Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Hungarian citizenship?!?!?

Is it just me, or was Stephen Colbert granted official Hungarian citizenship last night on the show?!?! Simonyi gave him a friggin' Hungarian passport!! K. Lastochka 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Simonyi also accepted that Colbert was fluent in Hungarian (though that really remains to be seen). Clearly, he'd need to have said more than he did to prove any kind of fluency (fluency which he probably doesn't have). My guess is that the passport is fake, the money is real, and that were Stephen to actually go and visit the site, he might not be fortunate enough to return to the States in one piece. Not if he really wants his own híd, anyway. Remember the whole death-clause? Phantasmbunny 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Simonyi assured Stephen that they could work around the death-clause. He invited Stephen to visit Budapest, check out the construction site and then they would go from there. Simonyi is in fact the REAL ambassador and thus I assume the official document was real, as for the passport who knows. BTW, does everybody in the United States know the word "híd" now?? K. Lastochka 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The latest rumour from Hungary's gossip rags is that they're going to name the bridge Kalber, which is a Hungarian traditional name (if I'm remembering the Anglicized spelling correctly), and pronounced almost identically to Colber(t).Loiosh 05:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know what the piece of music they play when they exit on the ambassador and Stephen? I assume it's Hungarian, or at least meant to be vaguely.

It is Ferenc Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody #2. :) Thanks for an excuse to watch that clip again btw--Andras Simonyi has GOT to be the coolest ambassador around. :) Oh--and Simonyi actually DID say the passport IS official! Good grief, Stephen Colbert is a Hungarian citizen. K. Lastochka 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

we'll see it on snopes by this time next year. You're all ignoring the huge fact that Simonyi gave a passport to Stephen Colbert the fictional news personality, not Stephen Colbert the comedian. That explains the 1978 birth date somewhat as well. It's probably invalid because fictional characters don't, uh, have passports -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

This is a very good article. I would support it's use as a featured article once the external link problem is cleaned up. It seems once you click on a link it doesn't allow you to link back to the article easily. Otherwise, the content and substance is very good.

BTW-- I think the page can be unprotected. Eight times in 24 hour is not that many compared to some of the other bio pages in Wiki.

Ramsquire 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Stephen Colbert

Just because he mentioned your site and various other internet fads on his show doesn't mean he's perfect. He deserves a criticisms section or page.

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

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

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

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

This might be a good place to start: [1]. It's a piece by the Wash Po's Richard Cohen that pretty well expresses my own feelings about Colbert, and is in response to one of Colbert's defining moments.OPen2737 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been in the article since it occured. Did you actually read the article?  ;-) /Blaxthos

There is no criticism section because there is nothing to critisize.

Why this article is still locked?

Wikipedia seriously needs to unlock the Stephen Colbert cite, everyone knows that WP is a frickin joke. And without Colbert in the first place, WP wouldn't be getting so much traffic and ad revenue, so why not let him have some fun and lighten up a bit. It's a frickin' website, not the end of the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we may have been wrong. The vandals may have already come back. This may be an ongoing problem similar to the RuneScape article. Unfortunately, I'd suggest a semi-protect. This is not something we can ignore. -Blackjack48 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I completely agree that there's substantial justification for semi-protection but there are drawbacks to that option. My opinion is that it's more important to show that vandalism is routine and manageable on WP; semi-protection shows that vandalism does have a powerful negative effect requiring severe measures. Yes, it's a nuissance to review all the edits made to the page and revert routinely but that's the case for many articles. It's actions like protecting this article that lead to cries of "omg colbert broke wikipedia lol elephants" and encourage people to continue vandalizing since they think it actually has an impact. But if it's troubling lots of editors I can see why it would be necessary to protect so I'm not vehemently opposed to that option either. --TM 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I agree, we can't give in to the vandals. -Blackjack48 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am unprotecting this article, as it has been semi-protected for 2 months. I'll be watching it closely and if excessive vandalism becomes a problem again, then I guess I'll have to re-protect it. I'm very uncomfortable with having an article protected for this long, however. —bbatsell ¿? 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that there has been no discussion that I can see on the lock on the article in 2 months, and was wondering if it still needs to be protected. Thanks! Whereizben 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External links being added by those who run the sites

I'm a bit uneasy with editors adding back external links to fan sites on this article which were removed by other editors... Why? Well it's clear that those adding the links back (Nofactzone (talk · contribs), Snarkivist (talk · contribs)) are the folk who run the sites: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

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

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

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

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

While there has been previous discussion on the article talk page it seems rather minimal... Might be worth looking at this again? Thanks/wangi 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

No fact Zone.net was deleted first; after I added it back in, both fan sites were deleted. I think we need to make some kind of decision about this...one site or the other should be included. --24.149.49.73 06:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Colbertnation is the official fan site. Why are we letting other fansites spam here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mensa?

Hey, it mentions that he is a member of Mensa. What's the source for this? I really want to satisfy my curiousity, too! Fairy Incognito 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Even Ste---en?

The article currently has an image of a segment it spells "Even Stevphen", while the Daily Show's 10 !@#$ing years video on its website currently spells the segment Even Stephven. I wasn't sure if they changed the spelling here and there or whatnot so I didn't want to change it myself. If it's a typo, I suggest correction TheHYPO 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

On the actual opening of Even Stepvhen they have the v behind the p and h - therefore shouldn't it be Even Stepvhen? I can't believe I'm arguing the point xD but still - just a thought... --143.167.233.7 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The name was indeed "Even StepVhen" and there's plenty of Google hits for it as well. MrBlondNYC 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen What Colbert?

Don't know if anyone caught this, but during Colbert's appearance on Comedy Central's Night of Too Many Stars, at one point it sounds as though he's referring to himself with a middle name other than "Tyrone". Unfortuately, it's hard to make out, but there's definitely something he says between "Stephen" and "Colbert", possibly beginning with a "K" sound... anyone have a better idea of what he may have been saying? Also, I sort of feel silly mentioning it at this point, since Tyrone has been in the article for so long, but what exactly was our source for "Tyrone", again? -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Wikiality

I tried adding a section to the article about Colbert's mock Wikipedia website, www.wikiality.com, but it was removed. Based on all of the controversy surrounding Wikipedia and Colbert, the site should be mentioned in the article.

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

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

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

Wikiality should be mentioned since it and Truthiness, which were both coined by Colbert, were nominated for words of the year. If the article mentions truthiness, then Wikiality should also be mentioned. And the wikiality site should be mentioned because Colbert included the web address on last night's show.

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

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

Not "This Week in God"

There's a section under "The Daily Show" heading where it states some of the memorable moments of "This Week in God" include a installment in which Stephen cracks up while discussing a Prince Charles scandal, when, in fact, the aforementioned discussion was not part of the "This Week in God" series. It was just a "live report from London" where he corresponded with Jon about not being able to talk about the scandal. I just watched it on Youtube here: [9] --4.253.28.225 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It says memorable reports from all of his reports. It in no way implies that all these reports were from "This Week in God" that is why the Singing Senators thing is there too. This also was not a "This Week in God" report. Gdo01 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The way the next sentence begins, it implies that the next examples are those of the "This Week in God" series though. Maybe it should be worded differently so as not to mislead. --4.253.28.225 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it better now? Gdo01 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about this part: "...and "This Week in God," a weekly report on topics in the news pertaining to religion, presented with the help of "The God Machine". Memorable reports include..." See how that makes it sound like "Memorable reports of "This Week in God" include..."? --4.253.28.225 01:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What else could it say? Stephen Colbert did reports for the Daily Show. "This Week in God" is not a report. The only other way I see of fixing this is to say "Besides his work these recurring segment, memorable reports include..." but that would be redundant and long winded. Gdo01 01:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could say "Some of Colbert's memorable correspondant reports for the show include..." in place of just the "Memorable reports include..." --4.253.28.225 01:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole idea certain reports being more memorable than others may be difficult to verify using reliable sources. Unless a source has actually commented on those reports specifically, this may need to be reworked in order to meet Verifability (or Attribution, or whatever). -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

But how could you really verify it? Saying something's memorable is basically just stating an opinion, albeit a widely agreed upon one. Maybe we could say those certain reports are memorable because they've been viewed online so many times. -- Ambero 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be original research. I suppose what I'm saying is we may not be able to call those segments "memorable" at all. As much as enjoyed the Prince Charles report, the fact that Colbert screwed up on camera and a lot of fans got a kick out of it is probably not encyclopedic, unless someone else has commented on it in a reliable source. I know that text has been in the article for a long time, but verifiability is policy, so it may have to go. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 21:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

But having those examples gives insight into why Stephen's so appreciated. Lot's of articles here talk about specific things people have done, just to kind of give an example of what they do. Stephen Colbert is known for being funny and making us laugh, the "memorable reports" are specific examples of him doing what he's known for, so they should stay in. -- Ambero 21:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples are fine, but we can't claim something is "memorable" without having a source that says so. Memorable is subjective. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we change just one word? Is it really that big of a deal? What else could it say? -- Ambero 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Single words can and do matter, particularly when they're the difference between stating a fact and an opinion. And by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. :) -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, fine. You do have a point. I wish it could sound more interesting though. I mean, the reason I checked those videos out on Youtube was because this very article said they were "Memorable" and that means they are worth watching, and it made me want to see them. If it just says they are "other" reports... Who cares? It's like, why are they even being mentioned? I'll tell you why! Because they are memorable! Not that anyone would know that NOW... -- Ambero 05:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

GA De-listing

After reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to de-list the article at this time from the GA list. I encourage the editors of this page to work on improving the article and addressing the concerns listed below. I also encourage the editors to consider resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

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

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

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

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

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

5. It is stable - Pass

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

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

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

I want to thank the editors for their hardwork and dedication to getting the article up this point. This article has a lot of positive merit and I, again, encourage the editors to continue improving the article and eventually resubmit it for GA consideration. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Another serious edit

Hopefully the concerns above are mostly addressed now. I've expanded the lead, prose-ified the other roles section, removed some of the fair-use images, and cleaned up or partially re-written number of sections. In the process, I added some references, juggled others, and pulled out a few statements we didn't have references for. I expanded the SWC section to include something about the critical response, although I might reword that a bit later, and nixed some of the "other roles" content that seemed irrelevant or very minor; also I added info to the early career section, which could still afford to be fleshed out a bit, I think. Fairly hefty changes, but I'm hoping to bring this up to A or FA-class eventually. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Renomination on hold

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

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

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

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

All in all, I really like the article. However, it seems as if there is too big of a rush to get this article a GA banner. The grammatical problems are a show stopper. I'm changing the nomination status on hold, but without some serious attention I think this it is still soon to approve. By all means, please ensure the previous reviewer's objections are also addressed. GA nominations may be on hold for seven days -- please notify my talk page with concerns, questions, or requests. I also dropped the WPBio rating to a B-class until this article actually becomes GA-class. /Blaxthos 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup 1

I would like to assist in cleaning up this article and getting it to GA-class, however I'm unsure if a GA reviewer can (ethically) actively edit the article... that would violate my ability to objectively evaluate the article. I will do some digging and find out what rules apply. If worse comes to worst, I can delist myself as the reviewer and resubmit the request. My only hesitation there is that the GA candidate list is usually fairly backed up, and I might feel like I was putting more work off on someone else. Will advise. /Blaxthos 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup 2

I have done some cleanup of several sections. I organized the colbert report section, as well as added some additional info and references on awards & accomplishments. I did an NPOV cleanup in the correspondants dinner section. I think this article is ready for GA status, but due to my contributions, I'm calling for another established editor (anyone who hasn't contributed significantly) to second my approval. There will not be notice of this on the WP:GA candidacy noticeboard, so anyone agreeing on this page will do, and I will elevate to GA. Opinions? /Blaxthos 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elevated to GA status

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

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

Pronunciation of "Colbert"

There have been a number of back-and-forth edits referring to the pronunciation of Colbert's name. Here is a quote from the cited Time article[10]

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

"Col-bear" is the correct pronunciation, but he jokes about changing it to "Col-bert" for himself to differentiate himself from his character. Please, no more reverts! -- Tim D 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

My dad always wanted to be Col-BEAR ... so (he) said to us, 'You can be anything you want.' And so we made a choice, and it's about half and half. The girls for the most part are like, 'Get over it, you're Colbert,' but I was so young when this choice was given to us, I think that if somebody woke me up in the middle of the night and slapped me across the face I'd still say Stephen Col-BEAR.

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

The name Colbert is ultimately French in origin (indeed, one of the main sections of the Louvre is called the Pavillon Colbert), although the name (and presumably the family) spread to Ireland via England. See, e.g., http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/genealogyjen-1097238/jlcd/id8.html, which states:

"COLBERT is said to be of French Huguenot origin, many Colbert families fled into exile many years ago and scattered themselves far and wide, indeed many settled in Ireland , where many Colbert's find they have historic links. To read more on Huguenot exiles visit the Huguenot Webring.

"However, COLBERT is also found in Southern Ireland in the 1400s, long before the Huguenot era. It is possible, that these families came from either England, France or Scotland. The COLBERT surname is well known in South Munster. This name is said to have come to Ireland from England. " I would suggest, therefore, that the text be modified to make it clear that, while Colbert's name is in fact (no joke) French, even though his family may be essentially Irish in origin. In any event, does anyone in fact know his family tree? Or could this be yet another Colbert joke about his past? It wouldn't be the first time a French name has been anglicized in the US, and I wouldn't put it past Colbert to make a joke about that. (I'm sure a fan can tell cite the episode where he insisted, to a Mexican-American guest, that he was not an immigrant French-Canadian but a "French-Frenchian") Ratufa 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and Semi-Protect

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

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

That was the funniest vandalism ever. People who do stuff like that are cool -- Ambero 02:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Credit Amy Sedaris in "Strangers with Candy" pic

hi, i just noticed she's not credited in the pic -- can this be done? it seems an odd little omission. thanks. -- Denstat 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Recurring Segments

Item: article was deleted. I am editor for colbert.wikia.com, I am now hosting said article. If you don't want to have it here, at least consider an external link to said article. Thank you. Kerojack, Argenta 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Everything Below is why you should look at Wikipedia for only shits and giggles, you can present anything in a serious enough tone and make it seem plausible, as long as the truthiness of the facts is vague.

Born in Washington D.C.?

In reference to this article: http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/winter2005/alumninews/close-ups/colbert.html "Colbert, 41, was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in South Carolina, the youngest of 11 children." Is this true? Or did this guy get his facts wrong? I thought he was born in South Carolina... --Fairy Incognito 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Ah, well he's said many times that he's from South Carolina, but not that he was born there. On Letterman, he said he "grew up" outside of Charleston...he also said in that same interview that his hometown is Charleston. Anyway, this all leads me to believe that he was probably born in North Carolina, not Washington D.C. But this article just confused me. Another question: do you happen to know when he got married? --Fairy Incognito 08:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, newbie here - under TDS, it says that Colbert won 4 Emmys, whereas under TCR it says that his "only Emmy" came in 2006. Can someone please investigate and clarify? As for where Colbert was born, the Northwestern alumni magazine reporter asked Colbert where he was born and that's where that comes from.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.95.94 (talk • contribs)

I don't have the specific date Colbert was married, but it would have been sometime between 1990 and 1995, if that helps you. His wife was a native of Charleston who grew up a few blocks away from him, but they didn't really know each other until they met again in 1989 while Colbert was visiting his family. Also, the text about Colbert's 2006 Daily Show Emmy says that it was his only win in 2006; he also recieved Emmys for the Daily Show in 2003, 2004 and 2005, but nothing for The Colbert Report so far. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Maxim's 10 Hottest News Anchors

I think that it should be mentioned that Stephen Colbert was listed #2 on the list of Maxim's 10 Hottest TV News Anchors. It may be trivial, but I believe that it would add to the comedy of his work. The link to the specific page is: http://maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?slideId=2514&imgCollectId=121 Sorry, I forgot to login, I'm TheChrisParker

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

Citation?

Can I get a citation for this, appearing on the first line? "Stephen Tyrone Colbert [...] is a [...] child panty sniffer [...]". I'm willing to give some benefit of doubt in that he may have jokingly described himself as such on his show or in an interview, though if I were a gambling man, I'd put money on this being a piece of vandalism. --ArcMonkey 75.22.226.144 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New York Magazine vs. New Yoker Magazine

In the Colbert Report section it says that "In May 2006, the New Yorker magazine listed Colbert (along with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show) as one of its top dozen influential persons in media.[39]" I was surprised to see the New Yorker had such lists. Foot note 39 says "^ The New Yorker Magazine's Most Influential People of 2006." However the link goes here: "http://nymag.com/news/features/influentials/16926/" which is clearly New York Magazine. So, could someone please fix this since it is locked.

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

Because he/she shouldn't have to.

Main Photo of Stephen Colbert is altered

I'm a graphic designer and have picked up on the fact that the main photo of Stephen Colbert is doctored, proof of this is the jagged edge around his face, the plain non-shadowed skin-tone on his face, the lack of shine on the left side of his face where the sun is coming down, the single-coloured flat tuxedo notch. and lighting near the top right of the notch. The photo isn't particularly good even if it were to be a true photo, I think it should be changed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.111.218 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 December 2006

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

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

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

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

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

Colbert wins "Word of the Year"

I wasn't sure if anyone had seen that Colbert's work Truthiness won "Word of the Year" honors. Is this worth adding to the main article? --Brownings 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Awards & Honors Section

I suggest we make a section specifically dedicated to Colbert's awards and honors... multiple Emmy awards, pulitzer prize (sp?), word of the year, etc... definitely should be a section instead of buried in his career section. It would help expand the article, too. Anyone wanna volunteer? /Blaxthos 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

...Contrary to my above comment on the word of the year inclusion, if there's a section like this, certainly put that in. -Boss1000 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't, yet, but I propose we create one and restructure the article accordingly. /Blaxthos 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. It was just a cut and paste (that's acceptable, right?). It was already grouped together, just without a definitive section. -Boss1000 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen was named breakout person of the year by Vh1's Big in '06 contest. I don't know if it's worth mentioning or it's a little too fangirl-obsessive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.35 (talk • contribs)

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

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

emmy awards... the show was nominated for four, but one was for best director. steven wasnt the director. jim hoskinson was. steven has won three emmys for his work on the daily show. Brendan19 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peabody

The Daily Show won Peabodies while he was there. Is he a Peabody winner or is he just joking? I dunno whether to put [[Category:Peabody Award winners]] on or not. Voretus^talk 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Colbert Nation link is wrong.

It's just http://colbertnation.com

(Couldn't edit it myself because this is a new account) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamboozler (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Catholic?

Colbert is listed as a "Roman Catholic entertainer" and "American Roman Catholic" in the category listings, but is he really a Catholic? From his satirical performances I would assume he only plays a demented Catholic and isn't really a Christian in real life. From the way he satirized Christianity one would doubt he is one. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Dungeons & Dragons is condemned by many different churches. I'm not sure the Catholic Church ever did. But it's a big church and some sects of it may have done so more recently, but not when COlbert was a child.nut-meg 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

tekjansen.com

Comedy Partners now has a copyright notice at the bottom right-hand corner of the page, when highlighted with the mouse. Typing monkey 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

How do you know it hasn't been there since the beginning? Nevertheless, when the copyright notice appeared is irrelevant. It's a public acknowledgment of copyright by Comedy Central. It displays original Comedy Central produced content, is maintained by Comedy Central, is related to Stephen Colbert, and belongs in the links section. Typing monkey 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been there for a while. The placement is suggestive of a copyright notice, but neither the word "copyright" nor the copyright symbol appear at all. The full (hidden) text is "2005 2006 Comedy Partners Rights Reserved". It's interesting, but it doesn’t prove anything, since anyone could just as easilly throw up a similar note on their own site. 70.110.107.121

What kind of "rights" do you suppose they are reserving? Typing monkey 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I removed the link again because It fits much better in either the character or the report articles... EnsRedShirt 11:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the site claims (vaguely) to be copyrighted by Comedy Central is no different from it claiming (vaguely) to be run by Colbert. No matter what they say or imply, no source officially connected to Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central has ever acknowledged the site, nor is there any reliable independent source that has suggested that the site is maintained by Comedy Central. In that regard, it's no different from this awesome site, which is apparently copyrighted by Comedy Partners too.

Seriously though, nothing has changed since the last time this came up; we still don't know, in any official capacity, who runs the site. Without knowing that, all that's there is a forum (our linking policy lists forums under "links to be avoided") and a bunch of very funny anonymously-written science fiction (pretty neat, but not a unique resource about the subject of the article, Stephen Colbert). Wikipedia isn't a link directory -- we try to include links when they're informative with regards to the subject of the article. The only thing Tekjansen.com really says about Colbert is that he may or may not have written the content on Tekjansen.com. If another source will independantly verify that, it will make for a fascinating link. Until then, it makes sense to wait. Bailey^(talk) 01:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The first cartoon was about Abraxxia. The novel at the site features a chapter about Abbraxia, which was published months before the cartoon aired. There is a Comedy Partners copyright notice on the front page of the site. There are Comedy Central ads all over the site, including video ads with current original content from Comedy Central. It really is a brick wall battle, some people won't believe anything unless they see it on television. Typing monkey 05:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone believes, though; it matters what can be demonstrated using reliable sources. The Abraxxia thing is interesting, but there's also a bit about Abraxxia on the Colbert Nation website, as well as the non-animated segments on the Report which aired much earlier than the cartoon. With regards to ads and copyright notices, I still think it's worth checking out this awesome site. Even if there's a case to be made for there being some connection between the site and the Colbert Report, the exact relationship remains a mystery -- there's been no official word about this one way or another, and press sources have completely ignored it. Per WP:RS Wikipedia doesn't engage in original research and per WP:NOT, Wikipedia does not break news. If the site is really Colbert's magnum opus, it will be reported by someone eventually. It doesn't hurt the article to wait until then. Bailey^(talk) 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Pantsman somebody or other has been vandalizing this page, replacing the entire thing with "He has recently admitted he is a homosexual."

First of all, I think your cool. Second, I think we might want to request that you be elected presedent.

Thoughts?

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

What makes you think it was an insult? ;) --Renice 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert and Stewart?

Just saw Colbert on O'reilly and I was wondering why he didn't have anything good to say about Stewart. He kept saying negative things about him and I am not sure why. Anyone have light to shed on this?

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

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

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

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

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

That interview between Bill O'rielly and Jon Stewart, Bill does indeed call the The Daily Show's viewers "Stone Slacker." Stewart doesn't really respond, I think O'rielly might have been trying to bait Stewart into an arguement or something, if it was a joke it wasn't very good. Stewart wasn't laughing. User:Hibbidyhai

It's really incredible how few people actualy understand what Steven Colbert and his writers run the show like. Look: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is obviously intended for a Democratic audience, and at first glance the Colbert Resport might seem as its Republican counter-part, but in reality, they're both Democratic. The Colbert Report and Steven's lines are written to be extremely Republican to expose the bad parts of that way of thought, whereas the Daily Show staff makes it straightforward liberal. In a nutshell: The Colbert Report is reverse psycology. How this ties in with the O'Reilly thing is that Steven was agreeing with him to expose him as an @$$hole, or so I strongly believe.

rm'ed self-reference

Removed:

In the January 24, 2007 episode, Colbert referred to Wikipedia in "The Word" section of his show by displaying "Wikipedia" as subtext for his statement that he could create a fact by posting something on a blog, having another blog link to it, and then validating that blog's reporting of the "fact" by referring to it on his show.

Per previous discussions, this is an article about Stephen Colbert the person, and while it's kind of interesting to Wikipedians when he mentions us, it's not really a notable event in the context of his career. The Report has had over 200 shows now, during which time he's made fun of a lot of things, which for the most part are not worth listing individually in this article.

By the same token, I feel the extra description of his O'Reilly interview (tacked on at the end of the "other roles" section, for some reason) would make more sense in the The Colbert Report article than this one. The two appearing on each others' shows was a notable Colbert Report moment, but pointing out specific jokes that Colbert made in one specific interview seems like going into a bit too much detail for a career overview. -- Bailey^(talk) 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

put this in

i want to put in your profile

Steven Colbert tells how it is, doesnt lie, and has no feer. He is famous from strangers with candy and the daily show with jon stawart. But since then hes become a inspiration for many. STEVEN COLBERT IS THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE (and funniest)> COLBERT/STEWART 2008! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amann32 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Funny. Now please leave and let the adults speak. And if you're serious, then I just do not know what to say , except that you are right and I want to marry you. The great kawa 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor change in first paragraph

Hi. The first paragraph of the page ends as, 'deadpan comedic delivery'. There is no such word as 'comedic', it should be 'comic'. Please make this change. Thanks.

Comedic is a word last I checked. Just type it into Google. The great kawa 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes dude, you are right. My dictionary didn't have an entry for comedic. Guess, I gotta update it. --Irfan 12:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i found this under whose line is it anyway in wikipedia= In addition, seven years before creating The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert took the fourth spot at a taping in the first season[12]

Self Proclomations and Achievements

Colbert has also:
1. Help spread the rumour of the elephant population tripling, by calling for his viewers to record the statement on Wikipedia.
2. Dubbed the phrase "Reality has to be contained" (I forget the exact phrasing he used), which he called viewers to again amend to the Wikipedia entry of 'reality'.
3. Has officially been granted an honorary day in his name in Oshawa, Canada, as the result of a wager held between himself and John Gray, the mayor of Oshawa. This day is remembered on March 20th, Mayor John Gray's birthday.^[1]

• ^[1] Reference: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070126/colbert_oshawa_070127/20070127?hub=Entertainment

Apologies on this being a 'weak' link, but the above information is hot off the press.

Dafdaf 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be in Stephen Colbert (character) not here. This is the comedian's real life article not the satirical pundit. Gdo01 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality

Stephen Colbert recently challenged someone as of the end of january 07 to post a check on reality and it was for sale and the first person to post that it was would gain 5$. Unfortunatly, the reality word is / was under construction. There for no money could be gained. As an avid support of Gaining Money, Colbert, And an oshawa generals fan looking for a little payback for the Pants (ps, he does look good in red and white), I tried to post a change. However I could not, as such, I will keep checking so that I may attempt to win the 5$. I posted to the Colbert definition in Wikipedia, however I'm not sure that reality was mentioned there either.

Nathan Duclos Nathanduclos@hotmail.com Oshawa Ontario, Canada

postscript, Is the 5$ in American or Canadian funds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanduclos (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Stephen Colbert Day

Can an admin please block changes to Stephen Colbert Day, as well? The vandalism is getting very more tiresome and stupid. Thanks Shawn in Montreal 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be mentioned about stephen colbert day? After the Saginaw Spirit beat the Oshawa generals? Also, don't forget the Saginaw Spirit named their mascot after him, 'Stephen Cobeagle the Eagle", AND got saginaw fans to throw General Motors quarter reports on the ice at the game he won his day on

I agree that Stephen Colbert Day should be mentioned - either in this article or in Stephen Colbert (character). I certainly expected to find it in one of those two places. CharacterZero | Speak 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilobbying

The Colbert/Wikipedia battle became more interesting with the overnight Wikilobbying battle last night. Does anyone know why this page was deleted? 21:25 January 30 2007

It could be the obvious self-promotion nature so as to be in the same spirit as Spam. Chivista 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But Colbert was not the only one to bring up the issue; he got it from the New York Times and other news sources. Colbert just named it. If companies are paying people to "fix" Wikipedia pages, as Microsoft is reported to be doing, than that merits its own page. There is no self-promotion involved, let alone spam. 21:55 January 30 2007.

It's a neologism. The short answer to your question is, "it violates Wikipedia's content guidelines." If someone wants to add a relevant section to Wikipedia, then it can be proposed and discussed over there. —bbatsell ¿? 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong protection template

Please change it from {{sprotected}} to {{protected}}. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality Page

Well, I tried to put your entry into the "reality" page but it was locked, Stephen. ;) VXVX 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

edit protected

{{editprotected}} I think Wikipedia in popular culture should be added to "see also". Bubba73 (talk), 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Leave me a message on my talk page if this turns out to be controversial. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of red links on the talk pages of people who joke on this page. It'd be helpful to WP:WARN them. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

fix link to god machine segment

whoever is locking this, please fix the link to this week in god, it should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Daily_Show_recurring_segments#This_Week_in_God --Jaibe 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed for "This Week in God." I also removed the link to the God Machine, as it would have been the exact same link. Any objections? --Kshieh 08:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyrone?!?!

This wiki introduces him as Stephen Tyrone Colbert. Is that REALLY his middle name? -Northridge01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Idiot. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia critic?

Isn't there something missing from this article? Something that starts with W- and ends with -ikipedia? Shouldn't the Wikipedia article on Stephen Colbert mention how he's probably the world's most prominent Wikipedia critic? Vidor 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's covered under The Colbert Report, and would fit more under Stephen Colbert (character), as it's satirical, sarcastic in-character praise rather than actual outspoken opinions by Colbert the actor. But where it is, reflecting that the show has ridiculed Wikipedia, including the writing staff and not just Colbert, seems right. -- Viewdrix 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that leads me to believe that the article Stephen Colbert (character) needs to be deleted, as it is entirely redundant with the "Colbert Report" article. But that's a separate topic. Still not convinced that the main bio page on Stephen Colbert should be silent about his Wikipedia issues. Vidor 06:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear where the real Colbert stands on Wikipedia. On the show, he's an actor reading a script. Granted, he's one of the writers of said script, but that still doesn't make him a critic. If you can cite some out of character criticism from Colbert than it might be appropriate. Without that, it's original research: you can't just assume that the real Colbert believes the exact opposite of everything that comes out of his character's mouth. For example, there was a segment on recently with Debra Dickerson, who claimed that while Barack Obama is African American, he's not black because he doesn't share the same background as most African Americans. Colbert-the-character took her to task on this point in the usual satirical way, but the overall impression I got from the interview was that Colbert the actor agreed with his character on the point, but for different reasons.

And aside from that, we can't very well add '_______ critic' categories for everything that has gotten a few mentions on his show, and giving more attention to the Wikipedia mentions than anything else feels like naval-gazing. I mean, this article doesn't even mention bears or Tek Janssen. -- Vary | Talk 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

S.C. listed as Firefox Contributor

An "award" of sorts, Stephen is credited in Firefox's About dialog. 207.229.164.50 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think its the same Colbert? Gdo01 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan Bakkedahl joins the Daily Show

I would add that Dan Bakkedahl joined the daily show after Mr. Colbert left the show - I hesitate to say "replaced" Mr. Colbert, but I think that would be a useful link in Colbert's main article.

Colbert did not leave the Daily Show. He appears as an adjunct to the show, continuing his relationship with it. 70.5.166.167 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Ice Cream not a Rumor =

And reference 62 should link to the message on the Ben and Jerry's official site (http://www.benjerry.com/features/americone_dream_index.cfm) rather than to a temporary link at Yahoo news.

Are you joking? The Ben and Jerry site you linked to links back to the Yahoo link already in the article. dposse 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Grand War

The term coined by Stephen Colbert that sums up the current ongoing wars that the USA is involved in, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the War on Terrorism. --Hanswaldenmaier 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So? If you want to add it to the article, you might want to see WP:N first. dposse 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

H2g2bob suggested a merge of this page and Stephen Colbert (character), but did not give a reason on the talk page. Anyone who knows of Stephen Colbert would know that merging these two does not make sense. It is similar to how Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character) both deserve two different pages as these are two different people. Stephen Colbert the actor and comic portrays Stephen Colbert the character, but they are in no way the same person. I removed the merge request. spirit 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They should not be merged. Matan 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The two shouldn't be merged as per spirit. --TM 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The two articles shouldn't be merged. dposse 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Republican or Democrat?

Which party is he? Republican or Democrat?70.149.79.61 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article that he is a self-described Democrat. Voretus 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He claims in the show to be a moderate or independant, however it is obvious that he is a conservative, most likely a registered republican 75.73.121.145 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Stephen Colbert the person, or Stephen Colbert the character that he plays on The Colbert Report? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Person. In the sho, he "IS A REBUBLICAN".

This article is about the actor, not the character he portrays. On the show, his character claims to be an independent, but it's obvious he's conservative (and probably Republican); this is also a parody of Bill O'Reilly. --Kshieh 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

His exact claim is "i'm a independent that is often mistaken for a republican"--Wilson 22:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fluent in Italian?

In his recent episode aired March 28th, 2007 he added Italy to his Axis of Evil and pretended to speak Italian. Obviously the first bit was for humor, and then he went on to speak several more lines without a translation.

Does anyone have any sources to suggest he speaks it, or is this a bit for the show? If so, a note can be added. Geral Corasjo 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph of this section - From The Economist

Hi! I removed the last paragraph of this section, which purports to be information from the economist. I removed it because I saw it as being unsourced, poorly formatted, and not encyclopedic. Asabanuevo put it back after I left a comment on her/his talk page about it. I don't agree with having it there, and will leave it for now with an unsourced tag, but if others can agree on what to do with it, then please let us do whatever is agreed on. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

How tall is he? --myselfalso 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Living American

Shouldn't the article mention that he's the greatest living American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.47 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 17 April 2007.

Only if it's fact, and Colbert scholars can prove it through facts using unbiased data and information. Since it's not (it's merely an opinion, in fact), then no, it shouldn't be here. You are, however, welcome to feel free to believe so, as it is your opinion, and no one can force/change your opinions. --6_xB 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Nice try with the remark, trying to pretend that you're me. Unfortunately, I noticed it right away. --6_xB 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Greatest Living American does redirect here, Perhaps some explanation should be given as to why. Goodolclint 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been rumored recentley that Colbert will be a popular write in for the up coming 2008 presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.222.149 (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound too unlikely, but probably won't happen. But we shall see -- I could be wrong. I for one wouldn't mind having Colbert in the White House. --6_xB 01:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

In the introduction, the following sentence should be clarified:

"Since its debut the series has been successful, earning Colbert four Emmy nominations and an invitation to perform as featured entertainer at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in its first year (2006), in addition to establishing itself as one of Comedy Central's highest rated series."

While I am pretty sure that the writer is referring to the show's first year in 2006, it sounds as if it was the WHCA Dinner's first year, which is obviously not the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeDog (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Colbert portraying foolish people

For the source for the assertion in the first paragraph that Colbert's routine is portraying opinionmaking fools, see his own assertion in the Onion interview:

AVC: Jon Stewart recently said he sees The Colbert Report as sort of a 30-minute Daily Show segment. Do you see it as an extension of The Daily Show?

SC: I sort of see The Daily Show as a 30-minute preamble. It's like an appetizer before you get to the main course.

AVC: Do you think the sensibility is pretty much the same?

SC: Absolutely. This is a direct extension of the work they did on The Daily Show, and it plays very much the same game as my character, who is a well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot.

The words I used are actually more restrained than Colbert's own. Larry Dunn 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Colbert's own words are hardly NPOV. It's not good to state them as fact. Voretus 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Colbert's the person who creates and performs the characters. He's a pretty good objective source as to whether they are foolish or not. Larry Dunn 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No he's not. He portrays an extremely right-wing person which, to the people he's trying to reach, seems like an idiot. I know plenty of conservatives in my area that don't "get" Colbert because they agree with a lot of the "foolish" stuff he says. Primary sources are RARELY objective. Voretus 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Colbert's characters are not satirical, and that he doesn't know what he's doing when he performs them? Because some of your friends find Moby Dick to be a science fiction novel does not mean it is one. Larry Dunn 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

spaces within cites

Someone (or some 'bot) has deleted all spaces within citations. This fucks up editing and diffing the article for everyone else. So, thanks, but no, thanks, stop it. --Lexein 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Nation

I think its worth mentioning about his unofficial website and also that if you type "Greatest Living America" in google you would get Stephen Colbert--Primetimeking 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert - Time's most influential man of 2007?

Time Magazine is running their "Most Influential" people this year and it looks like Stephen Colbert is actually on top, tied in rating with Nintendo founder Shigeru Miyamoto but coming out ahead due to the number of votes. Should this be included? Franck Drake 07:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not until he actually wins it. User:Hibbidyhai

Book

In the article, it states that Colbert is working on a book and the title has not been released. The title is "I Am America (And So Can You!)" and it is available on Amazon.com for pre-order. Annonymous April 29,2007

Religion

I think its worth mentioning that Stephen Colbert is a Catholic.--66.176.255.84 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Colbert's lop-sided ears...

Does this have anything to do with his deafness? --Starks 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. Apparently his eardrum was removed, and while making him lose hearing in that ear, also allowed him to do tha ear flip thing. I remember seeing a video on YouTube before, but I can't find it anymore. --Kshieh 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Stephen Colbert (Character)

I think in the "See Also" section, there should be a link to the "Stephen Colbert (character)" page, which I didn't know exhisted until I found it through another page. At the same time the "(character)" page could use a link back to the original Colbert page in its "See Also" section (thought that's less impotant as the link exists in the first line).

I realize there's a link under the "The Colbert Report" section, but its poorly labeled "in character". This should be rewritten, in addition to the link being added in the "See Also" section, so if you're looking for the link, it's obvious in that section and you don't have to go searching through the body of the article to find it.

This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29

Wadester16 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, its in the first line of the page right under the article name: "This article is about Stephen Colbert, the actor. For the character he portrays on The Colbert Report, see Stephen Colbert (character)." Something similar is in the character article. Gdo01 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)