it was him and had the account unblocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert encouraging vandalism

What exactly are the reasons for the exclusion of that information from the article? It may make Colbert look slightly bad, but if it is true and well-sourced, then I don't see any reason not to include it.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 09:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert has criticized many things on the show -- it's a parody news-opinion show. His joke about Wikipedia was funny, but not much more significant to his life and career than any other joke he's made. I don't have any problem with it making him look bad, it's just that whole thing was pretty minor in the context of Colbert's entire professional life. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert Bridge

I removed the section on this because his mention of this on the Colbert Report was a single throwaway joke, and not a significant point in his career. Unless the bridge actually winds up being named after him, it's not really relevant. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation Lee. The bridge vote stood at 1074 at the first announcement following his request to be voted for, then at the next announcement the vote count was as Stephen himself said at 23000 percent more than the original initial count. If the next time he mentions it the count is over 1,500,000 wouldn't that be a newsworthy item worth including? I agree that if the bridge does get named after him, then that fact should be entered in his wiki entry. Kerojack, Argenta 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If he winds up doing really, really well it might be relevant for the Colbert Report article. But considering that the poll is quite susceptible to multiple-voting, and that the Colbert Nation site gives explicit instructions on how to "stuff the ballot box" for Colbert, I'm not sure it's that relevant to his biography if he gets a lot of votes, but doesn't win. In that case, we're basically talking about a failed attempt to cheat in an obscure, Hungarian online poll. It's not really an index of his popularity or his influence with fans if he's handing out instructions on how to keep your computer voting hundreds of times while you're at work or asleep. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Lee, the latest count is nearly 2,500,000 votes cast. I would suggest that it is in an index of his popularity.Kerojack, Argenta 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a lot of votes. But my concern is that the number of votes cast is not a particularly good index of his popularity if there's no way of determining how many people actually cast those votes. 2,500,000 votes does not translate to 2,500,000 unique fans. Not only does the Colbert Nation site give explict instructions on how to run a macro to vote repeatedly, but the "No Fact Zone" fansite admits they're running scripts to keep voting, and I've found at least one other unrelated forum where someone's offering a python script available for download to vote for Colbert once every few seconds. I realize most Colbert fans are unlikely to go to this kind of effort, but it only takes a few people employing automated voting to really throw the numbers off -- hence the fishy-looking "Perl-Script hid" nomination, which earlier this week was in fourth place.
As far as the bridge goes, none of this really matters. As much as I hate to rain on anyone's parade, the results of the poll are not binding in any way. The site itself states that the final name will be determined by a group of govenment officials, who will consider the top three names in the poll but are also soliciting suggestions from local governments, cartographers, linguists and "other experts". Colbert is just having a bit of fun with his fans. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to access the vote page anymore. I get a 403 Forbidden error. Has the site been entirely shut down or have they started blocking access from US IP addresses to stop the ballot stuffing? 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the voting, it was initiated by Hungarian authorities, intended presumably for maintaing good connections between government and people. It was definitely not ment to be a popularity booster for some US showman, moreover not for a locally unknown one. (Note: Chuck Norris was nominated as a joke.) Colbert also made offending remarks on a historical hero, who he does not know about at all (he probably doesn't know where Hungary or even Europe is). I wonder how many Americans would find funny if Lincoln or Washington was called "asshole" in a foreign tv-show. Hungarians have a very good sense of humor but this type of American "humor" seems to be both repelling and pathetic. Okay, about voting: to vote further one must register, but final decision will be made by a local naming authority and stupid nominations like Chuck Norris, Stephen Colbert and alike will most likely be filtered out. So you best go and look for fun someplace else, guys.

Please stop abusing a Hungarian official webpage service. All suggested methods relating this published here are subject to report to local authorities. Wikipedia should act against web vandalism.

FYI to the above comment - the comment originally written by me that was deleted was not advocating web vandalism. It was instead pointing out a web site that was known to be spreading a "cheat" for the vote. I made no attempt to support or advocate this tactic. Nofactzone 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to last night's (September 6, 2006) show, Stephen Colbert Hid is currently leading with approx. 17,000,000 votes (7M more than the population of Hungary and something like 12M more than the nearest competetor). I think that that is noteworthy towards how popular Stephen is. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I know I'm unregistered here, but I am known on Wikia as Aiddat. The so called "International Society of Vandals" has said to have Mr. Colbert with them as a vandal. If he vandalized here, that might be true. But they seem pretty vain and wierd. So maybe not. -Aiddat or 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunday school

Guys seriously, this is most likely a joke. The Conan interview was all joking, and in the second linked article he says that he is merely a 'blogger with a camera and a comedic agenda' before he says he teaches Sunday School. Guys, seriously: the guy does not teach Sunday school. Get a fucking clue. It is part of his persona. At the very least a note should be put in indicating that it is possible that it is part of his persona. But everytimne I try some asshole deletes it, whatever happened to everyone contribute.

First, I would recommend proofreading any entry you make and signing all posts. That may be why your entries are deleted. Secondly, Colbert has mentioned in numerous articles about his faith and how he is an active, practicing Catholic. In an audio interview on NPR Fresh Air, he says "We're, you know, very devout and, you know, I still go to church and, you know, my children are being raised in the Catholic Church. And I was actually my daughters' catechist last year for First Communion, which was a great opportunity to speak very simply and plainly about your faith without anybody saying, `Yeah, but do you believe that stuff?' which happens a lot in what I do." In an article in the New York Times, he says "I have a wife who loves me, and I am oddly normative. I go to church. I would say that there would be plenty of Catholics in the world who would think of me as not that observant, but for the world I move in professionally, I seem monastic." Another reference for his Catholicism is an article published on where he states "I love my Church, and I'm a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals, who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the Church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That's totally different from the Word, the blood, the body and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth." So yes, he is seriously Catholic. - Nofactzone 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you Nofactzone. I added the additional reference to the TimeOut article when I re-added this information, because I thought it would help put the doubts to rest. It is not impossible to be a critic of the far right and still be a Sunday school teacher. There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that anything he says in an interview that's somewhat surprising is necessarilly a joke. Colbert's beliefs have been reported widely, and ours is not to second guess that. See also: Does Stephen Colbert teach Sunday School? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected! Thanks guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Actually, I digress. This is so depressing. If he's hardcore religious then he's.. just not the same. sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
It's unfortunate if that's all it takes for you to develop a negative outlook on somebody you like.

Especially since it's moreso a stereotype of religious people in general that seems to motivate your distaste. I would have hoped that seeing a all-around great guy and finding out that he was strongly religious (by his terms) would help to eliminate your negative feelings about people who take their faith seriously.--C.Logan 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd say that's pretty small-minded. Someone can have a sincere and deep faith without being a bad person, in any way, nor does it detract from his satire of those he sees as being corrupt or hypocritical. Indeed, it probably makes me admire him more, because he doesn't hold back from criticising those of the same religion to him when they're hypocritical or corrupt. BovineBeast 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd actually call him "hardcore religious", just faithful. He's still the same guy who ran the God Machine for all those months (years?). -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert's religiousness should be included in the article more.

A fine point here, though. "Sunday School teacher" is not an accurate term. The term is "catechist." Part of this is distinction is semantic, since Sunday School teachers are a duty in Protestant churches, not the Catholic Church. Part of this is pragmatic, since catechists can work on any day of the week, and not just on Sunday. So, while I sincerely wonder how much Mr. Colbert is a "practicing" Catholic, I don't doubt that he's a catechist, not a Sunday School teacher.

I'm sure that he used that term on Conan since it's the more standard term for a person who teaches religious classes to children--Conan himself might know what a "catechist" is, but the rest of the audience probably wouldn't. I always get blank looks when I use that word. Catholics don't have "sunday school" since children are expected to attend Mass, not attend classes during Mass. -- 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Funniest comedian ever... wtf

...I'm removing that line from the first sentence. --Shiaobundan 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's the 3rd funniest comedian, I'll add that soon ;)
-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Put the article up for Article Review

Article has got some issues, so if anyone is up to addressing them, they are layed out there. Judgesurreal777 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over your remarks, there are actually not two 'personal' sections -- there's a section about Colbert's personal life, and then a trivia section, which is subdivided into professional and personal trivia. There is too much trivia altogether, in my opinion; I've been trying to gradually whittle this down by migrating the relevant bits to the article proper, and removing the more "trivial" stuff, but it's hard to keep up. As for the "link farm" remark, I think that's a bit harsh (unless I am misunderstanding the term -- I always thought "link farm" implied reciprocal or profit-motivated linking). Most of the external links here are used as sources within the article, although I'll try and comb through this and remove the links which are listed twice -- been meaning to do that for a while, anyway. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant a lot of links :) Yeah, I figured Colberts popular enough that someone would fix it, so good for you Judgesurreal777 06:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good rationales; the strangers with candy and the daily show image need sources Judgesurreal777 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and to clarify, I was objecting that there was a Trivia section, not that it was too long. I was hoping that the information would be incorporated in the article and the excess trimmed away, just to be clear Judgesurreal777 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm no fan of trivia sections either, and was pretty much hoping I'd be able to gradually dissolve the section, too... but is there a specific policy or guideline about trivia sections? I dislike them generally, on the grounds that they sort of act as an invitation to add information that's not that relevant to the article, but I didn't think there was ever any consensus reached to say they can't be in articles. I've gone ahead and added a source for the Strangers with Candy image, although I didn't upload the Daily Show one, and am waiting for a reply from the original uploader regarding a source... otherwise I can replace it. Lastly, I've tried to trim down the link section, but I'm not sure I see the harm in the list of links being a bit long if the links are all either sources for the article or unique resources relevant to it, per WP:EL -- is there anything else specifically that should be removed? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, that's a good amount, but you should put a marker there that only essential external links should be added, so it doesn't grow back LOL. Looking better, I really do think your trivia info is for the most part good and belongs IN the article as opposed to hanging out in a trivia box. Judgesurreal777 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re arrange

How is that? That would put an end to my objections if it is acceptable. Judgesurreal777 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll probably rearrange a bit more soon, but I can work with that :) . It does look a lot cleaner without the trivia section. I still feel the Colbert Bridge thing is a rather minor incident more relevant for the Colbert Report article, or the one on the bridge itself. It's not really an "award" -- as a joke, he asked his fans to nominate him in a completely open online poll and to essentially cheat to land him in the top spot. They did, employing bots to help vote for Colbert at a rate of around 4000 votes an hour, and he wound up first on the website's listed results, but it still will have no effective impact on the name of the future bridge. The final name is not being determined by popular vote -- that's a just a misunderstanding among non-Hungarian-speakers. I can work with your changes though overall, so thanks. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV question: I need your opinion

This is the moron who has been trying to destroy Wikipedia on a large scale basis. I am of the opinion that the words 'moron' be used in the main page. What do you think? Is this an accurate factual assessment? Is this point of view accurate from an objective viewpoint given his ridiculous antis?

Perhaps you think I should leave those words out; perhaps you think he should be shot; what ever your opinion please write it below - what accurate word describes him, his behaviour, condemns it, while retaining a NPOV?

  • I normally don't use words this strong on a public forum but ... get a grip. He mentioned it two times, over a month ago, and has since moved on to inflict pain on other, more interesting sites (Hungarian bridge,, etc.). He's not "trying to destroy Wikipedia". He played a joke before he realized the awesome power that he has over members of the Colbert Nation. Now he has taken his joke elsewhere. All kidding aside, though, this is a factual page, and I do believe that the word "moron" is more subjective than objective, which is the main goal of Wikipedia, and is entirely too non-neutral to be included in this article. Nofactzone 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Anyone who really doesn't know that "moron" is a point of view is probably a moron themselves. ;) I think Colbert is very cleverly providing commentary on the nature of the internet - and its shortcomings. More power to him. From this POV he is clearly not a moron. Those who don't "get it", though, I have a different POV regarding.Michael DoroshTalk 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm absoluetly amazed at how many people believe his point had something to do with Wikipedia. It did not! His point was on the slimey "Truthiness" games of Dubya's admin: "Wikiality" embraced and practiced by our highest authorities and our 'chosen' representatives in the global arena. Get a grip indeed, and don't take clearly illustrative examples personally. --Renice 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is Stephen Colbert tampering with your precious Wikipedia? Get a fucking life.

It was not testing. "would lead" is correct.

"Lead" is pronounced LEED. "Led" is pronounced LED. "Would led" is terribly incorrect.

I don't think he officially won an Emmy for 2006 Daily Show writing.

The episode that I believe was submitted for all Daily Show categories was the Dick Cheney shooting incident episode. Whether it was because Colbert wasn't there to write for that one, or that weird union thing I believe Stewart mentioned at the 2005 Awards, I don't think he technically won an Emmy. Instead, I believe the Daily Show put his name in the video of nominated writers more as a shout-out and thanks for his work writing this year before he started The Report. Otherwise he would've gone on stage and gotten a trophy. If someone can source that he actually received an award instead of just being put in the video by The Daily Show despite the fact he didn't qualify, nevermind. But I'd like to see his Emmy wins cited. -- Viewdrix 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure here you go [4]. Its listed under "OUTSTANDING WRITING FOR A VARIETY, MUSIC OR COMEDY PROGRAM". He's listed as a writer along with Jon Stewart. He may not have truly written the episode submitted but officially he is listed as a writer for that episode. Gdo01 00:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The emmy went for all the the writers of The Daily Show that wrote episodes beetween october 2005 and july 2006. The clip was shown because they needed an example of why the show won.User:alfredosolis

He did win it, but do to some Writer's Guild of America policy he doesn't physically recieve the actual Emmy.
That is what happened in 2003 or 2004. He has received some physical Emmys; they're visible on the Colbert Report set. --Snarkivist 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"The name Colbert is both an Irish and a French surname."

This piece of information seems a bit useless, so I'm removing it. It's easy enough to run a person's surname through one of those free ancestry searches, but it's a bit misleading and a little overzealous to be including that kind of information in an article. Consider that, in this case, the name Colbert is exclusively French in terms of etymology, but in terms of nationality it's found all over Britain. 00:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Anyone think we need to semi-protect this article? I know that protection is only used to prevent in-progress vandalism and not future vandalism but the fact stands that this page was vandalized 8 times in the last 24 hours and continues to be one of the most vandalized articles I see. I know that this article does not bear the same importance in protecting as politician articles do but I at least want people's input on the matter.Gdo01 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be an OK idea. I found the last statement under the Strangers w/ Candy section quite questionable. "Steven is now working on a new sit com with Bill Cosby and Jaleel White. Jaleel White has been working with Steven on this sit com for quite some time now. There is still little known about the plot of the new series but it will be shown on the 2007 spring line-up on E!." Sounds fishy to me. Ya never know though.


I find it completely ridiculous and offensive that the Colbert article tends to disgard the importance of Wikipedia itself. This article is clearly missing the role of Wikipedia and its own ability to identify the metapsychicalencyclpoedian project it has created. The sandbox has become wet. Fix this article to show the role of Wikipedia or you are against the true freedom of the metapsychicalencyclopedian project in itself. Depositing itself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colbear (talkcontribs) .

what? --Makaristos 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Colbert on Wikipedia

I think we should have something on Colbert's satirization of Wikipedia, either in the Trivia section or as a section in itself.

Why? Colbert satirizing Wikipedia isn't an especially unusual or significant aspect of his life or work. Having a section on Colbert's Wikipedia jokes here would be like having a section on Colbert's Bill Gates jokes here; it's not an especially noteworthy aspect of his act or writing, and belongs more in brief mentioning on articles like the daughters of Colbert Report. -Silence 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"See Also" section gone

Could one of the page admins add back the "See Also" section to this entry? In the flurry of edits and vandalizations the past couple of days, these got deleted. Thanks! - Nofactzone 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just restored it. Looking through the history files, it seems to have been an honest mistake by Silence on 14:43, September 7, 2006 -Gdo01 03:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ga review

This article has been on the disputes page for awhile now, but apparently it was changed mid-review, and I dunno what to do with this. Can anyone give some input on WP:GA/R? Homestarmy 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)