Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 3

message: Is it just me, or was Stephen Colbert granted official Hungarian citizenship last night on the show?!?! Simonyi gave him a friggin' Hungarian passport!! K. Lastochka 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date of birth on the passport is 1978, so it's unlikely that it's real unless they just happened to be 14 years off on his birth date.  --24.149.49.73 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The latest rumour from Hungary's gossip rags is that they're going to name the bridge Kalber, which is a Hungarian traditional name (if I'm remembering the Anglicized spelling correctly), and pronounced almost identically to Colber(t).Loiosh 05:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert is not a Hungarian citizen -- Colbert was joking and Simonyi was playing along. And the naming committee has announced they're calling it the 'Megyeri hid', all rumors aside. Although I'm beginning wonder how long people will continue to believe Colbert swindled his way into getting a foreign bridge named after him -- anyone else see the urban legend potential in this?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we'll see it on snopes by this time next year. You're all ignoring the huge fact that Simonyi gave a passport to Stephen Colbert the fictional news personality, not Stephen Colbert the comedian. That explains the 1978 birth date somewhat as well. It's probably invalid because fictional characters don't, uh, have passports -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION!  13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian citizenship?!?!? 

message: This is a very good article.  I would support it's use as a featured article once the external link problem is cleaned up.  It seems once you click on a link it doesn't allow you to link back to the article easily.  Otherwise, the content and substance is very good.
BTW-- I think the page can be unprotected.  Eight times in 24 hour is not that many compared to some of the other bio pages in Wiki.  
Ramsquire 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Peer Review

message: Wikipedia seriously needs to unlock the Stephen Colbert cite, everyone knows that WP is a frickin joke.  And without Colbert in the first place, WP wouldn't be getting so much traffic and ad revenue, so why not let him have some fun and lighten up a bit.  It's a frickin' website, not the end of the world.
why this article is still locked?? Leotolstoy 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems to get vandolised once or twice a day, but really not as bad as it was.  It might be ok to take the protection off and see what happens.--Twintone 15:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a continuation of the protection put in place after the wikiality episode, it's a more recent lock that was put in place by User:No Guru about a week ago, which I think is completely unnecessary and should be lifted. --TM 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And now there have been 6 acts of vandolism in less than 24 hours.  Guh.--Twintone 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just always thought vandalism was the cost of Wikipedia living up to the "anyone can edit" slogan, but looking at the semi-protected category I guess I'm in the minority these days. Judging by the category, getting vandalized 4 times in one day warrants semi-protection now, which means this article more than qualifies for such a protective measure per administrative consensus. --TM 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Midnighters.  This page doesn't get vandalized as much as others but it guess it's kind of up the the discretion of people watching the page to see if they don't mind reverting all the edits for the benefits of what Anon user might add positively.  I don't have a preference either way.--Twintone 17:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify I am not a huge fan of semi-protection but in my opinion this article was getting so much vandalism that editors (myself included) were having a hard time reverting all of it. Let's hope things have settled down now. -- No Guru 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we may have been wrong. The vandals may have already come back. This may be an ongoing problem similar to the RuneScape article. Unfortunately, I'd suggest a semi-protect. This is not something we can ignore. -Blackjack48 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, that makes sense. I agree, we can't give in to the vandals. -Blackjack48 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this article is still locked? 

message: Hey, it mentions that he is a member of Mensa. What's the source for this? I really want to satisfy my curiousity, too! Fairy Incognito 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no source and nobody can give one, then the information should be removed.  --149.10.148.44 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll wait to see if anybody replies before removing it. Fairy Incognito 05:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through the history and the Mensa thing was added by 72.19.108.119 who also had this tidbit of wisdom while editing the same day . I'm deleting the Mensa thing immediately. Gdo01 06:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me! It probably was a joke referring to or related to Stephen demanding that genius grant in The Colbert Report. Fairy Incognito 00:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes sounds swell to me Dappled Sage 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mensa? 

message: The article currently has an image of a segment it spells "Even Stevphen", while the Daily Show's 10 !@#$ing years video on its website currently spells the segment Even Stephven. I wasn't sure if they changed the spelling here and there or whatnot so I didn't want to change it myself. If it's a typo, I suggest correction TheHYPO 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were correct, so I changed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Fairy Incognito 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Stevphen  has a whole bunch more Google hits than Even Stephven . And apparantly Comedy Central uses them interchangeably (one of the hosts of "Even Stephven,") (Daily Show: Colbert - Even Stevphen with Ed Helms). I say we got with the one with more Google hits or we decide that it doesn't matter which one is posted as long as it is Stephven or Stevphen. Gdo01 01:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Don't know if anyone caught this, but during Colbert's appearance on Comedy Central's Night of Too Many Stars, at one point it sounds as though he's referring to himself with a middle name other than "Tyrone". Unfortuately, it's hard to make out, but there's definitely something he says between "Stephen" and "Colbert", possibly beginning with a "K" sound... anyone have a better idea of what he may have been saying? Also, I sort of feel silly mentioning it at this point, since Tyrone has been in the article for so long, but what exactly was our source for "Tyrone", again?   -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a few semi-official places on the web that this can be found.  If you go to the Colbert Nation Bio page, it lists his middle name as Tyrone.  (Then again, if you read the rest of the page, most all of it is fictitious, so even though ColbertNation.com is Colbert's official "unofficial page", you have to take everything on it with a grain of salt).  It is also listed as his middle name on IMDB.com and NNBD.com  It can also be found in the recent New York Magazine article: "One difficulty in writing about Colbert is that when you point out things like the fact that he’s a huge Lord of the Rings nerd and has, on his desk, a heavy picture book titled A Tolkien Bestiary, roughly half the readers will think, Hmmm, interesting, while the other half will think, Yes! Yes! Of course! Colbert’s a Tolkien nut! because they worship Stephen Tyrone Colbert and know everything about him.".  Also, keep in mind that his family's heritage is reported to be Irish, and County_Tyrone is an Irish location and a common Irish name.  Hope this is enough documentation to keep this fact in the Wiki page.  Nofactzone 07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm not really trying to pull that name from the aticle -- it's clearly documented enough that it can be here -- but I'm curious. The name has been in the article forever, but New York Magazine article is the only serious article I've seen to include this detail, and it's quite recent. (The IMDB and NNDB both have s tendency to mirror us, so they're not always useful for verifying what we've already said). Now that I'm thinking about it though, "Tyrone" is in the credits of the Report, which probably makes it enough to go on. I still really want to know what he said last night, though.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen ''What'' Colbert?

message: I tried adding a section to the article about Colbert's mock Wikipedia website, www.wikiality.com, but it was removed.  Based on all of the controversy surrounding Wikipedia and Colbert, the site should be mentioned in the article.
: The site says: Wikiality is in no way affiliated with Comedy Central, The Colbert Report, or Stephen Colbert, but we'd like to be.
: So no, it should be included in this article. -- Tim D 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy? He mentioned us like twice, and there was some vandalism as a result. No big deal. – ClockworkSoul 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There's a section under "The Daily Show" heading where it states some of the memorable moments of "This Week in God" include a installment in which Stephen cracks up while discussing a Prince Charles scandal, when, in fact, the aforementioned discussion was not part of the "This Week in God" series. It was just a "live report from London" where he corresponded with Jon about not being able to talk about the scandal. I just watched it on Youtube here:
--4.253.28.225 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says memorable reports from all of his reports. It in no way implies that all these reports were from "This Week in God" that is why the Singing Senators thing is there too. This also was not a "This Week in God" report. Gdo01 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

text: I've gone ahead and changed it. Single words can and do matter, particularly when they're the difference between stating a fact and an opinion. And by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. :)  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "This Week in God" 

message: After reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to de-list the article at this time from the GA list. I encourage the editors of this page to work on improving the article and addressing the concerns listed below. I also encourage the editors to consider resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement
* The Lead is very short and doesn't hold up to the WP:MOS expectation of WP:LEAD. A lead should serve as an adequate summary of the article and the current lead leaves out several notable aspects such as the response and notoriety he got from the Correspondence dinner and the time he spent on "Strangers with Candy".
* The section on Other Roles needs a substantial rewrite. In its current state it is torn between wanting to be a list and wanting to be prose.  Similarly the short paragraphs in the section Early Career should be merged or rewritten.
* I would also be aware of some "redundant prose" like the line from Personal Life sections "The emphasis his family placed on intelligence as a desirable trait would lead Colbert to lose his Southern accent when he was still quite young." In addition to being slightly inflammatory, the two points the line makes (His family's emphasis on Intelligence and Colbert's lack of a Southern accent) are made by both the preceding and proceeding lines. There is no need for this line. 
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass
* The article is mostly well referenced with the vast majority of references coming from reliable sources. However, I would strongly encourage the editors look into some of the "redundant cites". For non-controversial details like what the Colbert Report is a parody of and his family life there does not need to be more then a single cite per claim. It can give the appearance of "footnote" clutter and should be trimmed down to which cite provides the best reference support. 
* The one exception to the "well referenced" assessment would be the section Other Roles where there are a few unreferenced claims. 
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Pass
* The article gives ample coverage to the various facets of Colbert's career and personal life. This section garners a "weak pass" because I don't think it delves much into the influence and perception of Colbert's work. For instance, it is mentioned that he was voted by Times as one of the most influential people but there is no reference to what exactly is influential about him that caused Time to include him on this list. Secondly, there is mention to critic's response to the Correspondent's dinner but what about critical perception of the greater body of his work? 
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass
* Despite the "cult status" that Colbert has among his fans (and influence on Wikipedia editors), this article is able to maintain a surprising NPOV tone without being overly flattering of its subject. The editors desire kudos for that.
5. It is stable - Pass
* While the article does seem to be a bit of a vandal target there doesn't seem to that much substantial change being made even though almost 200 edits to the article have been made this month alone (see two versions)
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass
* There is a bit of image clutter around the sections on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I would use some editorial judgment on which one or two photos of the 5 best illustrate the topic.
I want to thank the editors for their hardwork and dedication to getting the article up this point. This article has a lot of positive merit and I, again, encourage the editors to continue improving the article and eventually resubmit it for GA consideration. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA De-listing 

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

message: I would like to assist in cleaning up this article and getting it to GA-class, however I'm unsure if a GA reviewer can (ethically) actively edit the article... that would violate my ability to objectively evaluate the article.  I will do some digging and find out what rules apply.  If worse comes to worst, I can delist myself as the reviewer and resubmit the request.  My only hesitation there is that the GA candidate list is usually fairly backed up, and I might feel like I was putting more work off on someone else.  Will advise.  /Blaxthos 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Followup 1

message: So elevated. /Blaxthos 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure if I was missing something about the peer review thing, but will probably relist it in a few days after I add a few things, probably at the biography wikiproject's peer review. Thanks again for all your insights/improvements. -- Bailey(talk) 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elevated to GA status

message: There have been a number of back-and-forth edits referring to the pronunciation of Colbert's name. Here is a quote from the cited Time article
:Still, after a while, he stops himself. "I think I need to start calling him Col-bear," says the actor, using the correct pronunciation of his surname, "and me Col-bert. It's getting weird."
"Col-bear" is the correct pronunciation, but he jokes about changing it to "Col-bert" for himself to differentiate himself from his character. Please, no more reverts! -- Tim D 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to mention this here too -- the back and forth edits comments were getting a bit silly. Colbert is pronounced "Col-bear" in either context. Colbert is an Irish name, and it's usually pronounced with the T, but Stephen Colbert has always pronounced it without the T. It's what he's called in all of the radio and TV interviews he's done, which are presumably out-of-character and in the article "Great Charlestonian or Greatest Charlestonian", he clarifies: My dad always wanted to be Col-BEAR ... so (he) said to us, 'You can be anything you want.' And so we made a choice, and it's about half and half. The girls for the most part are like, 'Get over it, you're Colbert,' but I was so young when this choice was given to us, I think that if somebody woke me up in the middle of the night and slapped me across the face I'd still say Stephen Col-BEAR. So it might be affected, but it's definitely not a stage name.  -- Bailey(talk) 14:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of "Colbert"

message: The article has been semi-protected due to frequent vandalsim.  /Blaxthos 21:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert has always been a vandalism magnet. This page has been sprotected and unprotected many times before. Hopefully it will trail off eventually.  -- Bailey(talk) 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and Semi-Protect 

message: hi, i just noticed she's not credited in the pic -- can this be done? it seems an odd little omission. thanks. --  Denstat 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done. :-)  -- Bailey(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Credit Amy Sedaris in "Strangers with Candy" pic

message: Item: article was deleted. I am editor for colbert.wikia.com, I am now hosting said article. If you don't want to have it here, at least consider an external link to said article. Thank you. Kerojack, Argenta 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article is now on deletion review, so we'll see what happens. It may wind up being restored.   -- Bailey(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the article is no longer on public view, but could be restored if necessary? If that is the case, could I strongly suggest that if it is deleted completely, a link to my copy be posted, with any suitable disclaimer to protect both wikipedia and colbert.wikia.com? Kerojack, Argenta 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed your comment before. Of the top of my head, I'd think it would make sense to link to that article from The Colbert Report moreso than Stephen Colbert, since it's more about the show than the actor/comedian. Also, you might want to double check on the talk page of WP:EL and see what are guidelines are about linking to external wikis -- I'm not exactly sure of them myself, but they might have a preference about linking directly to the article vs. linking to the main colbert.wikia page.  -- Bailey(talk) 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information housed in the deleted Colbert Report recurring elements page can now be found on two different sources on the Internet.  The original Wiki information can be found at the Colbert Wikia site maintained by Kerojack, Argenta.  The information, edited to clean up the original data, can be found temporarily on the Colbert University page at NoFactZone.net.  The staff at NoFactZone.net are working on a sister site that takes the original Wiki information and expands it into a static knowledge source for Colbert fans.  Hopefully with this new structure, the information will be in a format that will be appropriate for the Colbert fans searching for information not available on Wikipedia. Nofactzone 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recurring Segments

message: In reference to this article: http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/winter2005/alumninews/close-ups/colbert.html
"Colbert, 41, was born in Washington, D.C., and raised in South Carolina, the youngest of 11 children."
Is this true? Or did this guy get his facts wrong? I thought he was born in South Carolina... --Fairy Incognito 08:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be some confusion about this. Charleston is what seems to be most commonly reported, but Sumter, SC is indicated in a few places, including on a blog on his official site. I'm not sure how Northwestern came up with Washington, but Sumter still seems like the most credible answer; it's close near enough to Charleston to account for some of the reoprts otherwise. -- Bailey(talk) 06:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well he's said many times that he's from South Carolina, but not that he was born there. On Letterman, he said he "grew up" outside of Charleston...he also said in that same interview that his hometown is Charleston. Anyway, this all leads me to believe that he was probably born in North Carolina, not Washington D.C. But this article just confused me. Another question: do you happen to know when he got married? --Fairy Incognito 08:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the specific date Colbert was married, but it would have been sometime between 1990 and 1995, if that helps you. His wife was a native of Charleston who grew up a few blocks away from him, but they didn't really know each other until they met again in 1989 while Colbert was visiting his family. Also, the text about Colbert's 2006 Daily Show Emmy says that it was his only win in 2006; he also recieved Emmys for the Daily Show in 2003, 2004 and 2005, but nothing for The Colbert Report so far. -- Bailey(talk) 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've emailed the author of the NW article, and he's certain Colbert directly stated that he was born in DC. I know this isn't how we usually do things (out of concern for original research), but considering we have conflicting reliable sources, I'm thinking NW may be the source to go with after all. We've certainly got no lack of sources saying he grew up in Charleston, but that's a different issue. I wish I had a better way of divining this, but that's all I've got to go on. -- Bailey(talk) 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR aside, why don't we either get the author of the NW article to provide a direct quote, or (more preferrable to me) email Colbert or his publicist and simply ask?  I'll be glad to send an open email/reply and publish on the web, if so desired.  Comments?  Would this qualify as original research?  /Blaxthos 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would still qualify as original research. The author of the article actually already offered to look through his notes and see if he can come up with the exact quote, but we couldn't really use that since it's not a part of his published article. Again, the NW article is a perfectly reliable source as-is, at least by Wikipedia's standards, so any additional research would just be for peace of mind. If you do want to email his publicist and find something out, I suppose it would be OK to help make an informed decision as to which source we went with -- we just couldn't use the email itself as a source. -- Bailey(talk) 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! And I had always assumed he was born in South Carolina, so it's a really interesting to learn that he was born in Washington D.C.! I guess he didn't live there too long, though. Now I'm wondering when his family moved to SC. Anyway, I know The Colbert Report is not a reliable source of information, but I'd like to note that I just finished re-watching a clip of Stephen saying he was born in Washington D.C. in his interview with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. --Fairy Incognito 23:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in Washington D.C.? 

message: I think that it should be mentioned that Stephen Colbert was listed #2 on the list of Maxim's 10 Hottest TV News Anchors. It may be trivial, but I believe that it would add to the comedy of his work. The link to the specific page is: http://maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?slideId=2514&imgCollectId=121 Sorry, I forgot to login, I'm TheChrisParker
:Already is. See the last paragraph of the Colbert Report section. -- Bailey(talk) 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxim's 10 Hottest News Anchors 

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

message: In the Colbert Report section it says that "In May 2006, the New Yorker magazine listed Colbert (along with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show) as one of its top dozen influential persons in media.[39]"  I was surprised to see the New Yorker had such lists. Foot note 39 says "^ The New Yorker Magazine's Most Influential People of 2006." However the link goes here: "http://nymag.com/news/features/influentials/16926/" which is clearly New York Magazine. So, could someone please fix this since it is locked.
:Why don't you just register? MGlosenger 06:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Magazine vs. New Yoker Magazine 

message: I wasn't sure if anyone had seen that Colbert's work Truthiness won "Word of the Year" honors.  Is this worth adding to the main article? --Brownings 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it fits in very well somewhere, I think the article  on truthiness  covers it. -Boss1000 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add it in that section now. -Boss1000 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert wins "Word of the Year" 

message: I suggest we make a section specifically dedicated to Colbert's awards and honors... multiple Emmy awards, pulitzer prize (sp?), word of the year, etc... definitely should be a section instead of buried in his career section.  It would help expand the article, too.  Anyone wanna volunteer?  /Blaxthos 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Contrary to my above comment on the word of the year inclusion, if there's a section like this, certainly put that in. -Boss1000 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: As long as we're doing Awards & Honors, might as well mention this (just need a verifiable source).  /Blaxthos 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the video of the award ceremony.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXtZpPGVl1g&NR sorry I don't have an account to sign in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.35 (talk • contribs) 
emmy awards...   the show was nominated for four, but one was for best director.  steven wasnt the director.  jim hoskinson was.  steven has won three emmys for his work on the daily show.  Brendan19 06:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards & Honors Section 

message: The Daily Show won Peabodies while he was there. Is he a Peabody winner or is he just joking? I dunno whether to put Category:Peabody Award winners on or not. Voretustalk 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He would have been a writer on the show at the time, so I would consider him a Peabody winner.  --Tyrone Hunnibi 01:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't he proudly display/espouse the award on the "mantle" during his show?  /Blaxthos 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peabody 

message: It's just http://colbertnation.com 
(Couldn't edit it myself because this is a new account) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamboozler (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert Nation link is wrong. 

message: Colbert is listed as a "Roman Catholic entertainer" and "American Roman Catholic" in the category listings, but is he really a Catholic? From his satirical performances I would assume he only plays a demented Catholic and isn't really a Christian in real life. From the way he satirized Christianity one would doubt he is one. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 4 different citations (3-6) in the main article supporting the fact that he comes from a Catholic family and is a practicing Catholic.  If these are incorrectly cited, then that is something that needs to be fixed.  Being able to step back and poke fun at something one believes in is not evidence that one doesn't believe in it. —bbatsell ¿? 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations are correct as they are interviews with Colbert himself (not in character). He is a devout Catholic but grew up in a family that also cherished intellect and humor. MrBlondNYC 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Word on the street in NYC and Hollywood is that he is in fact a Catholic in the religious sense, but in an ethnic sense himself and his family is Jewish (thus making him a Crypto-Jew, or a "Marrano," both of whom were/are commonly Catholic). --172.135.27.151 07:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is Colbert a Jewish name? Asarelah 12:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He's got to be Catholic for the previous reasons and because I recall reading an article about his past playing Dungeons & Dragons, and how he questioned why it was so reputed by the leaders of his religion. Speaking of which, if I didn't get that from the article, we should add that... (Oh, I did.) - Boss1000 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dungeons & Dragons is condemned by many different churches. I'm not sure the Catholic Church ever did. But it's a big church and some sects of it may have done so more recently, but not when COlbert was a child.nut-meg 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic? 

message: Pantsman somebody or other has been vandalizing this page, replacing the entire thing with "He has recently admitted he is a homosexual."
First of all, I think your cool.  Second, I think we might want to request that you be elected presedent. 
Thoughts?
--Lady Voldything 01:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think it was an insult? ;) --Renice 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Just saw Colbert on O'reilly and I was wondering why he didn't have anything good to say about Stewart. He kept saying negative things about him and I am not sure why. Anyone have light to shed on this?
:O'Reilly is a curmudgeon. Meanwhile, keep in mind these two were acting. I'm sure the thing was pretty much scripted. I'm not saying that on the pages, since I can't prove it, but these were not serious interviews, just fluff pieces. Fun to watch, though. Wahkeenah 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When Stewart was on O'Reilly's show he called people who watch The Daily Show "stoned slackers". And he was actually mad that John Kerry went on Stewart's show instead of his. MrBlondNYC 16:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which "he" said that, but if it was O'Reilly, Stewart probably would not disagree. Generally, keep in mind that O'Reilly is a muckraker and an entertainer. He comes from Inside Edition. Don't ever forget that. Wahkeenah 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the user may have been wondering why Colbert had nothing good to say about Stewart. And the answer is that he was joking. Colbert didn't mean a thing he said in that interview. Actually watch the show to get a sense of how he was trying to be funny. -- Viewdrix 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Colbert said that about Stewart's audience, it obviously was a joke. He was commenting during the O'Reilly "interview" about Stewart being a pothead and such (not those exact words). Obviously, all a joke. People make the assumption that O'Reilly is serious all the time. Like when he has this body language expert come in and tell the audience exactly what we expect her to say about whatever public figure she's analyzing. It's Inside Edition stuff. Wahkeenah 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert and Stewart?

message: Removed:
 In the January 24, 2007 episode, Colbert referred to Wikipedia in "The Word" section of his show by displaying "Wikipedia" as subtext for his statement that he could create a fact by posting something on a blog, having another blog link to it, and then validating that blog's reporting of the "fact" by referring to it on his show.
Per previous discussions, this is an article about Stephen Colbert the person, and while it's kind of interesting to Wikipedians when he mentions us, it's not really a notable event in the context of his career. The Report has had over 200 shows now, during which time he's made fun of a lot of things, which for the most part are not worth listing individually in this article. 
By the same token, I feel the extra description of his O'Reilly interview (tacked on at the end of the "other roles" section, for some reason) would make more sense in the The Colbert Report article than this one. The two appearing on each others' shows was a notable Colbert Report moment, but pointing out specific jokes that Colbert made in one specific interview seems like going into a bit too much detail for a career overview. -- Bailey(talk) 05:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm'ed self-reference 

message: i want to put in your profile  
Steven Colbert tells how it is, doesnt lie, and has no feer. He is famous from strangers with candy and the daily show with jon stawart. But since then hes become a inspiration for many. STEVEN COLBERT IS THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE (and funniest)> COLBERT/STEWART 2008! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amann32 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny. Now please leave and let the adults speak. And if you're serious, then I just do not know what to say , except that you are right and I want to marry you. The great kawa 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  put this in 

message: Hi. The first paragraph of the page ends as, 'deadpan comedic delivery'. There is no such word as 'comedic', it should be 'comic'. Please make this change. Thanks.
:Comedic is a word last I checked. Just type it into Google. The great kawa 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes dude, you are right. My dictionary didn't have an entry for comedic. Guess, I gotta update it. --Irfan 12:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change in first paragraph 

message: Colbert has also:
1. Help spread the rumour of the elephant population tripling, by calling for his viewers to record the statement on Wikipedia.
2. Dubbed the phrase "Reality has to be contained" (I forget the exact phrasing he used), which he called viewers to again amend to the Wikipedia entry of 'reality'.
3. Has officially been granted an honorary day in his name in Oshawa, Canada, as the result of a wager held between himself and John Gray, the mayor of Oshawa.  This day is remembered on March 20th, Mayor John Gray's birthday.[1] 
* [1] Reference: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070126/colbert_oshawa_070127/20070127?hub=Entertainment
Apologies on this being a 'weak' link, but the above information is hot off the press.
Dafdaf 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be in Stephen Colbert (character) not here. This is the comedian's real life article not the satirical pundit. Gdo01 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self Proclomations and Achievements 

message: Stephen Colbert recently challenged someone as of the end of january 07 to post a check on reality and it was for sale and the first person to post that it was would gain 5$.  Unfortunatly, the reality word is / was under construction.  There for no money could be gained.  As an avid support of Gaining Money, Colbert, And an oshawa generals fan looking for a little payback for the Pants (ps, he does look good in red and white), I tried to post a change.  However I could not, as such, I will keep checking so that I may attempt to win the 5$.  I posted to the Colbert definition in Wikipedia, however I'm not sure that reality was mentioned there either.  
Nathan Duclos
Nathanduclos@hotmail.com
Oshawa Ontario, Canada
postscript, Is the 5$ in American or Canadian funds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathanduclos (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality 

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

message: The Colbert/Wikipedia battle became more interesting with the overnight Wikilobbying battle last night.  Does anyone know why this page was deleted? 21:25 January 30 2007
:It could be the obvious self-promotion nature so as to be in the same spirit as Spam. Chivista 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a neologism.  The short answer to your question is, "it violates Wikipedia's content guidelines."  If someone wants to add a relevant section to Wikipedia, then it can be proposed and discussed over there.  —bbatsell ¿? 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikilobbying

message: Please change it from  to . — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong protection template 

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

message: 
I think Wikipedia in popular culture should be added to "see also". Bubba73 (talk), 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Leave me a message on my talk page if this turns out to be controversial. Tom Harrison Talk 13:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Tom.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit protected 

message: whoever is locking this, please fix the link to this week in god, it should go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Daily_Show_recurring_segments#This_Week_in_God
--Jaibe 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed for "This Week in God." I also removed the link to the God Machine, as it would have been the exact same link. Any objections? --Kshieh 08:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fix link to god machine segment 

message: This wiki introduces him as Stephen Tyrone Colbert.  Is that REALLY his middle name? -Northridge01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Idiot. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrone?!?! 

message: An "award" of sorts, Stephen is credited in Firefox's About dialog.
207.229.164.50 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think its the same Colbert? Gdo01 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.C. listed as Firefox Contributor 

message: I would add that Dan Bakkedahl joined the daily show after Mr. Colbert left the show - I hesitate to say "replaced" Mr. Colbert, but I think that would be a useful link in Colbert's main article.
Colbert did not leave the Daily Show.  He appears as an adjunct to the show, continuing his relationship with it.  70.5.166.167 09:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Bakkedahl joins the Daily Show 

message: And reference 62 should link to the message on the Ben and Jerry's official site (http://www.benjerry.com/features/americone_dream_index.cfm) rather than to a temporary link at Yahoo news.
: Are you joking? The Ben and Jerry site you linked to links back to the Yahoo link already in the article. dposse 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert Ice Cream not a Rumor =

message: The term coined by Stephen Colbert that sums up the current ongoing wars that the USA is involved in, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the War on  Terrorism.
--Hanswaldenmaier 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? If you want to add it to the article, you might want to see WP:N first. dposse 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Grand War

message: H2g2bob suggested a merge of this page and Stephen Colbert (character), but did not give a reason on the talk page. Anyone who knows of Stephen Colbert would know that merging these two does not make sense. It is similar to how Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Seinfeld (character) both deserve two different pages as these are two different people. Stephen Colbert the actor and comic portrays Stephen Colbert the character, but they are in no way the same person. I removed the merge request. spirit 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They should not be merged. Matan 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two shouldn't be merged as per spirit. --TM 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The two articles shouldn't be merged. dposse 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Which party is he? Republican or Democrat?70.149.79.61 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the article that he is a self-described Democrat. Voretus 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: In his recent episode aired March 28th, 2007 he added Italy to his Axis of Evil and pretended to speak Italian. Obviously the first bit was for humor, and then he went on to speak several more lines without a translation.
Does anyone have any sources to suggest he speaks it, or is this a bit for the show? If so, a note can be added.
Geral Corasjo 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluent in Italian? 

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

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

message: Shouldn't the article mention that he's the greatest living American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.47 (talk • contribs).
:Only if it's fact, and Colbert scholars can prove it through facts using unbiased data and information. Since it's not (it's merely an opinion, in fact), then no, it shouldn't be here. You are, however, welcome to feel free to believe so, as it is your opinion, and no one can force/change your opinions. --6xB 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Nice try with the remark, trying to pretend that you're me.  Unfortunately, I noticed it right away. --6xB 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Greatest Living American does redirect here, Perhaps some explanation should be given as to why. Goodolclint 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: In the introduction, the following sentence should be clarified:
"Since its debut the series has been successful, earning Colbert four Emmy nominations and an invitation to perform as featured entertainer at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in its first year (2006), in addition to establishing itself as one of Comedy Central's highest rated series."
While I am pretty sure that the writer is referring to the show's first year in 2006, it sounds as if it was the WHCA Dinner's first year, which is obviously not the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeDog (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White House Correspondents' Association Dinner 

message: For the source for the assertion in the first paragraph that Colbert's routine is portraying opinionmaking fools, see his own assertion in the Onion interview:
:AVC: Jon Stewart recently said he sees The Colbert Report as sort of a 30-minute Daily Show segment. Do you see it as an extension of The Daily Show?
:SC: I sort of see The Daily Show as a 30-minute preamble. It's like an appetizer before you get to the main course. 
:AVC: Do you think the sensibility is pretty much the same? 
:SC: Absolutely. This is a direct extension of the work they did on The Daily Show, and it plays very much the same game as my character, who is a well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot. 
The words I used are actually more restrained than Colbert's own. Larry Dunn 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert's own words are hardly NPOV. It's not good to state them as fact. Voretus 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert's the person who creates and performs the characters.  He's a pretty good objective source as to whether they are foolish or not. Larry Dunn 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he's not. He portrays an extremely right-wing person which, to the people he's trying to reach, seems like an idiot. I know plenty of conservatives in my area that don't "get" Colbert because they agree with a lot of the "foolish" stuff he says. Primary sources are RARELY objective. Voretus 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously suggesting that Colbert's characters are not satirical, and that he doesn't know what he's doing when he performs them? Because some of your friends find Moby Dick to be a science fiction novel does not mean it is one. Larry Dunn 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert portraying foolish people 

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

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

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

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

message: Does this have anything to do with his deafness? --Starks 17:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. Apparently his eardrum was removed, and while making him lose hearing in that ear, also allowed him to do tha ear flip thing. I remember seeing a video on YouTube before, but I can't find it anymore. --Kshieh 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert's lop-sided ears... 

message: I think in the "See Also" section, there should be a link to the "Stephen Colbert (character)" page, which I didn't know exhisted until I found it through another page. At the same time the "(character)" page could use a link back to the original Colbert page in its "See Also" section (thought that's less impotant as the link exists in the first line).
I realize there's a link under the "The Colbert Report" section, but its poorly labeled "in character". This should be rewritten, in addition to the link being added in the "See Also" section, so if you're looking for the link, it's obvious in that section and you don't have to go searching through the body of the article to find it.
This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_%28character%29
Wadester16 12:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, its in the first line of the page right under the article name: "This article is about Stephen Colbert, the actor. For the character he portrays on The Colbert Report, see Stephen Colbert (character)." Something similar is in the character article. Gdo01 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Stephen Colbert (Character)