Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 1

message: "The Colbert Report" was never really a segment on TDS, was it? It was more of a spoof ad for a fake show.
:Now that you mention it, it was mostly that: and ad for a supposedly much longer show. Clever literary device, like a Borges book review. --MarkSweep✍ 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular segment"? 

message: Does anyone know if what Colbert says about his childood in this interview is true? It seems like he's being serious when he says his father and two brothers died when he was 10, but he is a comedian, so there's a chance that it's false. Can anyone verify it? --Carl 05:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dopers can --Alterego 01:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood info 

message: The two paragraphs concering Colbert's work on Daily Show and Harvey Birdman are a bit much, IMHO. This level of detail seems sycophantic and irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry. Someone who isn't already a fan will learn little or nothing from these references. I got rid of some of the most blatant excesses including some weasel phrases, but more editing is in order. I think those paragraphs should be virtually eliminated. Thoughts?
Sparohok 01:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: Do we know "how" French he is? I know he's said that his last name is French, but is it his father, grandfather, etc. who's French? "French Americans", the category I took out, usually refers to people of at least 1/4 French descent.Vulturell 23:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he said in an interview with Letterman that the rest of his family pronounces it "COL-bert" (with the "t"), and that he just pronounces it the other way for comedic effect. Davis21Wylie 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he said that his father wanted to be "Col-ber" but he didn't want to disrespect his own father (Stephen's grandfather) so he stayed "Colbert". He also said that about half of his siblings are "Colbert" and half are "Col-ber". He didn't say he chose "Col-ber" for comedic effect, but he did crack several jokes about that choice. I think that that his saying "Colbert" the other night was a subtle joke. Qutezuce 10:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French heritage? 

message: wasn't he briefly a comedic spokeperson for BF Goodrich or some other automotive repair/maintenance company?
He starred in commercials for Mr. Goodwrench. BrianGCrawfordMA 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  auto shop commercials 

message: here it mentions that he is deaf in one ear...... can we find out which ear?
KV 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaf in one Ear 

message: What's the deal with this? Why does it keep getting re-inserted? It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's not news, it's not important, it has no implications. The "boycott" on Uncyclopedia (which I can't find on Uncyclopedia, btw) is irrelevant. The joke "Jesi" or "Jesii" (he used the former on the show, for reference), is a common joke. My kudos to those of you who are keeping this material out. If this gets re-inserted I shall be upset. Makaristos 08:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's being accused of copyright infringement, then it could be worth a mention. But I didn't see anything in their Colbert article that indicated that they were terribly bent out of shape about it... and since they are basically a poor-man's version of the Onion, written by "The People", then even if they were truly upset, how would we truly know? If someone re-inserts that paragraph without attribution to back up the claim, then don't get mad, get even: Threaten to eat their young. >:) Wahkeenah 09:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it even matter if they could attribute it? I don't think it's worthy of inclusion. It's only important if, as you say, he's being accused of copyright infringement, which I don't see at all. They can go ahead and cite their own article all they want, but there's no evidence for anything anywhere at all. Not only will I eat their young, I'll consume their souls. Makaristos 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a fresh look at the page, yes, they mention the alleged controversy, but there's nothing about a "boycott", nor do they seem particularly upset about it. In their approach to writing, a "boycott" would be defined as a perverted scoutmaster's favorite piece of furniture. As for the vandals, you could have filet of souls, ja? Wahkeenah 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Filet of souls sounds appealing, but I might prefer a diet of worms. Makaristos 10:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, those Roman Catholic conventions served a spartan lunch. No wonder Martin Luther cut out early. He was on the run, dying for fries, a shake, and a Wittenberger on a bun. Wahkeenah 10:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just filet of sole? Only one sole. It can be the sole sole of any sole individual who dares post that bit about Uncyclopedia. It can be the right or left sole, but it doesn't matter, as long as it's the sole sole. It could be the sole soul sole soul sole soul, now that I think of it. Actually, I think I'm going to turn in for the night, or at least what remains of it. There you have it, citizens: our challenge for verifiable material. Makaristos 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear you are the sole authority on these matters. :) Wahkeenah 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia "controversy" 

message: Stephen has (as he constantly points out) two peabodys and two emmys... I know the Emmys are both from the Daily show as a writer (if I'm not mistaken)... But what are his Peabodys from? Also Writing on Daily? None of his awards are mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone with better intell can make note of his awards in the article?
: From the Peabody site: Comedy Central`s "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart `Indecision 2004`" won a Peabody for its presidential campaign coverage; the Peabody Board citied the show`s appeal as "satire that deflates pomposity on an equal opportunity basis." This is the program`s second Peabody; it also won for its 2000 election coverage. --Anson2995 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards? 

message: I enjoy watching the Colbert Report, it's a great show. However do you not see how ridiculous all of this is and how easily this encyclopedia is being manipulated? Two celebrities mention wikipedia on TV and suddenly there are more than 100 edits across three pages in the span of one evening? If Huffington had come on TV and said that the American Heritage Dictionary said Colbert didn't invent the word "truthiness" and he responded by saying "fuck them", do you think there would even be more than a passing mention here? For a supposedly neutral encyclopedia, everyone sure gets excited by a little bit of press. Wikipedia is not a sports team; let's stop basking in the glow of reflected glory and move on. Semiconscious • talk 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous

message: Just a small fact check, but the narration of the fake Oscar attack ads during the 2006 Academy Awards seemed to be the distinct voice of Rob Corddry and not Stephen Colbert. Perhaps someone can find proof of this in writing.
No way in hell, dude. That was Colbert.
:It was Colbert. Just Google "oscar attack ads colbert" and you get all the proof you need. Also, sign your posts on talk pages, please. Makaristos 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  are these ads online anywhere? thanks. Bwithh 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure?  It sounded like Ed Helms to me, which makes more sense as he does a lot of the voiceovers for the Daily Show (in addition to being a current correspondent).--69.207.41.106 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Colbert!  Makaristos 06:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar attack ads 

message: I hardly think that Stephen's real middle name is Tyrone.  It's listed as such on ColbertNation.com but that site isn't very reliable, not to mention I think it's a Star Trek reference as Captain James T. Kirk's middle name was Tyrone which is somewhat strange of a name. - Brent Randall, April 10
:Kirk's middle name was Tiberius... but of course, this being Wikipedia, that would have been pretty easy to look up... TheHYPO 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Tyrone is an Irish county, um, nope. hateless 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrone? 

message: please write the trivia into the article itself. having a trivia section in an encyclopedia entry is uncouth. Kingturtle 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Wikipedia is a hotbed of uncouth activity, guy. I'd say that a goodly percentage of articles that are at least a single screen in length have a section for trivia. 204.69.40.7 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A hotbed of uncouth activity... alright! I knew I liked Wikipedia for a good reason. - Reaverdrop 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: Citing copyvio bs. Where is the best place to watch the whole thing on the web now?--Deglr6328 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Democracy Now has it. You might also try C-span, which has the entire evening; I understand Colbert starts at about the 1 hour 5 minute mark. Happy viewing. - Reaverdrop 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe Deglr was speaking in general, particularly to clips of his actual show. The Comedy Central website has them all. Practically has the entire series is split into one clip or another. As for it being "bs", you spent millions a year producing a television series, and see how willing you are to let just anyone air it.  --  Zanimum 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhm no I was talking about the televised correspondents assoc. dinner which was filmed by Cspan (who did you think filmed it comedy central?) which like every other US governmental proceeding that they record they place under thier absurdly restrictive copyright. and THAT is bullshit. --Deglr6328 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if i missed something... youtube has been my exclusive site for catching up with Colbert clips (no tv even!) I watched the entire Colbert White House Correspondence Dinner routine there, this last week. MotherFunctor 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube drops Colbert clips

message: Please discuss: This section, covering a 20 minute performance and its aftermath, now takes up 58% of the text of the entry on Stephen Colbert's entire life. It needs to be split off to return to good proportion. - Reaverdrop 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - imagine the poor fellow who comes looking for unrelated info about Colbert's Life.  This may be an important event - may be used as an excuse to end press briefings - but it has outgrown the Colbert page.Juneappal 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I was going to suggest this myself. Much of this material is valuable, but this is an article about Colbert, and discussion of the Correspondant's dinner should probably be given proper weight relevance to his career as a comedian. Lee Bailey 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree -- This is becoming a story in and of itself. However, I think we should leave a short summary of the event in his bio (a few paragraphs), along with the link to the new article. Brian.fsm 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone think an article on the "2006 White House Press Correspondants' Dinner" would ultimately be a better destination for this than one on "Colbert at the 2006 WHCD"? That might give a little more room to discuss the press reaction as it relates to both Colbert and the Bush impersonator schtick. "Colbert at the..." could redirect to a similarly named section on Colbert. Lee Bailey 16:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking about that too, but changed my mind for a couple of reasons. Right now, the dinners are covered here. There's not much room to say much there. Also, the story has morphed, so the actual dinner seems to be just one part of a larger story about Colbert, the media, and the Internet. Brian.fsm 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, I'd support the move either way, but I don't see why the presence of an article on the White House Correspondents' Association should stop us on starting one on the topic of the 2006 Dinner seperately. I think it's kind of a shame the dinners aren't covered individually, as they are newsworthy events and also relevant to the careers of many entertainers. Lee Bailey 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a lot of content about the dinner that could, in fact, be put into a new, separate article about the dinner (but see my dissent to renaming the existing article, below). But someone has to step forward and write it. - Brian.fsm 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's about much more than his speech though - it's largely about the reaction over the next week from a great many voices in the mainstream media and on the Internet. There's just too much relevant information about the media and Internet sensation in the aftermath of the dinner, that has nothing to do with Colbert personally, to shoehorn into the entry on Stephen Colbert. There's already been an extensive consensus on having them separate; because of that, I'm taking the merge tags back down for now. What there should be instead is a rename of the entry on the Colbert White House dinner aftermath. - Reaverdrop 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems like a good idea to me. jaco♫plane 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that there seems to be some support for this idea, should it be listed at "Wikipedia: requested moves"? Or is there another procedure for this? Lee Bailey 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. I'm for a new, separate article for the 2006 WHCA dinner, if someone wants to write it, but against renaming the existing article. I'll split my reasons up so it's easy to respond to individual points.Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) The Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is too long to shoehorn into another article. It was split from the original Stephen Colbert bio because the bio got too long and we got a Wikipedia warning about length. And, if anything, the article should be even longer. We don't yet include WHCA president Steve Scully's remarks about the debate. We talk about the "Internet sensation" but have scant coverage on the sites that created the sensation. We don't include a link to Ana Marie Cox's commentary in Time magazine, which is different from other commentary (she attacks the blogs). We don't say anything about the reaction of the audience present at the dinner, except that some Bush aides left. Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 2) The existing Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner article is not about the dinner. It's about the Internet & press reaction to Stephen's "blistering comedy 'tribute'"http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002425363 Heck, we barely discuss the dinner itself (the red carpet, the hob-knobbing, the elbow rubbing). There's been a handful of criticism about whether the dinner should even continue, but they seem actually outside the scope of this particular article. Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, I'm not against a new article -- I think a new article would be great, if someone is willing to write it. But I'm against renaming this one because this one is not about the dinner. A new article about the dinner should point to the existing Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner article -- much like the Stephen Colbert bio page does. Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it exisits isn't about the dinner, but that isn't to say it shouldn't be expanded to include that information. Right now, this is a rather exhaustive treatment of a twenty minute speech, and as far as the media reaction section goes, a large part of it would have to be replicated to make an article on the dinner complete. I'd be more than willing to contribute that content. I'm thinking this discussion sould be moved to the "Colbert at the White House" article talk. Lee Bailey 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to write an article about the WHCA dinner as a whole (at 90 minutes, I have not watched the whole thing). I think, in the "dinner" article, the treatment of Colbert and the media reaction to Colbert could be rather brief, with a link to the existing Colbert article. However, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is no more about the dinner than Pearl Harbor is about Hawaii. Brian.fsm 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Um... this is confusing.  This page now says the discussion continues on that page, and that page says the discussion continues on this page.  Which is it?  -- noosphere 21:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should continue there. Sorry for the confusion. Lee Bailey 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend split-off for WHCA dinner section 

message: The aticle states:
: Editor & Publisher also compared Cohen's comments on Colbert to comments he made soon before the invasion of Iraq, when he 'declared that Saddam Hussein "without a doubt" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."'
Who made the joke about the WMD? Colbert or Cohen? The sentence, as it is written now, makes it sound like it could be either. (It's probably obvious to those who actually KNOW who said it, but I don't and this sentence is not helpful.) And the web page that the article links to as a reference does not mention this. Eje211 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Cohen's remark, although I'm not sure that Editor and Publisher really draws a comparison, persay. Its only mentioned in the footnote of the article cited. The link is here: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002462678  Lee Bailey 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity in the article 

message: To clarify, the silent "t" is not a result of French heritage (I removed, btw, the reference to Jean-Babtiste Colbert, which was out of place), but an homage to his father, who always wanted to have his name pronounced that way but could not because his father, Stephen Colbert's grandfather, lived in the same town and might be offended.  After his father died, Stephen Colbert decided he wanted his name pronounced like that in a tribute to his late father.
:Source? --kizzle 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One partial source (in vital stats section): Great Charlestonian? Or the Greatest Charlstonian? 67.46.0.13 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent "T" 

message: An anonymous user changed the trivia bit that said Colbert was deaf in one ear to read Colbert is NOT deaf in one ear, saying, "He wasn't really deaf, it was a joke he made. It even says it was a joke, but be careful how you word things."  The source cited says, "Colbert is forty-one, a native of South Carolina, one of eleven children, the father of three, a suburban guy, and deaf in one ear. 'I had this weird tumor as a kid, and they scooped it out with a melon baller.' " -The New Yorker, July 25, 2005  The bit about the melon baller is obviously a joke.  But otherwise, The New Yorker seems to be saying, fairly unambiguously, that Colbert is deaf in one ear.  Does anyone else know of any other sources that make mention of his auditory capabilities?--Ryan! 08:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He mentioned it as part of his "Stupid human trick" involving his ear on David Letterman, or if he didn't say it directly, I know he at least implied it when he mentioned he did, in fact, have an operation on his ear as a child. I believe the video is on YouTube. He also mentioned the operation on the show in response to criticism that his ears are too distracting, though again, I can't remember if he said right out "I'm deaf in this ear", and because of that, I can't decipher whether the anonymous user meant that the mention on the show was a joke, or the mention in the New York Times article was a joke. -- Viewdrix 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In this article (the "Vital Stats" part at the bottom), he mentions being deaf in one ear without making a joke. Someone might want to change the citation, to clarify matters. 24.151.31.245 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaf?