Talk:Jon Stewart

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jon Stewart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025111914/http://www.bloomberg.com/video/63932062/ to https://www.bloomberg.com/video/63932062/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304171657/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20107783,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20107783,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is his name legally "Jon Stewart", or is it just a stage name, and his legal name remains "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"? I'd like some clarification, since the text isn't entirely clear on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently says  in the "Early life" section although the source appears dead (plenty of other sources available on Google though, e.g. ). Regards SoWhy 16:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name: 

message: You removed Jon Stewart from the :Category:The Daily Show - twice now, since I restored it. You also removed current host Trevor Noah and previous host Craig Kilborn from that category, which I also challenge. Your argument, on removing it from Jon Stewart the second time, was "people aren't generally categorized under their works". But this isn’t a matter of somebody’s "work", as in a book they wrote. People who headlined a particular show, and for a time were synonymous with it, ARE categorized with that show. Please see :Category:The Price Is Right, :Category:The Tonight Show, :Category:Jeopardy!, :Category:Let's Make a Deal, etc., and you will see that such hosts ARE categorized under the show they hosted. And before you go removing any more such hosts, I want to see the basis for your assertion that hosts known for hosting particular shows are not categorized under those shows. Where is the consensus you are basing this on? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going by Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People associated with, specifically this part:  Trivialist (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:The Daily Show 

message: In June 2021, Stewart made an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where he made controversial statementshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/15/jon-stewart-lab-leak-colbert/https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/06/15/jon-stewart-faces-online-pushback-after-going-all-in-on-covid-19-lab-leak-theory/?sh=af8cc697cc3bhttps://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jon-stewart-lab-leak-coronavirus-late-show-b1866024.html suggesting a possible lab leak origin for COVID-19https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/09/the-covid-19-lab-leak-hypothesis-proves-it-matters-what-and-who-defines-a-conspiracy-theoryhttps://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-finally-calls-for-serious-investigation-into-covid-origins.  -SmolBrane (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit 

message: On including Stewart in a “conspiracy theorist” category: only The Independent actually characterizes Jon Stewart's statements as a conspiracy theory, the other sources are much less critical.  This BLP doesn't include any content explicitly calling him a conspiracy theorist, and Stewart denied it.  I believe it is inappropriate to categorize Jon Stewart this way.  SmolBrane (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to initiate a conversation on this user, good to see it has already begun. Also note that AnimalParty is arguing at Talk:Ricky Schroder#Anti-Vaccination activist that the covid conspiracy theorist is not defining and wants it removed, despite reliable sources covering multiple of Schroder's anti-mask activities. Here, the category appears to have been added due to coverage for answers Stewart gave in an interview. One could easily draw the conclusion here that the tagging or not-tagging is being done according to a political bias, but, hopefully AnimalParty can clear that up. Zaathras (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no political bias, just as no editors have any bias whatsoever. The deliberate spreading of misinformation is a cornerstone of being a conspiracy theorist. I'm just trying to be fair. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that you (or any other editor) have no political bias is prima facie absurd. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Again, the BLP does not contain content suggesting that Stewart is a conspiracy theorist.  I would suggest that you include The Independent's claims in the article before we categorize him as such.  And Stewart specifically stated “this is not a conspiracy” so there could be a larger BLP issue at hand.  Ultimately though, this category may get deleted as per its talk page in the coming days.  SmolBrane (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: You guys are too smart for me. This was a joke to illustrate the subjectivity and capriciousness of categorizing people as "conspiracy theorists" or "activists" based on isolated recent events. I apologize. It was ill-advised. If you're interested, please see the discussions at Categories for discussion:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we're crystal-clear here; you added the "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" category to the Jon Stewart article not because you actually feel he should be categorized as such, but rather to make a point about the category. Yes? Zaathras (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like someone asking to have his editing privileges suspended. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

text: ...Maybe work on your set-ups a bit. SmolBrane (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theorist 

message: I encourage editors to reflect on the lab leak comments by Stewart, as this received lasting coverage   just a couple sources there, but there are many from the past year.  SmolBrane (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lab leak comments remain due, lasting coverage 

message: The opening sentence stating his occupation has grown way too long. There's a tendency to stuff this sentence with a listing of every thing they ever did, in a kind of breathless adoration of how they "did it all" or to list each of their credits like IMDB. That's not what the lede is supposed to do. Our goal should be to be brief and direct as we can, to explain to the reader "why is this person noteworthy?" MOS:ROLEBIO says (emphasis added) "The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."
With that in mind: Stewart has worn a number of hats over the course of his career, but he's famous for only a few of them. For example, being an actor is not one of them. He's mostly famous for The Daily Show, and the roles he's played in connection with it: comedian, show host, political commentator. Every other job he did for the show (writing, producing, directing) was either in support of that or a spin-off of that, or it was a side gig that isn't what makes him notable. And an "activist" is just a political commentator who gets results. Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this opening sentence got too long, and I cut it. It's not just the lead paragraph: MOS:FIRST  – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation