Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 2

message: it is scottish
http://www.houseofnames.com/coatofarms_details.asp?sId=&s=colbert
That site also says that its English so we still dont' know for sure.
:It's primarily a French name, but as there have been waves of migration of French people (both Catholics and Huguenots) to the British Isles over the past millenium, today there are people there with the name. Funnyhat 01:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the name colbert 

message: I think it's probably a good idea to limit both these sections combined to 3-6, and put the rest in WikiQuote. --kizzle 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  extensive quotes on both Colbert Report and WHCD 

message: Yes, apparently, Doctor. In the 2006-06-08 show, Colbert announced he had received an honorary doctorate degree. In this show, he placed his new framed doctorate diploma on his mantlepiece. --pbryan 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor? 

message: Colbert's Heroes and Nofactzone are both blogs, being posted by their maintainers and contributing no useful information to this article (as neither is even close to a reliable source. Their presence here is nothing but advertising. Please don't replace them in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not whether the sites are a "reliable source".  I can at least speak for myself when I say that my site provides links to all sources of information, most of which is from mainstream media (which counts as reliable data for the sake of Wiki credibility).  NoFactZone.net provides topical documented news on a daily basis, as well as episode guides, and other links relating to Stephen Colbert that while relevant to the specific topic of the Wiki article, are considered too much minutae to feature in Wiki.  The issue is whether fan sites are permissible on Wiki sites featuring famous personalities.  In this case, we're talking about two sites who have estabished themselves for months and are considered reliable in the fact that they stay on topic and provide current relevant data with documentation to said data.  This is the criteria as mentioned in the WP:EL.  Yes, I am helping to promote ColbertsHeroes.com, but that's becuase I feel it is a relevant site in regards to this topic.  Fan sites are permissible as long as they are relevant to the topic and updated on a regular basis so as to add substance to the Wikipedia article in which they are linked. Both of these sites have proven consistently to meet this criteria. Nofactzone 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Colbert's Heroes isn't a blog--listing site updates reverse-chronologically does not make a blog.  There is plenty of original content on the site other than links to other places.  I don't know why you have got such a vendetta against all fan sites when you haven't even looked over the sites in question.  --149.10.148.44 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While the entry page of NoFactZone.net does have a blog format, the site also has many static pages with data valuable to readers looking for information about Stephen Colbert, including a news archive featuring an organized and documented source of news articles featuring Stephen Colbert available on the web.  This page alone makes the site a valuable companion piece to this Wiki article. Nofactzone 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. The useful subpage is linked on the talk page, where anyone who may need it can access it. No need to link your blog in the article, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NoFactZone.net has many other interesting and useful links pertaining to Stephen Colbert and his career than simply the above link. And not everyone is going to be visiting the Talk page. I only linked that site as an example of the relevance of my site to the subject. Using your logic, I could post any link on this talk site and technically is being represented on Wiki. But clearly having a link on the talk page is not nearly as relevant to the people searching for information about Stephen Colbert as actually having a link on the main page. Yes, justifying a link to my site on the main page is blatantly self-promoting, I’ll admit that, but you're missing the big picture.  I put the effort into my site so that there is a comprehensive, up-to-the-minute news source available to fans of Colbert who want to find out more information about him. My site covers topics that will never be covered on this site because they are too topical and current.  The site is updated daily with news articles from numerous sources, such as blogs such as the Huffington Post, magazines, daily newspapers and television interviews.  Because of the thoroughness of my site, it continuously has the most updated and comprehensive news about Stephen Colbert available online. The point of external links is to give the readers of the article more sources of information for the topic in the article. NoFactZone.net does this unequivocally.  Also, may I just state that my site is a labor of love – it is not commercial in any sense of the word and I make no money on this site.  I do this because I enjoy providing information in a format that allows the site to stay fresh. Nofactzone 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends on what definition of "blog" you're going on here.  One site uses blogging software and posts daily entries; one does not.  Neither site is what I would call a "blog."
===Colbert has a posse===
Why does this link keep getting re-inserted? It doesn't contribute anything to the article, there's no substantive information on that page, and it's referenced nowhere here. It seems like a total vanity link insertion to me, and I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Please provide a rationale for its inclusion here or it'll just keep getting reverted out. Thank you. Makaristos 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, so far as I can tell, it's the only active, non-Comedy Central run fan site on the web right now, and as I understand it, it's currently under active recruitment for content and such. While I agree that adding every "omgColbertRocks!" Geocities page might be a bit much, it does seem odd that this page only has official sites listed, when many other celeb pages do have fan sites. Is there some larger policy at work here that people in general should be aware of? Or that could be tagged in comments, such as "we're not going to list fan sites unless they're officially connected to the show" or somesuch? --Loiosh 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the person who runs the site in question, and inserted the link.  It is in fact the only fan site that I know of (other than the Comedy Central-run Colbert Nation) that has been updated in the last three years.  If you don't want to go down a slippery slope of "if we add one fan site, then we'll have to add all of them," then that's a fine policy as such.  If you don't think it's a related or relevant link, then that's fine too, but I thought that section of links includes related sites other than those cited in the article.  It's not a commercial site by any means.  The link may be more appropriate on the "Colbert Report" article, if anywhere at all.  --Snarkivist 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true (and admittedly, I'm not much for celebrities, so I don't really know how other pages handle this issue), perhaps it is appropriate. What if we had a separate category of external links for it (and similar sites, were any to reveal themselves) so that we wouldn't be confusing it with other link categories such as reference information? Makaristos 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can look at how other celebrity articles handle fan pages, since I'm not much of a star-watcher myself.  A separate category sounds like a good idea, or putting it on the show page (since the site is dedicated more to the show itself than to Mr. Colbert.)  I only know of one other site, called The Colbertic Realm, which was abandoned in 2003 but is still online.  There may be others, but they're not easily found.  --Snarkivist 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Makaristos 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely a precedent for listing fan sites...look at the external links section for (shudder) Britney Spears.  It's split into "official/other sites," and her IMDB page and one large fan site are listed under "other."  Britney_spears#External_links  The entry for Zach Braff lists one of his fan sites in the poorly organized "external links" as well.  Personally, I like the "official/unofficial" split as in Spears' article, which leaves room for more sites as needed.   --Snarkivist 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I support Snarkivist's proposal to list his fan site, provided its content remains relevant. It would appear in line with practice in other articles - as long as the site contributes information not found here at wikipedia, which I believe is the policy for external links.Michael Dorosh 21:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Michael.  It's hard to say that it has totally original content since there are a few sections of the site not up yet.  I would say that the fan forum devoted to the show is completely unique, as are episode recaps.Snarkivist 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced. Set it up! Makaristos 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I didn't see this part of the discussion. I pulled out the link to the Heroes site based on the line in Wikipedia: External Links which suggests that articles about subjects with large numbers of fansites may include a single link to a representitive fan site, and other articles shouldn't link to fansites at all.  This does contradict what I've seen in other articles, so I'm curious as to what everybody else thinks. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I hadn't read that part of the style guide.  Hmm.  What does everyone else think--and is that why Tek Jansen.com was yanked too?  In any case, there are more and more fan sites appearing in the last few months, including the posse site, the Colbertocrats site, Tek Jansen (if indeed that is run by a fan, and I believe it is) Colbertvideos.com, etc.  I suppose it depends on what one considers a "large" number of fan sites.  Zach Braff, to use the example I used before, only has a half-dozen sites that I can find, and he has one linked on his Wikipedia entry.  --Snarkivist 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this partly figured into why I removed the Tek Jansen link, but please see the above Tek Jansen section of this talk page for further thoughts on that. I do really wish there was a guideline on what constitutes a "large number" of fansites. On the other hand, I don't think going by the precident set by other articles really helps much -- it seems that virutally everyone has fansite links if even one can be found, and most articles blatantly ignore the "one representive pick" concept in favor of listing any fansites they can find. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about this, but it seems like, if we're going by the guideline at all, we should acknowledge that some people have very large numbers of fansites (major movie stars, teen idols, anyone associated with a huge scifi-fantasy fandom) and virtually everyone else who has ever appeared on screen has a handful of fansites just by the nature of their existance. Since this is a guideline, though, it might be fair to simply ignore it (like everyone else seems to be doing). Maybe just go with one solid pick?  -- Lee Bailey(talk) 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the other people working on the entry think is right, since I haven't done a ton of writing on this entry (I work more on The Colbert Report entry.)  It's true that the fan site rule is observed more in the breach than not.  --Snarkivist 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The link to it should be retained on the "recurring elements page," if any.  However, the project is an attempt to profit off the name and image of Stephen Colbert and the intellectual property of Comedy Central (the Tek Jansen "book.")  The number of ads on that site boggles the sane Web designer's mind.  --Snarkivist 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One fan site is allowed as long as it is a representative sample and the subject already has multiple sites devoted to him/her.  Both of our sites have been linked from the entry for months now and this was approved by the main editors of the page--why delete them now?  Are we both being punished because Nofactzone added her own link back in after it was deleted?  It's starting to appear that way, and this concerns me.  --Snarkivist 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Makaristos 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If this is so, then why is colbertondemand.com now listed as one of the first external links?  --Snarkivist 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what revision you are looking at but mine shows that that link was deleted at 14:12, October 9, 2006 (EST) Gdo01 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I deleted it.  --Snarkivist 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert fan sites 

message: Why does this link keep getting re-inserted? It doesn't contribute anything to the article, there's no substantive information on that page, and it's referenced nowhere here. It seems like a total vanity link insertion to me, and I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Please provide a rationale for its inclusion here or it'll just keep getting reverted out. Thank you. Makaristos 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so far as I can tell, it's the only active, non-Comedy Central run fan site on the web right now, and as I understand it, it's currently under active recruitment for content and such. While I agree that adding every "omgColbertRocks!" Geocities page might be a bit much, it does seem odd that this page only has official sites listed, when many other celeb pages do have fan sites. Is there some larger policy at work here that people in general should be aware of? Or that could be tagged in comments, such as "we're not going to list fan sites unless they're officially connected to the show" or somesuch? --Loiosh 16:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the person who runs the site in question, and inserted the link.  It is in fact the only fan site that I know of (other than the Comedy Central-run Colbert Nation) that has been updated in the last three years.  If you don't want to go down a slippery slope of "if we add one fan site, then we'll have to add all of them," then that's a fine policy as such.  If you don't think it's a related or relevant link, then that's fine too, but I thought that section of links includes related sites other than those cited in the article.  It's not a commercial site by any means.  The link may be more appropriate on the "Colbert Report" article, if anywhere at all.  --Snarkivist 17:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true (and admittedly, I'm not much for celebrities, so I don't really know how other pages handle this issue), perhaps it is appropriate. What if we had a separate category of external links for it (and similar sites, were any to reveal themselves) so that we wouldn't be confusing it with other link categories such as reference information? Makaristos 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can look at how other celebrity articles handle fan pages, since I'm not much of a star-watcher myself.  A separate category sounds like a good idea, or putting it on the show page (since the site is dedicated more to the show itself than to Mr. Colbert.)  I only know of one other site, called The Colbertic Realm, which was abandoned in 2003 but is still online.  There may be others, but they're not easily found.  --Snarkivist 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Makaristos 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely a precedent for listing fan sites...look at the external links section for (shudder) Britney Spears.  It's split into "official/other sites," and her IMDB page and one large fan site are listed under "other."  Britney_spears#External_links  The entry for Zach Braff lists one of his fan sites in the poorly organized "external links" as well.  Personally, I like the "official/unofficial" split as in Spears' article, which leaves room for more sites as needed.   --Snarkivist 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I support Snarkivist's proposal to list his fan site, provided its content remains relevant. It would appear in line with practice in other articles - as long as the site contributes information not found here at wikipedia, which I believe is the policy for external links.Michael Dorosh 21:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Michael.  It's hard to say that it has totally original content since there are a few sections of the site not up yet.  I would say that the fan forum devoted to the show is completely unique, as are episode recaps.Snarkivist 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced. Set it up! Makaristos 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I didn't see this part of the discussion. I pulled out the link to the Heroes site based on the line in Wikipedia: External Links which suggests that articles about subjects with large numbers of fansites may include a single link to a representitive fan site, and other articles shouldn't link to fansites at all.  This does contradict what I've seen in other articles, so I'm curious as to what everybody else thinks. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I hadn't read that part of the style guide.  Hmm.  What does everyone else think--and is that why Tek Jansen.com was yanked too?  In any case, there are more and more fan sites appearing in the last few months, including the posse site, the Colbertocrats site, Tek Jansen (if indeed that is run by a fan, and I believe it is) Colbertvideos.com, etc.  I suppose it depends on what one considers a "large" number of fan sites.  Zach Braff, to use the example I used before, only has a half-dozen sites that I can find, and he has one linked on his Wikipedia entry.  --Snarkivist 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this partly figured into why I removed the Tek Jansen link, but please see the above Tek Jansen section of this talk page for further thoughts on that. I do really wish there was a guideline on what constitutes a "large number" of fansites. On the other hand, I don't think going by the precident set by other articles really helps much -- it seems that virutally everyone has fansite links if even one can be found, and most articles blatantly ignore the "one representive pick" concept in favor of listing any fansites they can find. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about this, but it seems like, if we're going by the guideline at all, we should acknowledge that some people have very large numbers of fansites (major movie stars, teen idols, anyone associated with a huge scifi-fantasy fandom) and virtually everyone else who has ever appeared on screen has a handful of fansites just by the nature of their existance. Since this is a guideline, though, it might be fair to simply ignore it (like everyone else seems to be doing). Maybe just go with one solid pick?  -- Lee Bailey(talk) 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the other people working on the entry think is right, since I haven't done a ton of writing on this entry (I work more on The Colbert Report entry.)  It's true that the fan site rule is observed more in the breach than not.  --Snarkivist 20:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The link to it should be retained on the "recurring elements page," if any.  However, the project is an attempt to profit off the name and image of Stephen Colbert and the intellectual property of Comedy Central (the Tek Jansen "book.")  The number of ads on that site boggles the sane Web designer's mind.  --Snarkivist 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One fan site is allowed as long as it is a representative sample and the subject already has multiple sites devoted to him/her.  Both of our sites have been linked from the entry for months now and this was approved by the main editors of the page--why delete them now?  Are we both being punished because Nofactzone added her own link back in after it was deleted?  It's starting to appear that way, and this concerns me.  --Snarkivist 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert has a posse

message: What does everyone think about this link?  Colbertocrat.com ? It doesn't seem to have much substance other than photos and Adsense ads.  --Snarkivist 02:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Makaristos 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbertocrats

message: Colbert Videos keeps getting added, presumably by the Webmaster.  Thoughts?  It's a collection of clips that are already on the Web (mostly on YouTube)  --Snarkivist 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is so, then why is colbertondemand.com now listed as one of the first external links?  --Snarkivist 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know what revision you are looking at but mine shows that that link was deleted at 14:12, October 9, 2006 (EST) Gdo01 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I deleted it.  --Snarkivist 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert Videos

message: I noticed that this site was removed from this page, and wanted to make sure that it was still acceptable to the moderators of this board that a link to this site is available on this page.  This is the first time this link has been removed since its original inclusion to the main Stephen Colbert Wiki page in July 2006.  NoFactZone.net is a Colbert-centric news site (Think Google meets Technorati, but only talking about Stephen Colbert).  It is updated daily and extremely relevant to the subject.  The site features news articles, relevant blog posts in the blogosphere, news from the Colbert Nation, and many other Colbert-related information.  It receives thousands of hits a week and is considered by many to be one of the most topical and relevant Stephen Colbert fan sites on the web.  All data on this site is thoroughly documented to its original source and has been linked to by such credible blogging sites such as Huffington Post and TV Squad.  I feel that it is an acceptable link per WP:EL 1.2.  I feel it definitely qualifies as one of the more relevant Stephen Colbert fan sites on the web.  I readded the link to this page.  Nofactzone 18:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NoFactZone.net

message: I believe Wikipedia's rule about the fair use of screen captures is no more than one per series. Presently, we've got two from Birdman, and two from the Report (including the one that's just the credits).  I'm going to go ahead and pull the extra ones out, unless I'm misinterpreted this. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert plays more than one character on Harvey Birdman, though.  I would think fair use would allow images of others characters he plays on the show, like Reducto.--Ryan! 07:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there appears to be some conflicting information about fair use of screenshots across various places in Wikipedia. I'm trying to get some answers about that right now, but I'll be glad to restore any images to the article that  turn out to be allowable. In the meantime, if anyone knows more about Wikipedia's specific interpretation of fair use than me, feel free to chime in! 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Description of these roles is available on the Harvey Birdman page anyway, isn't it?  --Snarkivist 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear I was incorrect in my interpretation of this rule, but since fair use calls for "significant discussion" of the image in question, I've left out dear Reducto for now, since that's probably material better covered in Birdman-related pages.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use screen captures 

message: ... so take a look, and let me know if any of this doesn't work for you.  Mostly I added info, moved "other roles" below the Colbert Report, and added an early career section. Next up, attempting to find all the typos that inevitably occur when I try and type more than thirty letters at a time, and re-adding any lost wiki-links.  -- Lee Bailey(talk) 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I've reorganized a bit...

message: The article says nothing about it. I'll remove the category until someone provides a source that he is actually Irish-American. Mad Jack 08:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish-American?

message: Many (if not most) of the quotes presently listed should in fact be attributed to his character on The Colbert Report.  The presentation as it is now is misleading. 74.132.209.231 05:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What purpose does the quotes section actually serve? Is this an encyclopedia or a fan site?Michael Dorosh 05:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: Where his children go to school is irrelevant to this article; placing this information on the web potentially endangers them, and should not be reverted.  In fact, it should be deleted from the Wikipedia servers.
 
Davidkevin 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%, for what it's worth.  I don't think that the town where he lives was even named on the entry previously, was it?  That's elsewhere on the Web but doesn't need to be included in the article.  --Snarkivist 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangering Information Precluded 

message: Why does Ted Hitler link here and not to The Colbert Report where the name Ted Hitler is actually mentioned?--Gdo01 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted Hitler has never come up on The Colbert Report that I know of.  It was a one-time joke on The Daily Show, and really should be removed from the "Colbert Report" page as well. --Snarkivist 07:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've redirected to Stephen Colbert (character).  --  Zanimum 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted Hitler 

message: I was reading the talk about screen caps but what about images from the press release page?  All we need to do is shrink them down and upload them to wiki servers!
http://www.comedycentral.com/press/series/thecolbertreport.jhtml?gallery=true
-James 7-25-2006
: No, no, no. Fair use images should only be used if needed. since we don't need any more images to illustrate the article, we shouldn't add anymore than we already have.  --  Zanimum 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Images? 

message: We seem to be getting the "article may be too long" warning. It looks as though the article text itself, without trivia or quotes, is reasonably sized, but the quote list is getting pretty massive. Can we come to an agreement about how many quotes is a fair number so we don't have to keep cutting stuff out?  Wikiquote is probably a better place for all the "This is the Colbert Report" jokes.   -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, most of the quotes are one liners and/or make no sense outside of context (an excited statement). I say we limit to 3 quotes for each section. I believe that is the guideline. --waffle iron talk 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and quote that isn't in the article main should be only on Wikiquote.  --  Zanimum 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, true. Since we have a Wikipedia article called Stephen Colbert (character), we should have a Wikiquote article with the same title.  --  Zanimum 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since most of the quotes in the article are "fanboy" in-jokes, I've just removed them IAW this discussion. I think the White House dinner quotes should all be jettisoned as well, or moved to the article on the White House Dinner. They add little to the article. If they can be incorporated into the article in a section on his comedic style, they would be appropriate. At present they are just a laundry list.Michael Dorosh 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideal number of quotes? 

message: Just a heads up, unless anyone thinks it would be a bad idea, I'm going to archive this page soon, since it has become quite long. If anyone wants to me to move any particular threads of this conversation over to the new page to keep those topics open, let me know below. I think the discussion of quotes is still an "open topic", but much of what's above it is at this point inactive (and I'm eager to archive the "endangering information" thread for obvious reasons). Thanks.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 00:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page archive

message: Those who say, "This statement has no place here, if you really want to add it, let's discuss it and reach a consensus". 
Are you idiots? You criticize Stephen for saying, "All we need to do is to convince a majority of people that some factoid is true". But you fail to see the error in YOUR OWN ways.
When someone disagrees with the majority comes along and makes a change, the changes are deleted and removed by the MAJORITY. 
So, Stephen's got a point. I have seen false information time and time again on Wikipedia and when I tried to change it, I was asked for citations when I provided the citations I was told they were not credible sources. OK, but some Joe Shmoes blog is a more credible source eh? Just goes to show you that Wikipedia is a joke.
:'When someone disagrees with the majority comes along and makes a change, the changes are deleted and removed by the MAJORITY.'
:You haven't observed how consensus is most often reached on Wikipedia.  It isn't usually a 'real' majority that is involved with consensus, it's the most active editors for any particular article that tend to determine consensus amongst themselves.  But, it was a comedy show so it was a broad generalization that would seem amusing to most viewers.
::::::::-- That Guy, From That Show! 08:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine is a majority of active editors.  I don't see how that qualification affects his argument.  Inactive editors don't enter into it, obviously.Typing monkey 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiality 

message: Let's try to come to agreement here.  There really shouldn't be more than two references in this article to last night's show -- one quick paragraph at the end of the Colbert Report section and one quote at the bottom.  Here's what I've done, drawing upon the previous versions:
TCR: Most recently, on July 31, 2006, Colbert referenced Wikipedia on a segment of the show, featuring "wikiality" as the word of the day. Jokingly, he instructed viewers to edit the elephant article to falsely reflect that the elephant population has tripled in the past six months.
Quotes: "I'll examine Wikipedia in a segment tonight, which you will be able to read about on Wikipedia in about 15 minutes."
If you think this should be elaborated further, make your case here.  Otherwise, repeated editing of the article is inappropriate and reflects poorly on WP. -- Padjet1 13:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually convinced it belongs here at all. Maybe in the Colbert Report article, but this page is a comedian's biography. The "wikiality" incident was really just a single joke among many on a show that airs four nights a week, and has no special relevance to his career. Wikipedia shouldn't over-represent Wikipedia-related topics; it's unprofessional.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 14:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main goal was to restore order; a two sentence paragraph seemed like a decent compromise between the competing opinions, particularly regarding those users who were scattering references throughout the article.  As for the quote, I thought it was pretty funny and arguably more appropriately mentioned than some others already on the list. -- Padjet1 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair enough goal, but in the long term, it's a compromise to the integrity of the article. Before the incident occured, there was already a growing consensus to cut down the quote section to 3-5 quotes, since most of them are pretty irrelevant. This seems like a trivia item at most, and certainly doesn't belong in the summary style Colbert Report section. It's depressing to me that at least in this article, the efforts by regular Wikipedians to add self-referential information about this incident have seemingly been more disruptive then any real vandalism caused by the episode. How long until we can move beyond it?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It does seem more appropriate for the The Colbert Report article, and perhaps the Stephen Colbert (character) article than this one. Perhaps just a link here?  --Fire Star 火星 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the actual consensus is to remove the reference, by all means go ahead.  I edited only to reflect what I perceived as an effort to mention it without regard to form or style.  If that has now subsided, I'm in full agreement that a main-body mention of last night's show is probably a bit too self-referential, and belongs on the main TCR article if at all.  As for the quotes, I haven't been party to the previous discussions, so I have no objection to condensing. -- Padjet1 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry -- I didn't mean to single out your edit in particular, and I do appreciate the attempt to rephrase things in the least disruptive way until some semblance of consensus is reached. I'm just being impatient -- my fault.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries -- I didn't take any offense.  I think it's nice to see constructive discourse having a positive impact. -- Padjet1 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bailey- I think in regards to relevance that on the main Stephen Site, you could put a reference saying "Wikiality - see 'The Colbert Report' entry" and put a more detailed mention on The Colbert Report main site.  As already stated, this is a single bit on a 4x a week show.  But I do think an entry on Wikiality should be in the Colbert family of Wiki sites, just not on the main Stephen Colbert page. Nofactzone (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more of the mind to wait and see about "Wikiality" -- it could wind up exploding into a big thing, like truthiness, or it could be completely missed by the wider non-wiki world -- but that's a finer point. My main concern is really that it doesn't belong in every Colbert related article on Wikipedia -- that's just overdoing it.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you there, that it should not be on every page.  This site is going to be high profile for a few days and its best that it be managed with long-term credibility in mind.  Nofactzone(talk)</span> 15:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed some of the self-reference (the administrative actions are not appropriate material for the entry) without affecting the information on the episode as it pertains to the man (which is what this article is about).  I also improved the accuracy of the statements (he pretended to edit those pages, he didn't actually do so during the show...and there's significant doubt that he edited them at all just for the joke).  ju66l3r 22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was worried I would come to this article and see way too much space devoted to his mentions of Wikipedia, etc. I'm very glad that did not happen. In order to be covered in the article one would need evidence that the incident is important enough to warrant coverage. If a reliable source can be shown that supports the information being important enough to cover then we should, but not before that. - Taxman Talk 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on July 31 show 

message: It's oh so tempting to add in here that Stephen Colbert is Jon Stewart's Spiro Agnew... —XSG 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please don't. Somnabot 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not; that would be vandalism.  Still, I think it would be appreciated humor... —XSG 03:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idaho's Portugal? 

message: I'm not sure the use of the word 'detournement' in the opening paragraph is technically correct. As the linked article makes clear, detournement is "similar to satirical parody, but employs more direct reuse or faithful mimicry of the original works rather than constructing a new work which merely alludes strongly to the original." The Colbert Report is certainly original satire and makes limited use of recontextualized media (i.e.: The Word segment, 'interview' with Tom Delay). Put another way: The Report is satire that occasionally utilizes the tactics of detournement, but is not itself detournement. Does that make sense to anyone else?
::I was going to argue this a few days ago, but never got around to it. The Report is satirical, it's parody, but considering it's sometimes very exaggerated, and sometimes just entirely goofy, detournement really isn't the word, imho. I'd go with parody.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording to read satirical parody, though that might read as kind of redundant. Either way it's better than detournement, which is a pretty specific term, and not entirely correct in this context. --TM 03:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of "detournement" 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colberrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundra X (talk • contribs) 
*Tagged for speedy deletion; please don't add made up stuff to WP.  NawlinWiki 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colberrorism 

message: Significant contributors to this and other Colbert-related articles should consider sending the host (Dreamhost.com) of Wikiality.com and Wikiality.net DMCA Takedown requests. The sites currently feature direct, unlicensed copies of Wikipedia content, including this article. Neither site complies with the GFDL. Because I am not a significant contributor, I cannot do this myself. --Davidstrauss 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to get into a virtual pissing contest, but Wikiality.com is meant as both a parody site and a tribute to the Colbert Report. Most of the content that is based on Wikipedia articles has either been removed, or significantly altered in a satirical manner. I am neither a site administrator or it's owner, but for the most part, our intent is not malicious in any way, and we're simply trying to build something amusing and entertaining. I am, incidentally, speaking for Wikipedia.com, .net is not affiliated with us, so I cannot speak as to their intent. We have no desire to violate any copyright laws, though my understanding of fair use allows us to parody without consent, though we have no desire to create any animosity. We simply have an absent administrator, and have no offical to speak for the site. ~Comeback Shane! 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Parody is fair use.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL#Commercial_redistribution   Typing monkey 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention significant authors: GFDL violation on Wikiality.com/.net 

message: I've taken the first/main picture of Colbert in this article and tried to enhance it a bit: 
I've blurred and slightly darkened the background to make Colbert stand out a bit, lightened him and fixed the colors.  Overall, I think the result is a bit more presentable.  But I'd like to hear other opinions before putting it in the article.
Thanks to Kelly Martin, btw, for the original photo.  -- noosphere 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I'll take the absence of comments on the enhanced pic to mean that no one cares.  So I'll just be bold and replace the existing pic with the enhanced version.  -- noosphere 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't get a chance to say anything before! I think your version is definitely an improvement, Noosphere. The color correction in particular makes a big difference. Thanks for offering it.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  :)  I'm glad you like it.  -- noosphere 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions sought on enhanced(?) picture of Colbert 

message: Why is the anecdote about O'reilly calling for a boycott on the "personal life" section? While humorous, it really serves no purpose in a biography. Comments?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.125.74 (talk • contribs) 
:I was wondering this too. I have no idea why its there. I say delete and merge that paragraph with the one above it.Gdo01 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly 

message: The article has a link stating that Mr. Colbert is banned from Wikipedia because of his statements on his show, but the link is to a site off wikipedia.org, a small sports-news site apparently.  If he's banned from Wikipedia, we should link to the official statement of that within Wikipedia, if not, the claim should be withdrawn since it cannot be verified. --Wingsandsword 06:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. As I understand it, Stephen Colbert himself hasn't been banned; the account was blocked because it was the name of a well-known person and violated WP:U. He could have replied to Tawker's messages, confirmed it was him and had the account unblocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Ban

message: What exactly are the reasons for the exclusion of that information from the article? It may make Colbert look slightly bad, but if it is true and well-sourced, then I don't see any reason not to include it.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 09:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colbert has criticized many things on the show -- it's a parody news-opinion show. His joke about Wikipedia was funny, but not much more significant to his life and career than any other joke he's made. I don't have any problem with it making him look bad, it's just that whole thing was pretty minor in the context of Colbert's entire professional life.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert encouraging vandalism 

message: I know I'm unregistered here, but I am known on Wikia as Aiddat. The so called "International Society of Vandals" has said to have Mr. Colbert with them as a vandal. If he vandalized here, that might be true. But they seem pretty vain and wierd. So maybe not. -Aiddat or 72.227.122.179 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISV 

message: Article has got some issues, so if anyone is up to addressing them, they are layed out there. Judgesurreal777 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over your remarks, there are actually not two 'personal' sections -- there's a section about Colbert's personal life, and then a trivia section, which is subdivided into professional and personal trivia. There is too much trivia altogether, in my opinion; I've been trying to gradually whittle this down by migrating the relevant bits to the article proper, and removing the more "trivial" stuff, but it's hard to keep up. As for the "link farm" remark, I think that's a bit harsh (unless I am misunderstanding the term -- I always thought "link farm" implied reciprocal or profit-motivated linking). Most of the external links here are used as sources within the article, although I'll try and comb through this and remove the links which are listed twice -- been meaning to do that for a while, anyway.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant a lot of links :) Yeah, I figured Colberts popular enough that someone would fix it, so good for you Judgesurreal777 06:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good rationales; the strangers with candy and the daily show image need sources Judgesurreal777 06:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and to clarify, I was objecting that there was a Trivia section, not that it was too long. I was hoping that the information would be incorporated in the article and the excess trimmed away, just to be clear  Judgesurreal777 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm no fan of trivia sections either, and was pretty much hoping I'd be able to gradually dissolve the section, too... but is there a specific policy or guideline about trivia sections? I dislike them generally, on the grounds that they sort of act as an invitation to add information that's not that relevant to the article, but I didn't think there was ever any consensus reached to say they can't be in articles. I've gone ahead and added a source for the Strangers with Candy image, although I didn't upload the Daily Show one, and am waiting for a reply from the original uploader regarding a source... otherwise I can replace it. Lastly, I've tried to trim down the link section, but I'm not sure I see the harm in the list of links being a bit long if the links are all either sources for the article or unique resources relevant to it, per WP:EL -- is there anything else specifically that should be removed?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's a good amount, but you should put a marker there that only essential external links should be added, so it doesn't grow back LOL. Looking better, I really do think your trivia info is for the most part good and belongs IN the article as opposed to hanging out in a trivia box. Judgesurreal777 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Put the article up for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes#Stephen_Colbert|Good Article Review]

message: How is that? That would put an end to my objections if it is acceptable. Judgesurreal777 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll probably rearrange a bit more soon, but I can work with that :) . It does look a lot cleaner without the trivia section. I still feel the Colbert Bridge thing is a rather minor incident more relevant for the Colbert Report article, or the one on the bridge itself. It's not really an "award" -- as a joke, he asked his fans to nominate him in a completely open online poll and to essentially cheat to land him in the top spot. They did, employing bots to help vote for Colbert at a rate of around 4000 votes an hour, and he wound up first on the website's listed results, but it still will have no effective impact on the name of the future bridge. The final name is not being determined by popular vote -- that's a just a misunderstanding among non-Hungarian-speakers. I can work with your changes though overall, so thanks.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re arrange

message: This piece of information seems a bit useless, so I'm removing it. It's easy enough to run a person's surname through one of those free ancestry searches, but it's a bit misleading and a little overzealous to be including that kind of information in an article. Consider that, in this case, the name Colbert is exclusively French in terms of etymology, but in terms of nationality it's found all over Britain. 67.190.101.254 00:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The name Colbert is both an Irish and a French surname." 

message: Anyone think we need to semi-protect this article? I know that protection is only used to prevent in-progress vandalism and not future vandalism but the fact stands that this page was vandalized 8 times in the last 24 hours and continues to be one of the most vandalized articles I see. I know that this article does not bear the same importance in protecting as politician articles do but I at least want people's input on the matter.Gdo01 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: I find it completely ridiculous and offensive that the Colbert article tends to disgard the importance of Wikipedia itself. This article is clearly missing the role of Wikipedia and its own ability to identify the metapsychicalencyclpoedian project it has created. The sandbox has become wet. Fix this article to show the role of Wikipedia or you are against the true freedom of the metapsychicalencyclopedian project in itself. Depositing itself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colbear (talk • contribs) .
:what? --Makaristos 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA 

message: I think we should have something on Colbert's satirization of Wikipedia, either in the Trivia section or as a section in itself.
:Why? Colbert satirizing Wikipedia isn't an especially unusual or significant aspect of his life or work. Having a section on Colbert's Wikipedia jokes here would be like having a section on Colbert's Bill Gates jokes here; it's not an especially noteworthy aspect of his act or writing, and belongs more in brief mentioning on articles like the daughters of Colbert Report. -Silence 14:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert on Wikipedia 

message: Could one of the page admins add back the "See Also" section to this entry?  In the flurry of edits and vandalizations the past couple of days, these got deleted.  Thanks! - Nofactzone 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just restored it. Looking through the history files, it seems to have been an honest mistake by Silence on 14:43, September 7, 2006   -Gdo01 03:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Also" section gone 

message: This article has been on the disputes page for awhile now, but apparently it was changed mid-review, and I dunno what to do with this. Can anyone give some input on WP:GA/R? Homestarmy 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ga review