Talk:Stephen Colbert (character)/Archive 1

message: I tagged the section Fictional biography of Stephen Colbert to be merged into Stephen Colbert (character). --waffle iron talk 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the bottom. The issue is not giving the character its own article. The issue is putting all of the character's info on this page instead of on the recurring elements page. Stop propogating the misunderstanding.Gdo01 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are also misunderstanding the proposal. It is asking to take the stuff out of the recurring info page and put it here where it belongs not the opposite. Gdo01 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Psst, this was resolved last year.  The Colbert Report Recurring Elements page no longer exists. ;) Shoemoney2night 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from [[The Colbert Report recurring elements]] 

message: The following sentence from the Biography section contains an error: "It's text parodies poorly written science fiction novels." The word "It's" should not contain an apostrophe.
User:ShadowHalo 00:42, 01 Aug 2006
:Done. —Ruud 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification to Protected Page 

message: :This was all a reference to Bill O'Reilly's claim to have been "in combat."
I quickly googled this passage and did not find and clicked on the Bill O'Reilly wiki page and ctrl f'd "combat" and did not find.  would like to read more on this if it is true. Lenn0r 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: A lot of facts in this bio aren't currently in this article. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A large problem is we may not be able to trust Stephen Colbert's truthiness, since that is his website. Then again, the majority of statements we know about him are from his own mouth. I think we need a detective to investigate the REAL Stephen Colbert and tell us the facts. He can't support a single thing he has said! This article should make note that all we know is what he has told us as supposedly truth, and what he has posted on the website as truth (if that's even his site!). I happen to think he is a Brazilian spy. Tyciol 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? Look, if the official website of a character says a fact is a fact, it's a fact.  --  Zanimum 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake bio 

message: How can this article not mention Colbert's obsession with Soledad O'Brien? Morgan695 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Soledad O'Brien? 

message: Is this an "in-character appearance," or just a momentary lapse from the "real Stephen?" (The Lake Effect 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Primetime Emmys appearance 

message: Stephen was added to :Category:Wikipedia critics by someone. While I'm sure this could be true, it sounds like him, can we make mention of it and supporting evidence (a quote preferred) in the article, so the category makes sense and doesn't confuse people, like me? Tyciol 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikiality. But no, that's not a valid category. It's a self-reference.  --  Zanimum 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedian critic? 

message: On the September 19 episode (#148), in the Threatdown, when he discussed Toby Keith (threat #4) in connection with Willie Nelson's arrest, he claimed to be a libertarian. "Now, I'm no fan of the loco-weed, but I'm a Libertarian. What you do on your bus is your own business. So let this be a warning to Merle Haggard. Toby Keith is out there and he is a squealer." OTOH, some of the positions he's taken (e.g. on wiretapping) don't seem to fit the libertarian philosophy.--Goldfndr 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm.
Several times on the earlier shows he's claimed that he is not a Republican but an Independant who is often mistaken for a Republican however he has never claimed he is a libertarian--Riraito 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian? 

message: Semi-fictional over fictional is more accurate.--Lamrock 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why semi-fictional? The real Stephen Colbert is nothing like this guy. Gdo01 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change intro 

message: One major oversight I see in this article is that it fails to mention that the Stephen Colbert character originated as a correspondent on The Daily Show.  I think this should be worked into the article for sure. AaronL 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of character 

message: "It appears that in the fictional reality of the Colbert Report, Kevin Spacey performs the acting roles that the real Colbert has done, such as Chuck Noblet in Strangers With Candy."
However in his recent interview with director Nora Ephron, they discussed in length about his role in Bewitched. Does this mean that the Stephen Colbert character does indeed perform some of the real Colbert's roles, or is this a continuity error? - The Lake Effect 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a continuity error. Its hard to maintain a fictional account of what "actually" happened and it was probably just a one time joke. Gdo01 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less work for Kevin Spacey 

message: I don't know if it's information worth adding, but I noticed there was no reference to the fact that he pronounces the word report "repore," much like the way the character's last name is pronounced.  meh.
71.115.1.133 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  worth mentioning? 

message: Currently, where the article talks about Colbert telling users to vandalize Wikipedia, the word vandalize is a link to the elephant talk page.  Is there a reason this is the case?  I imagine it should go to something about Wiki vandalism.  Oren0 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia vandalism? 

message: In this section, it is claimed that the Tek Janson 'novel' is probably a reference to Those Who Trespass by Bill O'Reilly. A footnote is included, which leads to this page, is included as evidence. Going to that page, I see no mention of Tek Janson or Those Who Trespass. O'reilly is mentioned, but the reference is about inspiration for Colbert's character, not his character's fictional books. I'm going to delete the claim that Tek Janson is inspired by Those Who Trespass until better evidence can be found. I remember hearing that Colbert is a fan of genre fiction, so it seems more likely to me that he's simply poking fun at his own tastes in fiction. GutterMonkey 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stephen Colbert" as an "author" 

message: "Using his real name (with a slightly altered pronunciation with silent t) and keeping his appearance unaltered" - this is incorrect.  Although Stephen occasionally jokes that his character is Colbert (with the silent t pronunciation) and he's ColberT (with the hard t), he has stated numerous times that he pronounces his own name with a silent t and has done so since he was in college.
220.237.33.194 09:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Stephen's Name 

message: So it has become obvious that Colbert has had a great effect on the history of this website, counting elephants, reality and commodities, wikilobbying, etc.  However, since editing has been disabled and due to mass warnings and bans, it is...daunting to even mention these things.  So is the phenomenon, in fact, unmentionable?  The whole (wikilobbying and wikiality especially) reminds me of a quote about the history of yesterday being written by those with the best nerve gas of today.  If anyone knows the proper quote and/or the source, I would greatly appreciate a correction.
----Maskless
(edit-add sig) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maskless (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmentionables? 

message: In the fourth paragraph of "Views" starting from "name things after him and to" edit the remaining to read:  "edit Wikipedia in the spirit of Truthiness according to his dictates."  The current use of "vandalize" is POV and subjective.
:That's a tricky one, and I personally don't feel I should accept or reject this particular request without some discussion. Whether or not it's vandalism in terms of Wikipedia policy seems to be moot, since discussing it in that sense would be a pretty dirty self-reference. So, we should head on over to a more common definition of vandalism (on Wikipedia, on Wikitionary) -- the easiest example being, "If Colbert asked people to spray paint 'Reality is commodity' on walls all over the city of Chicago, would that be 'vandalism'?" Luna Santin 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected the page, hopefully vandalism isn't going to be too much of an issue, anymore. Luna Santin 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EditProtected 

message: The intro should have a period at the end.
: Done. Luna Santin 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  period 

message: Sure, these can be picked out of the various episodes along with the other clearly specious things he says. But the problem here is that he shades into being annoying. So this goes both ways. Just create a new page (I volunteer to start) with a bullet list (with absolute factual honesty and cites provided) the dates and times Stephen has asked Wikipedia to be messed with. If a new one goes down on the list each time he does it, I guarantee that will serve as our gentle "wag of the finger", and the negative feedback will start to work its gentle magic. Once or twice is funny, a bit like Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book!. But a good joke is not repeated too often, and a list of times it's BEEN repeated starts to stale it pretty well. Colbert will get the message. Yeah, at first it was funny and it was topical and it had a point. But it's been done. Done to death. SBHarris 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. It was my suggestion, but perhaps you're right and this is yet another case where wisdom lies in doing nothing. Colbert. Iran. North Korea. In retrospect, Iraq... SBHarris 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Sigh. I'm with you in wishing there was something we could do, though... -- Bailey(talk) 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a page which simply lists Colbert's requests to vandalize Wikipedia? 

message: I removed the line from the intro stating that Colbert the character pronounces his name differently than Colbert-the-actor. Just so ya'll know, that's actually untrue.  Both Colberts use the pronunciation with the silent T.  This is mentioned in this article and this one, as well as being the evidenced in several out-of-character TV and radio interviews (such as the 60 minutes interview, and the three interviews with NPR). He also goes by Col-BARE in the  Strangers with Candy DVD commentary, which was recorded long before The Colbert Report was ever dreamed of. Col-BARE is absolutely and certainly the correct way to pronounce the actor's name, as confirmed by many outside sources, with none that I know of contradicting this, so let's try to avoid repeating the common misbelief that Colbert is the character only.  -- Bailey(talk) 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Colbert's name 

message: This section states that the fictional Colbert is married and has three kids. Where did this come from? I've never heard him reference this fact, and it seems out of line with his obsessions over Soledad O'Brian, his ex-girlfriend Charlene, and his "son" Stephen Jr. -Captain Crawdad 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, none of those things rule out being married. The only concrete thing I remember is when Colbert was kissed by Jane Fonda, he said something along the lines of having to explain it to his wife. Gdo01 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The character did mention in one episode that he had fifteen children - "little Mary and Stephens 1 through 14". 11:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Similarities to the real Colbert" 

message: Does anyone else think Tek Jansen should have its own page?
--Chin Man2 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tek Jansen redirecting here? 

message: If this is an article about the fictional character Stephen Colbert, then the article does not need to use phrases like "the Colbert character."  It should be understood that whenever Stephen Colbert is mentioned, it is the fictional Colbert that is referred to, unless explicitly mentioned otherwise.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turnerjer (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's written from an out of universe perspective, if we don't differntiate the two we could be risking confusion. EnsRedShirt 11:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion between writer/actor/TV star Stephen Colbert and fictional TV host Stephen Colbert can be addressed with cross-references and disambiguation pages.  But within the article, I think the editorial voice should treat Stephen Colbert *exactly* as a fictional character, and ignore the coincidence of names between the two entries.
Turnerjer 11:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why refer to him as "the Colbert character"? 

message: I removed the  tag, please see Stephen Colbert talk for discussion.  Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed mergeto 

message: Why did someone delete my bit saying that O'Reilley said Colbert is always in character?
the TRUTH 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: This entire article is based on the false premise that colbert's statements are reliable sources about himself.  There is no canon, though, or facts of the universe like in Star Wars, many of these were just one-off statements made as a joke.  The gaps in between are filled by original research.  Unless this article can become something other than a compilation of jokes, it belongs on Wikiality, not Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  false consistency 

message: It is implied on many occasions that the Stephen Colbert character is a homosexual, whose strict Christian upbringing and right-wing views are forcing him to repress his homosexual urges.  As this is a big ongoing joke, not to mention a huge subconscious motivator for the character (I.E. internal psychological conflict is what makes a personality, at insofar as a good fictional personality goes, at least).  But this dosn't seem to be mentioned at all, in the article.--Dark Green 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd argue that the Jane Fonda interview was very much out of character. 220.237.40.198 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality gag 

message: I've flagged the article for clean-up. The character is fictional and the article needs to be re-written in-universe as such. Also, the "fictional elements" section needs to be expanded to demonstrate the differences between the actor and the character better. The data on the character's phobia of bears being inspired by a real nightmare would be a good example. Also, the views and personal life section repeat some information and both read like an indiscriminate collection of facts and character attributes. Also, some of the statements (his Google searches, werewolves) are not needed and unsourced, and other data would fit into the "Recurring Themes" part of The Colbert Report than here. The Clawed One 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: :Image:Colbert iPhone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Colbert iPhone.jpg 

message: It's been an entire month, and little to no improvement has been made to the article since I tagged it. It really needs to be discussed if this article has any potential for clean-up. It needs more sources, to be written in an out-of-universe style as it is about a fictional character. Right now, the page reads like a list of random jokes made on the show and not like a biography of a person, real or fictional.
Unless someone can begin a serious clean-up effort soon, I think this article either needs to be redirected, or nominated for deletion. The Clawed One 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should make those improvements if you feel strongly about it and forget trying to redirect without consensus because it will be reverted quickly simply because it is a list of random jokes. Sorry for the bad news. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the article should be allowed to exist because it's a list of jokes? The Clawed One 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that people have an affection to the article because it's amusing which, in turn, makes them reluctant to delete it. That can be extended to say that every person who watches The Colbert Report's brain will be rewired through positive reinforcement (i.e. laughter) to protect Stephen Colbert and related articles. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. That's agreed. I love the Colbert Report, but I have to realize that just because I favor a article's subject doesn't mean it's a good one. If they realize it or not, people are taking the Report's side. People are willing to contribute to this page and that is great, it really is. They just aren't contributing in the right way. And while I would like to rewrite this page I sadly don't have the sources nor the time to do so. Right now there are users out there that could really increase that quality of this page and bring it up to a much higher quality. But for whatever reason, they aren't. The Clawed One 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No time and no sources are the same reasons that I don't edit the article right now and I noticed that when I edited the article once that I didn't bother to even think about adding references. Maybe I'll find time to make the necessary edits tomorrow, goodnight. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 04:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've deleted a lot of the jokes and random little shout-outs, cleaned up some of the references and expanded on the fictional elements section.  There's still a lot that needs to be attended to, but it's a start. 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Under "fictional elements", the article says "He blogged as NotStephenColbert on Daily Kos.".  Is it fictional that he has blogged on Daily Kos as NotStephenColbert?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can gather (and I haven't seen the most recent episode yet), the real Colbert did make a post on Daily Kos here, in character, as "notstephencolbert".  Whether that makes it relevant to the "fictional elements" section, I'm not quite sure. 220.237.40.198 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is true then it doesn't seem to me that it should be under "fictioal elements".  Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional elements/daily Kos 

message: Why was (Pronounced "Coal-Bear") removed from the beginning of the article? It accompanied the correct IPA pronunciation. An informal English as well as IPA pronunciation still appears in the Stephen Colbert article. 24.177.0.152 03:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coal-Bear 

message: What is the correct spelling of the name of his World of Warcraft character? 71.89.8.194 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World of Warcraft 

message: This page reminds me of arguments about Spongebob Squarepants canon. Did anyone see that advertisement for Sarah Silverman's program where she talked about how people mistake her for Sarah Silverman the character etc etc? Or when Jeff Garlin said not to take anything on Wikipedia seriously because we write down every single word said on The Daily Show? They're making fun of Wikipedia! WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY MEAN??? ... oh, right, WP:BIAS. Forget I said anything. Nualran 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there isn't justification for this article go read the responses to the article's two AFDs. If you think the only reason we have an article on the Colbert character is because of political bias then I'm not sure how to respond since I'm not sure if that's serious, but again, you'll find ample reasons to keep the article in the aforementioned discussions. First, since you do not discuss or propose a merge at all I'm removing that tag. Second, since apparently your only reasons for tagging the article with the unencyclopedic tag is "omg Wikipedia is being made fun of" (and by the way only one of your examples could be interpreted as a slight at Wikipedia so you're really reaching to make a point which is pretty weak) and crying bias I'm removing that tag as well. Just go read the archived AFDs and if you still have issue with the article, come back and properly propose an AFD or a merge. --TM 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because I did read the past discussion and was shocked. But okay then, I'm formally requesting/suggesting a merge. Nualran 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't see why you think this should be merged. Could you please explain your reasoning more clearly without resorting to CAPSLOCK, references adverts that non-americans won't have seen, and linking to tedious definition pages of wikiprojects? mattbuck 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Right now, I'm failing to see why this article deserves to be merged.  "Stephen Colbert" is as much a character as any you'll find on TV.  Yes, his history isn't rigidly adhered to - this is acknowledged in the article - but his personality is distinct and significant, because it's the filter through which everything on the Report and his other in-character performances are viewed.  As for the bias claim, well, the character and the show may have their own bias (not that they've ever made any pretense of being otherwise), but how does that make this article biased? I'm sorry, I'm really not understanding your argument.  Shoemoney2night 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously, it's been a month.  Does anybody have some coherent argument in favour of merging this article? Shoemoney2night 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the template for now because of that. If someone wants to have a real discussion about a merger, feel free to start one. But currently it looks like there is no actual demand. --SoWhy Talk 12:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-you tee eff 

message: During tonight's show Colbert stated that his cell phone's land line goes "all the way back to Connecticut." Does this mean his character lives in Connecticut? It makes sense. A lot of New York conservatives live there for tax and political reasons. I might be wrong, and this is probably speculation and/or original research. Mac OS X 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't seen the episode, so couldn't say.  However, a lot of the details about the character's personal life do tend to be adapted depending on the joke (in another episode he said he lived in an all-white gated community called Spurning Pines), so I'd take it with a grain of salt, personally. Shoemoney2night 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently residing in Connecticut? 

message: "Colbert demanded one of his staff members subject him to simulated waterboarding, only to break down into pleas for mercy upon hearing a water bottle cap popped." --85.92.166.251 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: November 13, '06. :) Shoemoney2night 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know which Colbert Report episode this refers to? 

message: I deleted "and less on concrete facts.", referring to Bill O'Reilly's show, from the "Non-fictional Elements" paragraph.  The sentence now reads : "Parodying personality-driven political pundit programs such as Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, The Colbert Report is largely centered on the personal views of its host."
I'm not defending O'Reilly, but the statement "less on concrete facts" does not contribute to the sentence(and even seems awkward) and is a statement of derogatory opinion, thereby reducing the professionalism of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, while it's an opinion I'm certain many of us agree with, that phrase was pretty POV.  --Jaysweet 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: When filling out the forms for the South Carolina primary on the 10/17 episode, Colbert claimed his middle name to be "Tiberius."  I'm reluctant to put this in the opening for the article, as he's certainly much better known without it, but this information should be included somewhere. Ideas? Slurms MacKenzie 05:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I would question whether it rates a mention.  If it is included, however, I would point out that Stephen has also used his real middle name (Tyrone) on several occasions while in character. Shoemoney2night 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got a message from BlastOButter42 saying that it shouldn't be in there (I will admit, I wasn't logged in at the time), saying, "the one you made to Stephen Colbert (character), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed."  I stand by my assertation that the character's middle name is Tiberius (for the time being at least), and as such am reinserting it in the character name.  If anyone has a problem with that, that's fine, but he openly stated it on the show, while in character.  This shouldn't be a huge issue.Shrekums 06:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  First of all, I'd question whether what may or may not be a one-time joke rates a mention in the page intro, but more importantly, Stephen has made conflicting statements while in character regarding his middle name - on more than one occasion he has stated it to be Tyrone.  I have moved the middle name information to the fictional bio section. Shoemoney2night 06:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but can we at least agree on the T?  Also, should there be any reference to the fact that he is Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A.?  I would not mention it in the real-life Colbert, but the character is oftentimes fond of calling himself that.Shrekums 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, there was never any contention over the "T".  He is introduced as "Stephen T. Colbert" in his bio and there is a sentence there outlining the conflicting claims with regard to his middle name.  I don't think there's any point in using "Stephen T. Colbert" in the page intro seeing as the character is most commonly known and referred to as "Stephen Colbert".  There's already a reference to his honourary degree and his use of the title in the non-fictional elements section. Shoemoney2night 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy dogpoo, I'm tired of this edit war.  I guess we'll take it out because even though every other single article talking about a person or character on Wikipedia starts off by mentioning the middle name, I guess it can't be done here.  What should be a fun little piece of work for people to do on here is now tedious, so congratulations.Shrekums 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to spoil anybody's fun.  Look, I've explained my reasoning; if everybody else disagrees with me, I'd go with them. Shoemoney2night 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Name 

message: I've added a section for it. 132.205.99.122 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert for President 

message: I removed a sentence stating that Colbert's prescription pill addiction is obviously an allusion to Rush Limbaugh's addiction.  Chances are it is correct, but Colbert has not mentioned it as such, and it therefore qualifies as mere speculation that this is the influence.Shrekums 22:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think I've heard him make the comparison in an NPR interview, I might try and hunt it down. Shoemoney2night 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allusions to Limbaugh Influences 

message: Given the great deal of his personality and life given in the book, perhaps we should create a new section here for aspects of the character told in the book but not on the show. The Clawed One 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started listening to the audiobook, but it lacked the punch of the studio version. I need to get a real copy. Damn imports. mattbuck 08:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Am America (And So Can You!) 

message: :Image:Colbertoreilly.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Colbertoreilly.jpg 

message: Isn't the real Stephen Colbert running for President, not the character Stephen Colbert? If so, we need not mention Stephen Colbert's presidential bid in an article about Stephen Colbert (the character). This would be like talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger's governorship in an article about the terminator. Sancho 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty clear that the character Stephen Colbert is running, and not the comedian.  All of his "campaigning" thus far has been in character and, out of character, he's stated that it's a joke. Shoemoney2night 00:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't enter a campaign as a character though... when you register, you have to use your own name. Just because in this case the real person wants to act unreal during their campaign, this doesn't mean that the real person isn't running. Sancho 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If he gets on the ballot, there won't be (character) in brackets like this article. The Clawed One 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the question was whether or not Stephen's presidential bid warranted a mention in this article.  As he's running in character and the campaign seems to be an important milestone for Stephen-the-character, I guess I'm saying, it's not really something that can be left out. Shoemoney2night 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character vs person 

message: I've been working on the development and inspirations section a bit and this occurred to me the other day, but I wasn't sure how noteworthy it was:  In an NPR interview in 2003, discussing the book Wigfield (which he co-wrote with Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello), Stephen compared the lead character, self-aggrandising journalist Russell Hokes (whose voice he also provided in the audiobook and a number of live performances), to that of his Daily Show character, only "more extreme, more self-involved".  Worth mentioning, or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemoney2night (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Manifestations - Wigfield 

message: Isee no reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. This should not belong in here and it is essentially just what the comedian acts like on stage. Does that matter at all?!?!?!?!?! The only reason it is still here because of the manipulation Colbert and his fanatics do to ensure wiki articles concerning COlbert are in the worst shape ever. - Bigvinu 11-5-07  —Preceding comment was added at 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this Page! 

message: What constitutes a special performance?  Are we talking about events at which Stephen Colbert the character has made an appearance, or Stephen Colbert the performer?  I'm asking mainly because three of the four special performances listed were either partially (FSU and Knox College) or entirely (Harvard) out-of-character, whereas other in-character appearances that come to mind (Night of Too Many Stars, 2006 and 2007 Emmys, O'Reilly interview, Meet the Press) aren't mentioned. Shoemoney2night 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as this is an article about Stephen the character as opposed to Stephen the actor, I've deleted the OOC appearances and added a more complete list of IC appearances.  I'm wondering, though, if maybe "special performance" isn't the best way of describing them.  Tell me if I'm being pedantic, but it seems to me Stephen Colbert is the performer, not Stephen Colbert (character).  Perhaps something like "Other appearances" would be a better fit? Shoemoney2night 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Performances 

message: The character's made at least a couple of cameos in other media - for instance, in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #15, in which he briefly appeared to put Peter Parker on notice for being a bleeding-heart liberal.  Is this kind of thing worth mentioning or is it too trivial, do you think? Shoemoney2night 00:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameos in other media 

message: :Stephen Colbert (pronounced /koʊlˈbɛər/) is a fictional character created and portrayed by political satirist Stephen Colbert
Bob Jones is a character played by Bob Jones. - this wording needs some clarity. The entire first paragraph goes by and there is no explaination of how the two relate. I am changing the intro around a little to make clear who and what this article is describing. TheHYPO (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Para: 

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of December 19, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Article is well written, in clear and understandable language.  However, could use some proof-reading to avoid in-universe wording in certain places.
:2. Factually accurate?: Questionable use of sources, some should be removed, moved to External links section, or replaced.  Examples include: Original research - overuse of citing episodes themselves, citing Ebay.com site directly as opposed to use of a secondary source,
:: Done. Removed direct eBay links and some primary source references; added more secondary sources.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough, though there are some subsection which are way too small and should be merged with other subsections: Other manifestations, Colbert as an interviewer, to name two.
:: Done. Merged the former and I Am America into a single Books subsection.  Merged the latter into The Colbert Report.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be neutrally worded.
:5. Article stability? Article is stable, though there is some anon-ip edit concerns as well as vandalism that editors should be mindful of going forward.  Talk page discussion appears civil, last AfD closed as Keep over a month ago.
:6. Images?: Too many fair-use images (6) are used, when free-use images could be obtained instead.  Of the fair use images used, some have good fair use rationales, others could be more detailed.  Some are in violation because they do not clearly spell out why the images are fair-use in this article, as opposed to other Colbert-related articles.
:: Done. Removed some fair-use images; updated the fair use rationales of those remaining. I've been looking for some appropriate free-use images, but so far can only find photos of Colbert out of character, which seem inappropriate for this article.  I'm open to ideas, though.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review.  I'm in the process of addressing these issues now. Shoemoney2night (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination on hold 

message: *Thanks for doing so well addressing the points I had raised, above.  I will now pass this article as a WP:GA, and make the necessary talk page adjustments and listings.  Great work!  Cirt (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review Passed 

message: *
:This source could be used to add stuff to the article.  Cirt (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gorlock bit was hilarious, but as a one-off joke I don't know how relevant it is.  A lot of details about the character's history and personal affairs tend to be made up on the fly or changed around for the purpose of a punchline or a lead-in to discussion of a current issue - in this case, the stock market plunge.  Since the show's all about what the character cares about, Stephen has to have some kind of personal interest in the issue for it to be brought up, hence Gorlock. Shoemoney2night (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investment adviser, Gorlock 

message: I think some mention ought to be made of the fact that he steps out of character during his interviews. The quoted assertion that he improvises during the interviews may support this as well. While a fundamental aspect of the character is that of being an-idiot-who-doesn't-know-it, his ability to debate with a polemical command of ideas and philosophy creates an inherent contradiction which the guest cannot overcome without s/he, too, breaking out of character ie debating a character who exists beyond the bounds of the constructed comic persona. --P00r (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: Since Colbert's had this feud with Rain now for a year straight and considering it will probably continue into the next Time online poll...  I think it's worth mentioning in the article.  It's something he frequently mentions on the show these days.66.229.89.202 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rain 

message: his father was a turd miner and his grandfather was a goat-ball-licker should be mentioned in his biography? Serendipodous 07:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an hilarious segment, but it was also a one-off joke with little bearing on the character.  I don't think it's relevant. Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Half the stuff in this biography are one-off jokes. That, for instance, his family was so devout that they sent him to an exorcism day-camp does help define the character more specifically than he was in The Daily Show days, but it wasn't brought up any more often, and I argue that the turd miner/goat-ball licker is a much more famous segment since it came out of the 2004 DNC and has been on the Indecision 2004 DVD for a few years. I'm gonna add it if no one really minds. -- 24.226.109.134 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That, to me, is an argument for deleting the exorcism day camp line, not for including the goat ball licker reference.  The turd miner/goat ball licker thing was a joke specifically based on politicians' tendency to exaggerate their humble, working class origins as opposed to any real comment on the character's history. (I could be wrong, but in I Am America (And So Can You!) I think it's implied that he had a fairly comfortable middle class upbringing.) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  surely the fact that... 

message: Sorry guys, I had to take them back and give them to more needy wikipedia artcles. Hope this isn't a problem ;3  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.12.1.51 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many C's 

message: Someone ought to mention the spider that was just named after him on August 6.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spider 

message: Look, it's obvious that his new glasses are a response to Sarah Palin, I'm totally not refuting that.  But I do question how reliable the account of an audience member as cited on a fan blog (as much as I love and admire NFZ) is for an encyclopaedia article.  Definitely the Colbert Nation forum post is not a proper source and shouldn't be cited as such.
It's going to get picked up by somebody in the media sooner or later - probably sooner - or he'll make reference to it himself on the show; when that happens we will have something substantial to cite and to warrant the inclusion of the glasses reference.  But at the moment, I don't think we have sufficient objective sources to justify the paragraph. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Shoemoney2night is right. Please review WP:V and WP:Reliable.  Fan blogs and forum posts typically fail both and are not acceptable as references.  Wait till a reliable source publishes something about it and then it can be added. Dp76764 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: * Except that you are totally missing the point that the blogs and forum posts ARE THEMSELVES the act here and not references, as with an ordinary news item. But clearly you are too clueless to "get" this. CheesemonkeyFrenchperson (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * In that case, you're totally unreferenced then and it's all original research. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Dp76764 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: * Please read and learn about performative utterance so that you can participate effectively. Verifiability was and is the standard I am using. CheesemonkeyFrenchperson (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's an article, not a policy. And attacking other users is not a very good way to participate here. Dp76764 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palin glasses - reliability of sources 

message: He's one of the 3 i bet I can find a million... groups on facebook with more than a million members  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.29.162 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook 

message: Substituted at 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment