Talk:The Colbert Report/Archive 3

message: While I'm a huge fan of both The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, The Daily Show Wikipedia entry seems to have a "criticism" section where The Colbert Report does not.  Surely someone of note must have said something negative about The Colbert Report.  I think it would add to the article to present why certain people may dislike The Colbert Report.  
--Josh 02:34, 01 August 2006 (EDT)
::Yeah, I was really surprised it didn't have one after all those morning shows did that thing on Wexler (which is covered here, but not in the context of it being a criticism of the show, probably because it was criticizing politicians who went on the show for being stupid for agreeing to be on it). You'd think a right-wing pundit somewhere would have criticized it, too, though O'Reilly's approval surprises me, considering what little I've seen of The O'Reilly Factor. Runa27 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the "Criticism" section? 

message: I'm reasonably sure that for every congressional district piece, the district is referred to as the "fighting X", e.g. Colorado's second district, "the fighting second".  Anyone else noticed this?  And if it's true, could it be put in the congressional districts segment?--PIngp0NG 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fighting districts

message: This is already mentioned in the truthiness article.  Is this section really necessary? 70.225.231.57 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert on Wikipedia? 

message: After Ash Wednesday's show, perhaps it's time to add a section specifically on Colbert's spirituality. He frequently mentions that he is a practicing Catholic in interviews, does segments on religion, and hosts religious guests (not all of whom are Christian). Is this all that different from Jon Stewart's frequent references to Judaism? To me, those reference seem more ethnic than religious. At the very least, Colbert's easy invocations of Jesus and references to scripture set him apart from the great majority of television hosts (the exceptions being televangelists), and that seems notable. --Tysto 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He exaggerates the religious practice of his character in the same way as his political views - though he also joked that Pope Benedict used to be a Nazi. - Reaverdrop 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious content

message: How did he predict all the oscars perfectly? Does anyone else think he might of had some inside knowledge? (Along with his ability to see into the future of course).Dapoloplayer 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Da Cobert Code 

message: I read on the weekend Howard Kurtz did a response to a comment that Stephen made about Kurtz and CNN Reliable Sources.
Not only will Stephen pay attention to comments made about himself will come back swinging and attack.  Stephen is getting under the skin of the mainstream pundits and journalists.--Tjkphilosofe 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting under the skin of mainstream 

message: The Parody of The O'Reilly Factor section lists the Tek Jansen book as a parody of Oriley's book Those Who Trespass, but the title and plot seem to more closely resemble the cheezy sci-fi thriller novels like tekwar or Alpha Squad. Tho he does try and sell it in an oriley paroding way, I think this should be edited. The text on the page [tekjansen.com] seems to support this.
tekjansen.com is (at least appears to me) to be unlicensed. It may need to be marked as unofficial since, like Colbert Nation, the proof as to its ownership is difficult to determine with absolute certainty. 65.198.167.147 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tek Jansen - Alpha Squad 7 - Lady Nocturne - A Tek Jansen Adventure 

message: I've done a big revision in which I've reorganized the sections and removed a lot of redundant material, trivia, and breathless "this one time..." anecdotes you would never find in a print encyclopedia. Find it at The Colbert Report/edit. I'm tempted to go further and, for example, strip out the whole section on TCR in Canada—lots of shows are seen in numerous countries. If there is a consensus that the edited version is an improvement, I'll move it over. --Tysto 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big revision

message: I am having a problem with this section and all the additions to it like The Word, Da Colbert Code, Better Know A District, etc. This stuff should belong on The Colbert Report recurring elements page and already do. Now I don't want to go ahead and delete it because it has become a big section and we would still need to keep the Format of the Show section itself. I just don't know how to revise it. What do you guys think? --Barinade2151 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything after the bulleted list can be removed and merged with reoccuring elements. --waffle iron 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them and added an invisible note to other editors to please not re-add them. --Tysto 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format of the Show

message: Did anyone confirm O'Reilly's quote in Newsweek?  I thought Colbert made it up, but I don't have that Feb 2006 issue.  --68.249.8.204 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it on the web and added a link to the article. I used a cite tag for the first time, so perhaps I didn't get it quite right. The URL I gave is for the webpage (the second of three that constitute the article) that contains the quote. I didn't give a pagenumber or a publisher. I hope this is an improvement, though. Tim Ivorson 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's good enough for me.  I don't know how to cite either.--68.249.237.53 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so O'Reilly has said even on his program that he was going to go home, watch the Daily Show and Colbert and go to sleep. J. M. 07:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly's O'Reaction 

message: An IP keeps adding "fan links". A fan petition is hardly notable or useful. Get a blog. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan links? 

message: Has a Bald Eagle really been named after him, or is just a running joke?
Yes, the San Francisco zoo has offered to name a baby Bald Eagle after him.  http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=412827  Bob schwartz 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bald Eagle 

message: I believe most of colbert's views would more likely follow those of modern american conservatives as opposed to the more extreme right-wingers. As well he is based alot upon bill o'reilly who would likely be reffered to more as a conservative as opposed to someone who is 'right wing' as well someone like Joe scarbourough would very rarely be reffered to as a right-wing mdeia personality. -Brodey
:Huh? Most people don't split hairs between right-wing and conservative, or liberal and left-wing. They're synonyms, particularly if you understand the origin of the terms. --128.205.218.25 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, even William Safire got the origin of left- and right-wing wrong in his On Language column (which he acknowledged after I corrected him). - Reaverdrop 03:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might see a difference between right-wing and conservative, but I think an even bigger difference lies between those terms and republican. -JNighthawk 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced right-wing with conservative 

message: why isnt there any critism of his show here?
* Is there really a significant criticism of Colbert other than "not funny"?  If so, we should be adding very long criticism sections to a lot of comedians.  Carlos Mencia comes readily to mind. --Trafton 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Crossfire's criticism of John Stewart as rebutting the "hurting America" quote. If we're going to add "critism" section to comedians' entries, we could add "critism" section on artists, musicians, really anyone I suppose ("...though others complain of the banality of Shakespeare...")MotherFunctor 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll retract this statement, to an extent, since I've seen the Correspondence dinner routine. I loved it, I'll say, but can't deny he's entered himself into the political arena. Still any criticism of him would probably have to come from THE GUT, not much else to criticize from.MotherFunctor 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critism 

message: Is it notable that he used Wikipedia on air? -- Tawker 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the reference to Wikipedia should stay in the article.  I've seen every one of the shows, but I am also heavily into Wikipedia (my edit count is over 4,000, as you can see from one of my user boxes about wasting too much time on Wikipedia).  I laughed hard at the metion of Wikipedia.  Let's face it - there is a lot of plain nonsense on Wikipedia.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which we should try to eliminate.  I say take it out, as it says nothing important about COLBERT. --JChap 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Word WP Ref today 

message: There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor. Nevertheless, the show itself, despite Colbert's personal leanings, seems rather apolitical, and if not apolitical, then lacking in a viewpoint, to me. The article doesn't help me clear up any of these thoughts, which I have no basis for making rather than suspicion and the feeling I get from watching The Colbert Report.
Could someone clarify and perhaps change the article to make it clearer in these respects?
The intro needs to be cleaned up as well. It should mention he satirized right-wing or republican views but to mention specific shows such as the o'reily factor and lou dobbs as right-wing/republican shows is POV. Even on the pages of such shows no mention is made to categorize them as republican right-wing shows.  Duhon, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:On the May 4, 2005 All Things Considered interview with Robert Siegel , Colbert described his show by saying this: "As The Daily Show is to headline-driven news, this will be to O’Reilly, or Hannity, or Scarborough Country."  And, on the December 2005 Fresh Air , he said that he also patterns his character on Stone Phillips, Geraldo Rivera, Anderson Cooper, and Lou Dobbs (he loves how Dobbs can spin a metaphor).
::There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor.
:errrr, are you joking? The show is all about mocking conservative media, and mocking implies criticism. Of course there is a slant. Its a show made for liberals, just like Fox news is tailored for conservatives. Brentt 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Too bad that's all Fox News shows. Its all biased very conservatively, which is what the Colbert report parodies. Titanium Dragon 07:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political slant to show? 

message: I found this in the "Trivia" section of the article. It is interesting to Wikipedians, but really does not do anything for outsiders using Wikipedia as a reference. For discussion, I'm moving it here: 69.177.176.154 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you may have a point. It is already in the list of celebreties who have mentioned Wikipedia; however, it could be useful in this article as the... articlee (?) mentioned the articler. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree this portion of the article should be deleted as it does not tell the reader anything important about the subject. --JChap 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should stay; I happen to love self-referential humor.--Ryan! 04:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that somebody put it back in. Ryan, I can see your point. However, if you were writing a normal encyclopedia, would you put "self-referential humor" into it? And what does the statement tell besides that certain Wikipedians are chauvinists? I don't see the point of putting "trivia" in a respectable encyclopedia, so with that in mind, I say take it out! 69.177.176.154 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia is not a respectable encyclopedia. - 81.179.69.230 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My vote is clear.  But I respect democratic will.  If it is ultimately removed, then please at least record it in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.  It's a great one-off.  Thank you.--Ryan! 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ryan!, I agree with you that this does deserve to be moved somewhere. However, this is already in Wikimedia in popular culture, and it doesn't seem to be BJAODN material. Wikipedia is generally referenced more in its own articles than it really should be. If you think that Wikimedia in Popular Culture is inadequate or inappropriate for things like this, please make another page to put things like this. 69.177.176.154 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be kept. Truth, accuracy, reference and the distortion thereof are essential themes of The Colbert Report. That Colbert should claim ignorance of an intellectual pursuit and diminish his source is perfectly in-keeping with the show and worthy of a small note in the article. Al001 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Wikipedia 

message: From the Trivia section - ""The Eagle's Nest" was a code name for the Kehlsteinhaus, Hitler's home in the German Alps near Berchtesgaden.", doesn't provide a point of reference within the sentence. Looking back, one of the categories is described as "The set ("The Eagle's Nest")", however with the parenthesis around the Eagle portion leads one to believe this is an unofficial name. I'd propose changing the title of the category to reflect that the Eagle's Nest is the official name (if it is) and to add a mentioning of the set in the trivia sentence. Zarcath 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Eagle's Nest? 

message: I'm removing this:
* On May 9, 2006, Colbert made fun of the veracity of Wikipedia during his segment The Wørd in which Colbert's nightly monologue is accompanied by humorous bullet points on-screen.
** Colbert: "Who the hell does Sigmund Freud think he is?!" (Bullet point: Carl Jung?)
** Colbert: "I, for one, had no idea who he is, so I did a thorough study. Read the entire Wikipedia entry." (Bullet point: Even the Accurate Parts.)
Maybe we should put it up at the top of the talk page; wouldn't bother me. But it's an inconsequential factoid for the article, unless if you have a particularly strong interest in Wikipedia -- an audience for which, in the spirit of WP:SELF, we should not be writing. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good cut. --Tysto 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, I'm a killjoy 

message: Someone added a link to Brass Eye, this seems pointless. I took the liberty of deleting it, but it seemed like I should put that here. J Arn 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brass Eye? 

message: In my opinion, there has been a noticeable change in the persona of the Stephen Colbert character over the last few months.  When the show started, Stephen would sound completely serious about all of his "convictions," but lately he has been breaking character a lot more and using wholly different types of humor.  Has anyone else noticed this?--Mikejoyce 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Just thinking -- does the "Gaysrael" discussion really belong under the topic of "Influence on the English language"? Colbert has coined many words on the show, but not all of them have taken off like "truthiness". Has the term "gaysrael" been used significantly outside of the Report?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaysrael

message: I am creating a transcript of the wiki segment here: The Colbert Report/wikiality. -Ravedave 05:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Interiot (talk • contribs) didn't like that. We all know what Interiot wants, he gets, so I'll just leave that alone then. However there is a video of this located on youtube here -Ravedave 06:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRanscript 

message: Why was the 'Wikiality' entry removed? Viewers of the show who rarely visit the site or have never visited may come here to see just what it's all about. Besides looking at the 'Elephant' listing they'll probably look at this entry. What's wrong about detailing the jokes on the show, especially when they involve Wikipedia? And what is with the attack, Mr. Sean Black?
:Colbert fans seems to have become the more cerebral cousins of Howard Stern fans. --Bobak
:I think the Wikiality concept points up the central non-trivial flaw of a project like Wikipedia. Has it now become the policy of Wikipedia to remove any references to criticism of itself? That itself is an example of Wikiality -- facts being upheld by nothing but mob rule. --Boradis 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it has to do with this project does not make it notable.  Where the criticism is notable, it certainly has a place here.  See John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. But this isn't really that notable a bit in the run of the Colbert Report.  He does a "Word" every night.  They're not all notable.  JDoorjam     Talk 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I submit it is not the place of the criticized organization to determine which criticism of it is "notable." Concurrently, if this "Word" segment had been popular and determined by fans of the show to be noteworthy but was not a criticism of the Wiki concept, would you or others be bothered by its addition to this article? A quick glance at the pages about other TV shows where new information is added willy-nilly as new episodes debut indicates not. --Boradis 07:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say I would absolutely object to funnier-than-normal-but-otherwise-non-notable content being added to this article.  I object to it when I find it elsewhere, as well.  I'm completely bothered by cruft in all its forms.  If you have an example of another tv show article where content is being added unevenly, or is simply devolving into an indiscriminate list of information, by all means let me know and I'll take a look.  I can't make any promises, of course, but I'll take a look at it.  JDoorjam     Talk 07:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "wikiality" actually becomes a fairly widespread phenomenon in the next few days or weeks, then it might be worthy of its own article.  Until then, I'd say not.--~e.o.t.d~ 07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omphaloskepsis 

message: I added a new "wikiality" section to this article. Please consider it's value and discuss or attempt to clean it up before patently deleting it. Also, the main article for "wikiality" is perm locked. I believe this is an important concept that should be discussed as it seems spin-meisters for some time now have tried to created debate, change perceptions, or alter/create facts for quite some time now. This has had an impact (the amount of which is debatable) on the real world, as well as wikipedia. Colbert's mocking of the situation in my opinion is important because it succinctly demonstrated the problem, and did so on a very public platform bringing the problem to the front of the stage.
I could create a huge laundry list of all the "wikiality" I have personally noted over recent years, but it would very likely devolve into a match of people accusing each other of distorting the facts. This is precisely the point of problem. I fully admit that I am not an expert wordsmith, using the best possible words, tone, and examples here to make my point. Maybe some others can step in and expand on what I have said. Sysrpl 10:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not deleting it now, but I think we are covering Colbert's segment in far too much detail, simply because it involves Wikipedia. Yeah, it's fun to cover our own site but please don't do it disproportionately. Rhobite 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it has anything to do with, "Oh my gosh, he mentioned Wikipedia!  Quick, to the keyboards, Batman!"  Colbert's influence was widely felt through the entire "truthiness" episode and the fact that in just a few months the word and its new meaning became part of the modern American-English lexicon. As soon as I heard/read "Wikiality" last night I thought, "Uh-oh.  This can't be good."  How can you not recognize that the same thing will happen with Wikiality?  Colbert has the ability to capture problems in politics and society that America/the world can usually see, but can't always put into words; he puts it into one word that defines everything.  Its inclusion here is very relevant and I can see the section becoming bigger with time.  Sections about Colbert saying, "F*** Wikipedia!" for example, are superfluous and only exist to mention Wikipedia itself.  If even I, a huge CR fan, have to say, "Who cares??" then it probably shouldn't be a part of the article.  Sections/articles on words that influence our languange and way of defining our society, in record time no less, definitely deserve mention.  Surely there is an obvious difference.  If anything needs to be cut, it's fluff about the show itself; its influence on American society is anything but "fluffy."  --ScreaminEagle 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert has run an awful lot of "Wørd" segments, many of them with made-up words, and obviously we don't report on all of them.  "Truthiness" has clearly stood up to the test of time, notable in its own right, and thus it's appropriate for WP to cover it.  But "wikiality"?  It just got invented last night, and wouldn't have a chance to be verifiably notable even if it does turn out to be notable.  Wikipedians are a little too close to this, and I don't think we can accurately gauge this words eventual notability (perhaps notoriety ;) until we start seeing it in MSM outlets.  I think the paragraph on it should at least be pared down to something much shorter, but preferably, it should be removed for now.  Once "wikiality" hits the big time, I'd be the first to try to put it back. /blahedo (t) 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said yourself Eagle, truthiness became part of the modern American-English lexicon a few months after he said it, after it was covered extensively in a variety of other media outlets, then included in the WP article, instead of immediately after the show aired, as is the case with wikiality. Questions like "How can you not recognize that the same thing will happen with Wikiality?" is blatant crystalballing and original research and not sufficient grounds for inclusion. The Report makes up lots of neologisms and not all make it into the article, nor should they. The section on wikiality shouldn't be there until it's clear that that the term is on, or close to being on equal footing with truthiness in my opinion. --TM 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. If this turns out to be an important incident, we'll hear about it from a reliable source soon enough. When New York Times columninsts start using the term "wikiality" as they have "truthiness", we'll know for certain that this little fiasco mattered to people besides us.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has mattered to people besides "us" (whoever the hell we are). Have you read a blog since yesterday? To not properly mention Wikiality is an ironic manifestation of the wikiality of the situation itself. --Tomsintown 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nah.  Let's wait until it's notable before including it, like anything and everything else on Wikipedia. JDoorjam     Talk 15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Then let's add a Wikiality subsection under truthiness!  I don't see how it needs to remain implicit when Colbert's analysis of Wikipedia gives additional meaning to the term. --Omaryak 01:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We have semi-objective standards...   if reliable sources comment on it as important, then we certainly include it. (eg. if New York Times mentioned it)  If the only people discussing it are on forums or Digg, we don't.  --Interiot 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, put it all back, along with my Gaysrael entry.  Not notable outside his show? So what?  This article is about the show, not an article about just the word itself.  --Kalmia 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just noticed the link is not red. I guess I'll check it out.Crockspot 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *D'oh, it's a redirect back to this article. Oh well, I think it should be its own article.Crockspot 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiality 

message: Dear everyone vandalizing at the behest of Stephen Colbert: the joke's on you.  You're being played for fools.  Dr. Colbert purposefully chose something really absurd to see how many mindless drones would go out and add nonsense, each thinking it was really cool and original to do so.  This is meta-humor at its finest.  All Stephen Colbert has to do is mention something really absurd, hint that it should be added to Wikipedia, and then laugh all the way to the comedy bank as people who can't think of anything funny on their own repeatedly try to insert the same rubbish into articles.  --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean. You definitely wrong and certainly retarded, but I know what you're trying to say. --Macarion 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, if there's one thing that vandals aren't aware of, it's that the people getting them to vandalise something actually want them to vandalise it. --Schizophrenic Twin(s) 05:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can someone explain this last statement to me? --TransNique 23:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, by that logic, CC's own South Park shouldn't have even aired. However, I actually agree with Cyde on this matter. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Colbert vandals: the joke's on you 

message: There have been repeated mentions of a supposed consensus on this Talk page.. I have scanned the some 4-6 sections regarding "wikiality" and have found no such consensus.. The current revision as of this writing () is currently clearly against any consensus. There are several reasons that I believe there should be a mention of the incident, the most important reason I see is that there is a protected redirect at Wikiality, it is ridiculous to have a redditect to a page that doesn't even mention the topic being redirected (this is also not the only instance of such an thing). Now to establish a REAL consensus...
Here are the points I think can be agreed should be included:
*Colbert mentioned wikipedia on his July 31st show
*He coined the term "wikiality" to reffer to the making of a majority opinion to be true
*He made comments about doing a couple edits, the one about Oregon and George Washington being slaves (these edits may or may not have been done by User:Stephencolbert , see Special:Contributions/Stephencolbert )
*His mention about and "directions" to edit Elephant caused an upturn in vandalism
What shouldn't be included (by consensus I've seen):
*Stephen "causing" server and database failures, these are mostly reported by admins to be an unrelated issue, even though it was very likely complicated by the upturn in traffic
 
Any one feel free to add too or strike points in the list above and add discussion
--Phoenix9 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. There is a Truthiness article, so why not a Wikiality article? The redirect should either be unredirected, or point to a Wikiality section in this article. Otherwise it makes no sense.Crockspot 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiality should get it's own dedicated section. There will definitely be plenty of people who will search for 'Wikiality' and it does not need to be overly notable, as long as people want to read about it. No good reason to not include a short Wikiality article in Wikipedia and maybe protect it until there are further developments concerning the word as well as mentions throughout the internet. --Dan428 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Truthiness" was the 2005 word of the year and was featured in a bunch of newspaper stories.  Wikiality, by contrast, was just made up yesterday and its heyday has already passed.  It will never be nearly as notable as "Truthiness".  You're trying to compare the two but there is really no comparison to be made.  --Cyde↔Weys 19:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you possibly claim to know how important this word will become?  How can you claim that "its heyday has already passed".  I bet that Wikiality will only snowball into something bigger at this point.--Milicz 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reason to include it in the article is that "I bet it will snowball into something bigger" it shouldn't be included.  If it in fact does "snowball," include it then, but not until.  "Truthiness" was important to Colbert.  "Wikiality" may have importance to Wikipedia, but not to Colbert.  Note the distinction. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reaosn you include the word now is so you can capitalize on the free advertising Colbert gave Wikipedia yesterday.  The word is already becoming a phenomenon with articles being written about it, but I guess we can have articles about random minutiae, but not Wikiality.  I don't get it.--Milicz 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Riiight.  Only evil rouge admins (also known as "rogue admins") would invoke considerations like WP:V, WP:RS and relevance. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the exact kind of thing that Colbert talked about, if you pretend it doesn't exists or if you choose not to acknowledge it, it doesn't exist and your version of the story becomes the truth.  Evidently Cyde still can't see it.  The truth is Colbert did coined the term Wikiality and if wikipedia is to be seen as a "reliable" encyclopedia then it should not censor what happened. Sir Vicious 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So, your proposal is to drag all articles down to the level of the worst you can find?  -- Coneslayer 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, my contention is that while administrators are excising the term "wikiality" because it is "not notable", really they are doing so because they are biased against it. Wikiality is no less notable than the countless other words (for example, that simpsons page) that are on here, but the admins are going after this particular term because they don't like the pejorative nature of its etemology. With the vast wealth of information wikipedia is able to provide people, I say always err on the side of inclusiveness.Ivymike21 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I want Wikiality included (because there is a fair chance it will become notable), the Simpsons analogy doesn't quite hold. If there was an article on Stephen's neologisms, it would go there, not on the main article. Likewise for the Simpsons... unless it's verifiably notable of course. :"D - RoyBoy 800 04:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And Dr. Colbert's mistake is that we're not interested in truthiness or The TruthTM; we start with facts and reach a consensus about how best to arrange them.  But we don't get to make the facts up. JDoorjam     Talk 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um actually, we ARE NOT interested in the truth, or "fact". See Wikipedia:Verifiability. As long as something is published in some form of media, we pretty much pass it along. Like a parrot. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 23:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I meant facts as "verifiable observations" — in our case, the observations of others.  We're in agreement, though you said it better than I. JDoorjam     Talk 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on "Wikiality" 

message: *Wikipedia mocked by Stephen Colbert, The Onion - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060801-7396.html
*Colbert speaks, America follows: All hail Wikiality! - http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6100754.html
*Citizen Encyclopediaism - http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/08/01/citizen_encyclo_2.php
*Wikimania 2006 hits Cambridge - http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid19238.aspx (This link should be noted as the first article written about Wikiality that uses the word in proper context and is not a specific article about The Colbert Report.)
*MTV Think News - Can Wikipedia Handle Stephen Colbert's Truthiness?
*Wired News - Colbert: How to be an expert on everything (oblique reference to Wikiality in third paragraph)
*Time Magazine blog The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan, embedding YouTube clip of the sketch
*Onion AV Club Wikiality
Update: Wikiality has more Google hits than truthiness - Wikiality: 956,000; truthiness: 895,000.
The truthiness Wikiality shall set you free.
A lot of those blog entries even have the basic facts wrong ... so much for reliable sources.  --Cyde↔Weys 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of all blog entries have all basic facts wrong. --mitrebox 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of these are print, television or radio media.  --  Zanimum 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So everything in Wikipedia, an Internet publication, has to have an old media source before we will include it?  I call BS on that.  Wikiality, "a word made up yesterday...[whose] heyday has already passed" according to one editor, has 189,000 hits on Google.  Yet no mention on Wikipedia?  Seems fishy to me. --Omaryak 06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't some grand experiment in faster news coverage. It is an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias need to be checked for facts. We do that by requiring citations to verifiable sources. If you have a problem with that take it up on the guideline talk page, not here. About Wikiality though, there is a mention on the list of episodes or something and I'm sure an entry will be made here if the word continues being popular, just be patient and see if it is actually another truthiness or the same as the rest of his words. Konman72 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by now it is a well-known fact that Colbert used the word "Wikiality" on his show.  We don't need to wait for it to become a pop culture phenomenon for it to appear, say, in the trivia section.  There have been several outside references to the show in addition to the word's appearance on the show itself (and last time I checked, this is an article about the show).  It's not the "reliable source" requirement I take exception to; it's the abuse of the requirement I'm seeing in this discussion in the form of an overly strict, bull-headed manner. --Omaryak 06:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is not noteworthy then it can go in the trivia section.  We can wait and see if it develops beyond a passing mention in the trivia section.  What makes this word different is that it is a criticism of Wikipedia, and we should be able to defend ourselves. --Omaryak 19:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's exactly why it doesn't warrant special treatment.  Wikipedia doesn't get special treatment on Wikipedia!  -- Coneslayer 19:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coneslayer is completely right. Criticisms of Wikipedia are addressed in much greater detail elsewhere. This isn't the place. --TM 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about criticisms of Wikipedia made on a specific show? --Omaryak 01:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside mentions of the Colbert incident 

message: I've locked the main article again because of the number of ardent sleeper accounts that seem tickled by Dr. Colbert's attention here but fail to heed the notability guidelines.  Ramming "wikiality" into the article has become disruptive.  No one's noticed, apparently, that the guest last night, and even Colbert's mockery of Mel Gibson, have actually gotten more media attention than "Wikiality", and yet no one's clamoring for the inclusion in the article (nor should they).  In fact, I'd be willing to mention that, in one nook or another, Colbert's guests and schticks are frequently mentioned in the media.  That doesn't make them worth including in the article about the show. JDoorjam     Talk 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocking of the article 

message: Colbert said that wikipedia works on a democratic basis.  this is not true.  we do not take a vote on what the correct truth.  there has to be a consensus for amost all wikipedians before something is labeled as fact, with evidence to back it up, hopefully coming from multiple sources.  --Greg.loutsenko 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. We do take a vote on what we accept into major Wikipedia edits. That is what this page is for. Also there are admins who have more power than other users, like presidents, who are able to control the rules and prevent people from changing the story. --Dan428 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that Colbert is a comedian. Just about everything he says is not the truth. dposse 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, we don't.  -- Coneslayer 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion". Wikipedia might not consider itself a democracy, but it does operate like one. --Dan428 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a huge difference between "discussion" and "voting."  You're conflating the two, while the whole point of the WP:NOT section is to make the distinction.  -- Coneslayer 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is neither an Autocracy, nor a Democracy, nor an Oligarchy, nor an Anarchy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a government... --Cat out 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert is fundamentally wrong 

message: Okay, so wikiality redirects here, but isn't mentioned here. What's up with that? Deco 21:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might notice that there's been some discussion of the topic above.  -- Coneslayer 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it doesn't make much sense at all. --Dan428 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiality redirect 

message: I've been on wikipedia for a while now. Why can't i edit this page? dposse 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template says semi-protected, not fully protected, so what is up? --G VOLTT 21:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the person who protected it didn't do it correctly. And we can't fix it because.. we can't edit it. --Dan428 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to get a Admin over here and fix it. dposse 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it ten minutes. There's already a request for input on this page over at the admin noticeboard.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even regular Wikipedians may fall for Stephen's trap and I think the administrator wants only admins to edit any "Wikiality" related article until the issue is resolved. Minutiaman 22:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could be for a very long time! Comedy Central repeats it alot. Then there is the DVDs!! dposse 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i'm confused. 

message: JDoorjam, here's a link for the citation needed tag you put in at 20:55 server time. I would put it in, but the article's protected - Tanman 22:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks. JDoorjam     Talk 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Under the "Mistaken for non-satirical journalism" section (existing text in strikeout, proposed change in bold):
On July 25, 2006, Colbert came out against television networks, specifically NBC's The Today Show and ABC's Good Morning America for taking his interview with Florida Congressman Robert Wexler out of context when he stated on the show "I enjoy cocaine because...it's a fun thing to do" and "I enjoy the company of prostitutes...because it's a fun thing to do. If you combine the two [prostitutes and cocaine] together, it's probably even more fun." In response to the question as to why Congressmen keep appearing on his program, Colbert cited that the show was "very complex and demanded a lot of the viewers." He explained that Congressmen keep on appearing on his show since segments from The Colbert Report were apparently newsworthy enough to be alongside segments such as tanning addictions and poker playing monkeys that were recently featured on the The Today Show and Good Morning America. He suggested that he should be asking questions about those topics instead of asking questions that held Congressmen accountable for laws they were sponsoring. Colbert closed by offering a mea culpa and telling people to vote Wexler citing that "he has a sense of humor, unlike most journalists".
On July 25, 2006, Colbert took to task some television network morning news shows, specifically NBC's Today show and ABC's Good Morning America, for taking out of context comments made by Florida Congressman Robert Wexler on his show (e.g. "I love cocaine because it's a fun thing to do").  Wexler had made the comments in response to a suggestion by Colbert to "say some things that would really lose the election for you if you were contested."  As of the show's airing, Wexler was running for re-election unopposed.  In a rare moment, Colbert broke character to say that Wexler "didn't mean a thing he was saying.  He knew it was a joke, and he was confident enough to play along."
This edit is needed for simplification and accuracy.  I've compared the quotes with a recording of the episode I have through the iTunes service, and the quotes in the original version are rough approximations.  The original version tries to convey the whole segment, and it was certainly entertaining, but I think instead we need to capture the pithy moment that sticks to the section's topic about his show being mistaken for non-satirical journalism.  The fact that he had to explain it was a joke on his own show is revealing.
--Omaryak 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert takes on the morning news shows 

message: I've reduced the article to sprotected status, as multiple editors have wanted to make changes to the article that don't have anything to do with the content dispute at hand.  As of now, wikiality redirects to and is mentioned in the List of Colbert Report episodes, and the episode is referenced at truthiness.  Google News gives a grand total of three blog entries as the media impact wikiality" had, which is about on par with or less than any other bit Colbert does (try searching for "Colbert 'Mel Gibson' " or "Colbert Lamont" in Google News -- they both got waaaaaay more attention).  I've got my fingers crossed we can lower the DefCon on this and the elephant-related articles by tomorrow; hopefully Dr. Colbert will give the citizens of his Colbert Nation some other fool's errand that will keep them occupied. JDoorjam     Talk 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of today

message: I was thinking of including this video link in the external links section. It is the video of last nights Word that started the chaos on wikipedia. dposse 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the whole topic were a significant topic for the subject of the article (which it isn't), doesn't it strike you as a bad idea to link to a video of someone encouraging people to vandalise articles? JChap (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I suppose so. sorry. dposse 01:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We host a picture that encourages people to do so: :Image:Penny Arcade comic-20051216h.jpg. --Interiot 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha. XD wow. dposse 01:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube video link 

message: Wikipedia seems to NPOV everything, everything. An article entitled reading is fundamental would be full of criticisms stating that TV is quicker and some words are really big and difficult. However when it comes to any mention of trying to include Wikiality in this or any other article the forced consensus of some seems to shoutout all discussion. A perfect example of wikiality if there ever was one.--mitrebox 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who thinks a segment that was aired 2 days ago is "noteworthy" needs a serious reality check. Wait a week or two and see if the whole thing caught on in any way and then begin the editting. Actually, the many reverted vandalisms and "Wikiality" entries is proof that Colbert was categorically wrong in what he said. Konman72 04:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong or not, it is a commonly held criticism of Wikipedia, and if we included information about how the edits were reverted, it might restore people's confidence in Wikipedia.  I don't see any reason to keep it hidden from public view.  And a mention in the list of episodes does not communicate the sequence of events that occurred.  Why not make a separate article addressing this debate and what happened as an educational lesson for the public? --Omaryak 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a great tradition of capturing events as they happen. If we were to wait a week or two to see if events were note worthy we would not have an article about the 2006 Qara shelling attack. If petty events such as that can be recorded in real-time, surely events as important as this can. --mitrebox 05:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As important as this"? Well, I have no real problem with it, I'm just wanting to minimize the Colbert vandalism so I think it would be best to keep it off for a while. But I really have no problem with it. Read this and see if it fits pretty well and I won't revert it, but make sure it is worded neutrally etc. Konman72 05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, are you trying to make the implication that a made-up word is it all as important as an airstrike in a heated war in a heated region of the world that killed dozens of people?  Get a sense of perspective!  Wikiality was just a "The W0RD", he does them every show.  --Cyde↔Weys 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP has never not included content simply to prevent vandalism. Even overtly contentous topics are covered in depth, NPOV and are activly protected from vandalism. --mitrebox 05:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a policy on this: WP:V.  In order to justify inclusion, one would have to have a reliable reference to support the incident being important enough. I don't think anyone has provided that and I don't think individual incidents on Wikipedia and individual mentions in shows warrant inclusion unless they rise to the level of wide media coverage and have the reference to back up their importance as I said. - Taxman Talk 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The verifiability policy doesn't say that you need to verify if it's important; it says that you need to verify if something exists.  News.com isn't a reputable enough source to verify that Colbert said something on-air?  The only requirement of high "importance" is being ascribed by those who don't want to see the word included in the article.  Seems a bit arbitrary to me. --Omaryak 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in editing? 

message: We seem to be using both cases throughout: The Wørd and The WØRD. Not sure which is more correct, but we should stick to one and change the others to match. Turnstep 15:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word

message: On today (Aug 2nd) show, Colbert had a "caller" "phone in" to complain about Colbert's instructions to tamper with the Elephant article.  Beware of more edits to this article and the Elephants article - Tanman 03:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in case someone was wondering there was no mention of wikiality (at least so far). --TM 03:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Elephants references on the show 

message: The "edit page" link has change to "view source" yet no appropriate template has been applied to state the kind of protection. Calwatch 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold your horses; it's up now.  JDoorjam     Talk 04:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected?

message: Given that this page has now greatly exceeded the length of Archive 1 is it time to archive and/or prune this page, or at least pre-7/31 discussion?
--Phoenix9 04:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely needs an archiving. The truth is there are so few legitimate discussions going on I wouldn't be opposed to a full archive, no one would really notice or care in my opinion. Konman72 04:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except LORD would I hate to have these conversations all over again.  I say we archive everything up until "the incident", and then this weekend (look at how optimistic JDoorjam is), once the kerfuffle dies down, we do another archive that captures all of the Colberrorism and puts it all in one place. JDoorjam     Talk 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support post-kerfuffle archiving.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 04:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I support archiving the pre-Colbert/Wikipedia craziness. Bp28 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think once this commotion is over, there can be a archive solely devoted to this.  MrMurph101 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Time? 

message: I think the time has come to unprotect the article, or at least only semi protect it. Let me know if there is something going on (such as a debate) that I am missing... But if not, unprotect already! aido2002 12:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there is a debate. (Look up.) --TM 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotect Already

message: The Colbert Report Fans have created Wikiality.com as a possible unofficial wiki. Perhaps a link there from the main page would move some of the fans along? --Nick Catalano contrib talk 12:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert Report Fan Wiki 

message: My God, I have never seen so much editing in such a such short period of time, nor I have I seen a page be locked and unlocked or have upgrading and downgrading in protection so dramatically. Damn you,  Stephen Colbert.
--Adamv88 01:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daaamn! 

message: Somebody created a new wiki, www.wikiality.com.  Have at it? --Bobak 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually had a similar thought yesterday.  Maybe it's time someone made a Colbert Nation wiki.  And if that gets traction, which I'm sure it will, then it should probably be mentioned in this article.  JDoorjam     Talk 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit now, after seeing the second mention on Colbert Report, I am leaning a little more towards inclusion of the incident at least somewhere (if not Criticism of Wikipedia). --Bobak 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interestingly, wikiality is mentioned already in one sentence on Criticism of Wikipedia.  Which of course then redirects you to the episode guide.  I am not one of these people advocating for inclusion alongside Truthiness, which has its own article, and I'm not sure who on here is, but at least it belongs in Trivia.Ivymike21 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is also this recently-created article highlighting the incident, which should probably somehow be merged into The Colbert Report. Bp28 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Except he didn't mention Wikiality, just elephants.  Again, if Wikiality.com catches on (which will go nuts if he mentions it on-air), I'm sure there will be no question as to whether this should be included.  JDoorjam     Talk 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just elephants.  He mentioned the Wikipedia article on Latchkey Kid based on the concept of Wikiality, inserting his own opinion into the article.  It is at the very least a running theme of the show. --Omaryak 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiality.com looks like another spoof of wikipedia.  I wonder what uncyclopedia has done about this? MrMurph101 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe a way to vent this movement? 

message: {Editprotected}
Add somewhere in artcle if deemed appropriate:
:Template:Future tvshow information
Saw this used on The Boondocks (TV series) article and thought it might be appropriate here. --Omaryak 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's for something with a running plot that might be speculated on or spoiled. -- Viewdrix 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We don't need this template here, if we need it at all. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the {Editprotected}, given the lack of consensus.--Commander Keane 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-progress TV show template 

message: So can someone please summerise the issue? --Cat out 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <big>WARNING!</big> Please do not panic. 

message: :On July 31, 2006, Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, a popular television show on Comedy Central, jokingly encouraged his viewers to post false information on Wikipedia's "Elephant" article. This action immediately led to the locking of said article, in the interest of protecting it from such vandalism. Two days later, Colbert made reference to false statistics on Wikipedia's "Latchkey Kids" and "Serial Killer" articles; again, this resulted in cautionary measures by Wikipedia.
:When looking at the histories of such pages, the term "Colbert Vandalism" can be seen in reference to the corrective actions, thus giving rise to a spectacular new term in pop culture. When will the next "Colbert Vandalism" take place? Only the truth(iness) will tell.
This can be harnested into the article if its notable (really is a one line trivia). And why is the page not semiprotected? 
--Cat out 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Colbert vandalism]] (common sense) 

message: Okay.  I deleted the Wikiality section the other day right before it was locked-down, and one of the admins/general consensus agreed.  I still stand by my opposition to Wikiality having its own section here, although as the number of google hits for Wikiality goes up by the hour I increasingly think it may even be notable enough for that.
However, I think it is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous that someone removed the trivia entry for his mention of Wikipedia/Wikiality on the episode.  Someone removed that section, and I put it back in because other mentions of Wikipedia in pop culture are frequently added to other pages in Trivia section - not to mention a number of other seemingly "non-notable" factoids about a variety of topics.  This is legitimate because - obviously - it is the trivia section.  To categorically ban any mention of Colbert's Word segment on Wikiality is oppressive and ridiculous.   I request that an admin re-insert that piece into the triva section ASAP.
Ashwinr 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. — a thing 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed - while the world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, removing mentions of WP on sight is also inappropriate. And Wikiality already scores 1,820,000 on google. From the first 100 hits (I didn't check further) there wasn't a single Wikipedia entry, though there was a site wikiality.net. So, it seems that Colbert+Wikipedia produced a term, an idea and implementation notable on their own. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The google hits are wildly overstated. Provide reliable references mentioning the term and we're in the ballgame. Without that, it should not be mentioned. - Taxman Talk 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The google hits aren't even that impressive, there are only 301 unique google hits. --TM 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Extensive filtering will drop anything by a few orders of magnitude. The total number is 1,850,000. For comparison, Wikinews brings 7 million, just 4 times more; widely accepted term SLBM has only 193,000; "Colbert Report" brings 4,430,000. So this neologism and the associated idea became notable. At least deserving a mention in appropriate article. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have trustworthy secondary sources that not only specifically discuss the widespread nature of the term and its notability, but put it in an echelon higher than any other media report on a Colbert Report bit? JDoorjam     Talk 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I became aware of The Colbert Report just two days ago, and have never seen it. It's just that such cleansing of the article looks unjustified to me. The term became used; it deserves a mention, after all. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ATTENTION: The Trivia Section

message: Much the same as what occurred a few months ago on The Daily Show article, I moved all the content in the trivia section worth mentioning into the various sections they should be in (mostly the O'Reilly stuff), created new sections for important collections of information that were homeless (the interviews), and everything else is covered in other articles (his ears don't really have to do with the show and are mentioned in his bio anyway; the FedEx thing doesn't seem to have gotten any media traction as being notable and was uncited anyway, etc.). There are enough sub-pages and sub-sub-pages and whatnot of the Colbert canon that this one can be kept tidy.  JDoorjam     Talk 23:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be going against the spirit of Wikipedia and will deter people from contributing in the future (which may be a good thing, seeing the opinions of some involved in this discussion).  I'd at least like to know what the Colbert sub-pages are.  Perhaps include a TOC in the main show page? --Omaryak 01:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- there used to be a nav template, and I would certainly support the creation of one to put the Colbereality all in one easy-to-navigate place.  It looks like the bits and pieces have fallen to the bottom in the "See also" section. JDoorjam     Talk 03:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you disagree with what he has done then state how and ho wit may be improved. The only power he has is the power you give him by not acting. Konman72 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he has a point... JDoorjam, as I assume you are reffering to, is, I think, trying to do too much, without any notice. What he does is not nessecerily bad or good, except that he gives no warning. aido2002 08:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then revert it and ask for explanations on the talk page. I'm just saying that complaining here is doing nothing. Revert his edits, ask for explanation or discussion and maybe leave a note on his user page saying that he might want to slow down or something. This all may sound more harsh than I am intending though lol. Konman72 08:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would revert it, but any of my previous attempts to change anything on this page have brought me to the verge of the 3 revert rule, or have led JDoorjam to put this page on full protection mode, rendering change impossible for us lowly regular editors.  Essentially, when he doesn't like the changes that are taking place, his response is to revert and protect and refer us to "the talk pages" as if somehow there is a justification for these actions here because a few administrators have agreed so.  It's as if he sees himself as the personal guardian of this page - he's George Bush and this is his Iraq.Ivymike21 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Respectfully, it's not doing nothing -- I hear what you're saying.  There has been significant clamor that there were a number of points in the trivia section that didn't seem terribly important, so I put them all into the context in which they seemed to belong.  I actually did it in a series of edits instead of one massive edit so that the process was completely transparent, and it was possible to see what became of what content.  I don't think I'll be making any other such significant structural changes to the article in the foreseeable future (though the section on "guests" and on Colbert's character could definitely use thorough expansion). JDoorjam     Talk 09:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There has been significant clamor that there were a number of points in the trivia section that didn't seem terribly important...  Um, isn't that what the word "trivia" means? :-)  As for such sections representing a failure to write the article properly, I respectfully disagree.  There's nothing wrong with such miscellaneous facts, especially in articles pertaining to pop culture, which often capitalizes on such things, especially in the case of works of satire, which make heavy use of pop culture references. Nightscream 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that we should add anything we want, willy-nilly, to the article?  What is your threshold for the inclusion of new information? JDoorjam     Talk 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most TV show articles have a section like this.  IMDB has it.  Why not us? --Omaryak 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you do reinstate the trivia section, you might want to edit the item that states that Colbert is "actually" 1/13 Native American (this was based on his saying this on The Colbert Report). However, no one is, or can be, 1/13 anything. You can be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 ... hopefully, you see my point; you can't even be 2/26. Colbert may "actually" be part Native American, but not that part. So the Trivia section (to which I'm not really opposed but seems silly on the main page) should have attention paid. It would be especially difficult, I'd think, to nail down facts that aren't simply truthy-feeling when dealing with a satirist.--Ayoung1111 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI Ayoung1111, I am 5/32 Cherokee Indian.  The percentage of Indian blood claimed by descendants, at least in the case of Cherokee Indians, is based on the geneological information contained in the Dawes Commission Lands rolls of the early 1900's and the process is extremely complicated. It is quite possible, and even probable, that a person can be a very odd percentage of Indian blood when the process of calculating that percentage is better understood.  Nofactzone 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to belabor the point, and I do understand, at least vaguely, that issues of Native heritage are extremely complex and politically motivated by organizations like the BIA and all that, but the point is that you can be 5/32, or 7/32, or 13/32, because you have 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 5 of which (or 7 or 13 or 32) are Cherokee. But you can't divide your ancestors into an odd number (and a prime to boot). You have (and everyone else has) 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and 32 g-g-g-grandparents. You can't have 13 great-and-a-half-grandparents. Unless, of course, the American government did work that out somehow for the benefit of deciding tribal affiliation. (Of course there are cultural differences about what constitutes parentage and all that, but if we're claiming blood relations in a way that Americans do, then it's impossible to be 1/13, 2/13, 5/13, etc. of anything.)--Ayoung1111 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolved the trivia section 

message: Nothing in that section appears to have mistaken the Report for non-satirical journalism.  The first one was a tongue-in-cheek response to a tongue-in-cheek show; the second was criticizing an interviewee but didn't necessarily think Colbert was serious; and the third, similarly, was simply calling attention to comments by the interviewee.  While the latter two are criticizing the person Colbert is interviewing, it's not because they necessarily think Colbert himself is serious.  Is there a better way of describing what holds these three things together?  Does the first item even belong in this section? JDoorjam     Talk 00:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing "non-satirical" to "serious."  It's a more straight-forward term.  MrMurph101 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if we can exactly say, without a reliable source, whether the 'audience' in any of these incidents did actually mistake the Colbert Report for non-satirical journalism. I think we can say that in all three cases, though, the Report was "presented as non-satirical journalism" by various sources -- that's the commonality I see.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There we go.  I like that language.  NPOV, accurate, gets the point across. JDoorjam     Talk 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about the "Mistaken for non-satirical journalism" section 

message: Let me get this out of the way first: Frank Ahrens looks for reasons to bash Wikipedia whenever he can, and the column that he's written is both condescending and inaccurate.  With that said, the Wikiality thing has been mentioned by Frank Ahrens] of the Washington Post.  The article is more about Wikipedia than Colbert (it's a web column, not an entertainment column) but this does bring up the issue of whether Wikipedia may warrant reference on The Colbert Report recurring elements, as I can think of at least three mentions by Colbert of Wikipedia on the show itself.  A discussion has started on that talk page; I thought people over here might be interested in that ongoing discussion. JDoorjam     Talk 21:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another reference by outside sources: The Onion .  Quote: "Shutting down Wikipedia, one elephant at a time."  This thing has really taken off. -- Rei 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that page?  It doesn't appear to be an article — how do you navigate to that from the main page?  JDoorjam     Talk 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I went to the browse recent issues button, picked one, noticed a "Read More" button in the upper left, and clicked it.  I'm not sure what the page is, but the reference is still there.  :) -- Rei 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as a recurring element? 

message: The above page and Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio are the only places where Colbert's mentions of this site should be listed. -MrBlondNYC 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially after the CBS blog roundup that mentioned Wikiality (and misrepresented User:Tawker as the "guardian" of Wikipedia).  It irks me how the facts on this are increasingly distorted or just plain wrong in news accounts... but I suppose that's one for accuracy in the media.  JDoorjam     Talk 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia in popular culture]]

message: Perhaps a section on sites mentioned on the show that were taken down? There have been a few... kittenwars, colbertnation, wikipedias elephant page (I know they say it went down for other reasons.... but dont believe it) www.m0hid.gov.hu, so... just a brainstorm Surfacing 731 04:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section for the article??? 

message: I just added another special section to the end called Special 'Hungarian campaign', explaining the whole story behind SC's victory in the M0 Bridge naming campaign...Szlevi 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New special section about the Hungarian M0 Bridge story 

message: I added the Official Stephen Colbert Star Wars Video Challenge  to the external links. If someone wants to create an article section for it, that would be super. Sysrpl 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I removed it as spam.  The "official" challenge wasn't put out by The Colbert Report, it was posted on codebot.org by you (unless it's some other "Sysrpl").  It appears posting the URL are in your interests, and not necessarily the encyclopedia's. JDoorjam     Talk 21:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Except that that page has nothing to do with Colbert's challenge, it's a seperate contest run by people not associated with Colbert. -- Viewdrix 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you watched the video from the show closely  you would see that indeed the challenge site linked to was referenced by the August 21 show, and also that he mentioned it as a reference in inspiring the segment. Sysrpl 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I created the site and posted it to colbernation.com on the same night the original green screen clip aired. The google cache of the converation is here . Also, the challenge site (at http://codebot.org/colbert) is now linked all over the place including the New York Times, as it was picked up by the AP.  The reason it's the Official Challenge website is because it was the first, and the idea wouldn't have taken off unless someone created a repository for the green screen fan videos.  Sysrpl 00:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that codebot.org was the originator is not in doubt at all (proof of the original context of the contest can even be found at my blog if anyone needs it - I blogged about it the day it started, I believe). The only concern I had is the fact that the mods of this page are super sticklers about putting links up on this site that aren't official (i.e. from ColbertNation.com).  That being said, I think it has a right to be on this page, or at the very least on the Recurring Elements page.  And btw, Sysrpl, after that AP article, you seriously won't need any redirect traffic from here. Your site will stay mighty busy as it is. :)  Nofactzone 04:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you on the stickler for links part. By the way, I am a fan of http://www.nofactzone.net if that is you. Sysrpl 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, nofactzone.net is mine, and thank you for the compliment.  FYI:  Sysrpl, your site's been hacked.  I'd e-mail you but I don't have your e-mail address.  Nofactzone 17:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Official Stephen Colbert Star Wars Video Challenge 

message: Whenever I see this show advertised, the above title always springs to mind. But I'm not quite sure why. Perhaps it's some subconscious association? Fssk... :-) — RJH (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cold Beer Report sounds like a good meme to me :) Mathiastck 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold Beer Report 

message: I used TiVo to slow down the words that appear behind Stephen Colbert in the beginning graphics and discovered that one of the words is "Feckless" which means "not fit to assume responsibility and/or generally incompetent and ineffectual". I edited this into the "Format of the Program" area where it describes how words describing Colbert surround him in the beginning. I added this because I think it shows some humorous irony that helps reveal the intent of the show. 
This is exactly what i edited in : "Interestingly, one of the words behind Colbert is "feckless" which can be defined as "generally incompetent and ineffective" or "not fit to assume responsibility". This appears to be an inside joke of the show, revealing it's intentions to mock those unworthy to be in positions of authority."
ThexPhilosopherx 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit: Feckless