Talk:Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner/Archive 1

message: This article was created as a split-off section from Stephen Colbert, where the section had grown to 58% of the total content of the entry on Colbert by five days after the WHCA dinner. - Reaverdrop 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

message: At this point, I'm not even sure where the "blistering comedy tribute" quote comes from, what with all the edits back and forth, but can we stop inserting in as a clause of general sentences? I'm not trying to remove it altogether -- I do think it's a good quote which makes sense in the context of discussing the media reaction. I just don't think it's neutral enough for use a general descriptor, even with quote marks around it.  --Lee Bailey 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find an appropriate quote from one of the main sources that didn't ignore him the first time. --kizzle 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the source of the quote: Brian.fsm 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Lee Bailey 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blistering Comedy Tribute? 

message: Bare urls are poor citation style. Could someone have a look at converting these to proper citations? See  and . Circeus 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation style 

message: The links to the NYT, Reuters, and Chicago Tribune articles are broken.  Does anyone have the links to those articles?  -- noosphere 03:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found them. I'll have them fixed in my next edit. -- Brian.fsm 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links in "Allegations of a Blackout" section 

message: I'm about to convert all the references in the article from plain links into , , etc, so I've added the  tag so that major edit conflicts won't be a problem. I'll remove it the minute that I'm done. Thanks. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very impressive!  :)  -- noosphere 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Jude. - Reaverdrop 04:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you! -- Brian.fsm 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks everybody else for not edit conflicting! It's easier to just do them in one big shot, then to try and space it out over a few days. Get it over with quickly, I guess. :) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In use 

message: I pulled this quote because the sitation seems to go to a news article, which links to Shearer's blog at the Huffington Post -- but the quote doesn't seem to appear in his blog. I've gone through the guy's archives for every day since the dinner. It looks to be misattributed, which probably means it doesn't belong in this article.<P>
:Comedian Harry Shearer's response to Colbert's satirical performance was also positive. "That you can see that footage of Stephen everywhere has served to be sort of a wake-up call," said Shearer. "Wait a minute, we're still a country where it's OK to say these things about the president? Whew! That's a relief."
::The article quotes him, so she must have talked to him. The link to The Huffington Post was just a tip of the hat. -- Brian.fsm 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it back in, then took it back out. It's a pretty weak quote... -- Brian.fsm 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Shearer

message: I made a page titled "Stephen Colbert press dinner sensation" and put a redirect here for now. In favor or opposed to moving the article to the more succinct title? - Reaverdrop 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more succinct.  However, I'm in favor of precision over succinctness.  With this proposal we seem to be getting brevity at the price of information.  It's not just any press dinner, it's this particular one.  Plus, "sensation" is POV.  The current title is much more neutral-sounding, imo.  -- noosphere 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We could take out the 2006, ie -- "Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner". I don't think he'll be invited back. -- Brian.fsm 06:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha!  Yes, I suppose that would be specific enough, if we really want to shorten the title.  But why do we want to do that again?  I think I missed the actual reason for shortening it.  Why not just leave the date in so that 10 years from now it'll be clear from the title alone when this happened?  -- noosphere 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reaverdrop might be looking for a way to defuse Lee Bailey's argument (above) that this article should become a general article about the 2006 WHCA dinner -- with, if I understand Lee correctly, less content (or no content?) about the impact of Colbert's speech, or at least the media reaction to it. I don't want to talk for Lee, that's just my impression of his proposal. -- Brian.fsm 06:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, I am against repurposing this article to cover the dinner as a whole.  But I don't see how shortening the title would prevent that.  The article is about Colbert's appearance at the dinner and the aftermath, no matter if we include "2006" in the title or not.  -- noosphere 07:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there should be "no content" about the impact of Colbert's speech. I do think the various positions could be summarized in a smaller amount of space without drastically reducing the content of the article. But I'm not debating that right now, I just hate to think it's assumed I want to remove the entire media section. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lee Bailey 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Status quo on the title works for me. -- Brian.fsm 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More succinct title 

message: I've been thinking about a couple of interesting things from the April 29 Editor and Publisher article.
So, Colbert says he wasn't trying to make a political point, yet many of the reactions seem to indicate otherwise.  (See ThankYouStephenColbert.org.)  Do you think we need to add this somewhere, then?  I was a little surprised to read this, but it is right from Colbert.
I watched the C-SPAN video at the point where Bush speaks briefly to Colbert at the end, and you can clearly hear Bush say, "Good job."  I believe he also says, "Brilliant."  I don't really know why he would say that, though.  (The first paragraph from this article mentions a negative reaction from Bush.)  The only reason I can come up with is that he was reacting to the Helen Thomas video they'd just shown.. but it seems odd that Bush would forget about the earlier stuff and say this.  Anyway, I don't really know what to make of this, but I thought I'd bring it up. --Fadedhour 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps it was sarcasm? Although if Bush called Colbert "brilliant", I'd be surprised we didn't hear it from Colbert first. Seems like the sort of thing he'd love to bring up on the Report. Lee Bailey 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Bush was just being gracious. It would be pretty gauche for Bush too say "asshole" in front of all those cameras, even if he was thinking it. You can watch a video of Bush's reaction to the Helen Thomas video on some of the video links, and from about mid-point on, he doesn't seem to be particularly enjoying himself. -- Brian.fsm 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ya what else was he going to say, "fuck you"? --kizzle 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know--nothing, maybe, or something less positive than "Good job, brilliant"?  It looked like Laura Bush barely said anything to Colbert. --Fadedhour 03:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, "good job" seems like being gracious, and not out of the ordinary at all. "Brilliant", however, seems like it's going a bit far, maybe intentionally to be obnoxious. Then again, I could be reading too much into things. Lee Bailey 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: She probably didn't say anything because she got the jokes.  ;)  -- noosphere 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 29 Editor & Publisher article 

message: I could not believe this article had so many references. I thought that when I came to this article, it would be filled with "NPOV" and "citation needed" remarks, but lo' and behold, full of references. No one can argue with that! I just wanted to commend you all on doing such a fantastic job and keep it up! ♠ SG →Talk 05:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :), that goes to Lee, Noosphere, Brian, and Fadedhour as well, it's been an unexpected pleasure dialoguing with you all here. gotta spread the wiki-love! --kizzle 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of you guys think this can pass for a featured article soon?  Maybe we can set the record from creation to featured. --kizzle 09:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right back at you, Kizzle. No idea about the featured article thing, though. --Lee Bailey 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kudos to everyone. I think we have the best coverage out there on Colbert's speech. It's my dream that, all across the nation, thousands of high schoolers are copping our article for their "Current Events" homework assignments. -- Brian.fsm 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been my pleasure to work with you all on this article.  And I agree--I think this article is rather impressive as it stands now. --Fadedhour 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article makes Wikipedia's heart smile 

message: I am going to submit this page for featured status in 2 days, here are the criteria:
A featured article has the following attributes.
# It exemplifies our very best work.
# It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
#*(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
#*(b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; 
#*(c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
#*(d) "neutral" means that  an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
#*(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
# It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
#*(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
#*(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
#*(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
# It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
# It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.
--kizzle 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the nicer things about applying for featured status is that even if an article fails review, you usually wind up with specific information about what's lacking -- particularly if the article is close to the mark. At the minimum, it'll be nice to have the automatic outside opinion. Besides, I'm a proponent of the idea that all editors should be working toward to goal of meeting featured criteria in the long run. That's my long-winded way of saying, give it a go. :) --Lee Bailey 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Status 

message: Is it okay to remove Talk sections that are dead? The following talk sections appear to have run out of stream:
* Blistering Comedy Tribute?
* Move to: "2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner"
* Broken links in "Allegations of a Blackout" section
* In use
* Harry Shearer
* More succinct title
I don't want to break Wiki etiquette, nor do I want to cut off discussions that might start up again. But trimming this page might make it more accessible. -- Brian.fsm 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it's generally considered bad to remove comments from a talk page, even if it's one's own user talk. I don't know specifically where that's stated in policy, though, I've just heard it said. You might check into it. --Lee Bailey 08:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SOP is to make it into a talk page archive, of which you can find plenty of examples to imitate. - Reaverdrop 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing sections

message: I've watched it at least 9 times, anyone else? --mboverload@ 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times you've watched? 

message: I'm not so sure that this article fits in with the 'raison d'ëtre' of Wikipedia, but it sure is admirable for its NPOV stance - it balances out through every subject exactly where it should with all-round coverage and quotes - and it is the article layout in part that makes this possible. More than a few put a lot of thought into this. Kudos! 
Save the best for the Stephen Colbert article just in case it's deleted... THEPROMENADER 16:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admirable! 

message: I definitely do NOT think this should be deleted. This is about an internet sensation and there's a LOT of info on it. Mr_Beale
:Agree; the "internet sensation" phenomenon is well-documented.  So verifiability isn't an issue.  What exactly was the reason for suggesting its deletion?  I'd vote to keep. Jim Butler 07:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Jim. You can read the debate here. Primarilly, I believe the "delete" arguments were that an individual comic's performance is not encyclopedic and/or that this is more of a wikinews story than a wikipedia story. A handful of editors seem to have shared my original sentiment that this article might be better off moved/renamed/merged as well, which to me suggests that some of the opposition to this article could be based more on semantics then issues with the text itself. But I could be wrong. -- Lee Bailey 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: someone else want to re-nominate this for featured status?  I'm not giving up, and I think we addressed all the criticism from both the previous attempt and the overwhelmingly denied deletion request. --kizzle 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it's a good idea to renominate it.  But should we do it so soon after the last nomination?  Also, are you asking for someone else to do the nomination or asking for opinions as to whether we should?  -- noosphere 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured? 

message: I've been rather overly bold and merged the first two sections, getting rid of a lot of the quotes and trying to make more prose. I realize this is a huge change, so please modify/revert to your desire. RN 06:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like :) --kizzle 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of first two sections  

message: I really hate this dilemma.  If we purely use quotations of people's opinions from the events, it's called a "regurgitation of newspaper/magazine reviews".  If we try to summarize it in our own words, it will be considered original research.  So how the f do we write about the dinner if we can't quote other sources and we can't come up with our own material? --kizzle 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research vs. Citations 

message: Please take a moment to vote here if you think (or don't think) this article deserves featured status. --kizzle 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured 

message: Not only is the article extremely well-done from an NPOV standard, I'm impressed by the level of civillity on this talk page.  Most articles on political subjects have at least some fractiousness and name-calling (along with predictable claims of cabal activity) to be found on their talk page.  The absence of this here speaks volumes about the professionalism of everyone involved.  Great work.  :)  Kasreyn 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) --kizzle 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks to you Brian as well, along with RN for helping address the criticisms on the nomination page... this has probably been one of the most productive collaborations I've been a part of in the 1 1/2 years I've been here.  I'm also doubly proud that this article went from nomination to delete to featured status within like 2 weeks, we had to have set a record on that one :) --kizzle 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was definately hard-fought and an amazing collaboration - kodus to everyone!! RN 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos to everyone involved here 

message: Since there is likely to be a significant overlap in interest, those who have been active here may also want to turn attention to truthiness, which is currently rated a "good article" and which a little more work should bring to the level of "featured". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm there. --kizzle 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap with Truthiness 

message: Maybe I just missed this part, but why did they ever let him speak in the first place? I'm still stunned that Bush actually allowed a strong critic be the featured entertainer. Anyone know why? The Ungovernable Force 08:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because they didn't expect him to do what he did.  I doubt an entertainer at the Presidential Roast has ever had the nerve to roast the audience before.  The stunned looks on their faces were priceless.  They looked like a classful of third-graders who'd just been told Santa's sleigh crashed with no survivors.  Kasreyn 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would pay good money for someone in Austria to do the same to Wolfgang Schüssel, yeah... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did they expect? 

message: I'm not sure I like the phrase "Liberal bloggers rallied around the speech" in the Internet Sensation section.  If they did, none of the subsequent paragraphs in the section cite liberal blogs.  Maybe this sentence should be put in a different section, possibly in the allegations of blackout section?  I'm going to take it out, let me know if someone has a problem. --kizzle 07:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal bloggers? 

message: I don't understand.  You mean that everything doesn't revolve around what goes on in the US?  I...can't...comprehend... --kizzle 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  media -> U.S. media? 

message: To whomever put this article together, I must say you have done a spectacular job. You have overcome a subject very difficult, and an AfD and the article came out on top nevertheless. I idolize anyone who can take such a subject and transform the article into featured status. Kudos to you, kudos to you, one and all. Aaрон Кинни (t) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Job! 

message: As it is currently:
On April 29, 2006, comedian Stephen Colbert was the featured entertainer for the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, delivering a 20-minute speech and video presentation which was broadcast live on C-SPAN and MSNBC. In the same character as the one he plays on The Colbert Report, an over-the-top send-up of a conservative pundit in the fashion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, Colbert mocked the Bush administration and the White House press corps.
Proposed:
On April 29, 2006, comedian Stephen Colbert was the featured entertainer for the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, delivering a 20-minute speech and video presentation which was broadcast live on C-SPAN and MSNBC. Colbert spoke as the same character as the one he plays on The Colbert Report: an over-the-top send-up of a conservative pundit in the fashion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. The comments made by Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner mocked the Bush administration and the White House press corps.
It has this article include self-reference like every other Wikipedia entry. Thoughts? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prposed changes in the opening paragraph 

message: For an international audience, Some of Colberts lines need explanation/commentary.
I doubt I'm alone as a non-USA resident in trying to "get" all of Colbert's domestic gags & slang, & deriving some pleasure from extending my knowledge of American domestic current affairs in the processs.
I had the same problem with some of the jokes.--BMF81 13:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Audiences 

message: diff
Original text at end of introduction:
Proposed insertion:
I think the quick summation of the media sensation it caused, Colbert Report's brief ratings rise as a result, and the Time quote that asserts the importance of the event in a NPOV way, is better than the proposed text. The details of the different points of view are mentioned in later sections. 
The author of the changes and anyone is welcome to disagree and provide reasons to the contrary. TransUtopian 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe the following edit has lasted so long:  "In some ways the current status of the event is summed up by the title of Anne Marie Cox's article in Time "Was Stephen Colbert Funny? If you didn't laugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the bloggers insist, you're a White House lackey"  The first part is pure editorializing, and infers that Cox's "It wasn't funny" view is the only logical response one could possibly have had.  I've partially reverted to re-add the original Time quote, because it puts the mini-controversy into perspective while still maintaining the overall NPOV of the introduction.-Hal Raglan 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my revert 

message: I just made edits to the section dealing with Byron Calame and the NY TImes's response to the routine.  As you can see from my edits and the summaries, they were rather serious: the article called him "Brian" Calame, and his quote was totally mischaracterized.  Either the person who wrote the original sentence read ONLY the phrase quoted: "didn’t explain why Mr. Colbert didn’t make The Times in the first place", or the quote was intentionally and maliciously decontextualized to support the point of view that Colbert was overlooked.  Here's Calame's blog post: .  I can't help but think that other references are similarly abused.  And I can't help but think that this does not represent the best that WIkipedia has to offer. Croctotheface 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious concerns -- this should not be FA 

message: There are plenty of sources for the chilly reception Colbert got there.  Honestly, there is no question that it happened.  Consequently, I'll keep reverting these edits as vandalism.  Croctotheface 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I didn't write "my" paragraph.  Second, there are lots and lots and lots of sources that maintain that Colbert's act was not received well by the audience.  You have not provided a single source to the contrary, you've just deleted text and harassed me on my userpage and added a tag to the article.  If there is any basis in fact for your edits, give sources here and we can discuss them.  Until you do, your edits don't strike me as antyhing more than vandalism. Croctotheface 04:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Croctotheface. --kizzle 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions and my reversions 

message: Thank you for featuring this article - I wouldn't have known about the clever and daring Colbert otherwise. It's reassuring to be reminded so graphically that the US government doesn't represent the populace and is not the only position as presented. Thinking America? More, please.
- Julia (Aust)
:A big "thank you" from me, too. I'm German, interested in US politics, but had never heard of Colbert before I stumbled across this Wikipedia article by accident. Thanks a lot for reporting on the event; and thank you very much, Stephen Colbert. The speech is just hilarious, and such things should happen much more often in this country. Given they elected GW Bush president - twice -, one would think Americans are retarded, but obviously, there must be a latent, hidden intelligentsia someplace. Thank you for correcting our European liberal bias. It's so truthy I had it in my guts!
:And thanks for explaining - I would have missed two thirds of the jokes and references.--88.217.32.144 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Think talent

message: Well, it does seem a tad too insignificant for to be a featured article - Ano
:Hahahahahahaha... If you think this is insignificant, you have not been alive in the past year. --Savethemooses 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess he forgot wikipedia is only available in the us, oh wait.--Dacium 05:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable enough for FA?

message: I know, I know, people tell me now that 'referencing' is accepted as a verb, but it is difficult to hear or read. Could the author consider using the proper 'referred to' instead? It just sounds very bad to anyone who reads books.
:Are you kidding?  Nouns get verbed all the time.  Why maintain an elitist way of saything things when more effective methods evolve naturally?  I say keep 'referencing'  Sparsefarce 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: This is an excellent article about a remarkable event. It seems odd now to read the discussion about US-centrism which almost saw the article deleted a few months ago. Coming from a British-Irish background, I admit that I had never heard of Stephen Colbert before the Press dinner roasting appeared on the internet. I was completely astounded by what I saw. For non-US citizens, the subject of this article tells us an enormous amount about American culture. It is also a landmark event because of the internet's role in this piece of twenty-first century political satire.
Jonathan Swift complained in the 18th century that one problem with satire is that the satirist's intended targets often laugh along with the satirical comedy which was intended to upbraid or sting them. The TV critic quoted in this article is absolutely right to say that the stony faces of the unamused guests is "the money shot" - this is satire that is not afraid to be unfunny in the cause of hitting home. However, it is the cameras and the internet that has allowed Colbert the luxury of dying comedically on his feet. A much wider audience, beyond not only the guestlist but beyond the USA, is able to appreciate the power of Colbert's language here. And, incidentally, we are also able to appreciate the openness of a society in which a powerful President can be lampooned in this no-hold-barred way without the lampoonist being, um, poisoned in a sushi restaurant, or something similar.
--Quywompka 11:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Satire and the internet

message: Did you forget that Colbert urged people to vandalize the elephant page on Wikipedia? --Ineffable3000 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does that have to do with improving this article? Gdo01 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that this article is now a mainpaged FA has actually restored some of the faith in Wikipedia that I lost when I read/saw some of the reactions of Wikipedians towards quite literally anything Colbert (don't get me wrong, my faith was still quite strong).  I guess this proves that some of us can take a joke. --Bobak 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert, the nemesis of Wikipedia

message: Yes, I know it's on the main page, but the vandalism is simply out of hand, so I semi-protected it. I've decided against putting the ugly  template on top, though. If somebody wishes to unprotect, of course, I'll have no major objections. – ClockworkSoul 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this decision. --HappyCamper 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If somebody sees good reason to add the , though, by all means do so: my actions are far from law! – ClockworkSoul 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an official English Wikipedia policy to not protect a featured article, especially if it's simply because of vandalism. Please see WP:NOPRO. Thanks. ~ UBeR 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy says it's generally not advisable, and I agree, but sometimes I'm tired having to manually roll back the main page article because two or three people had vandalized it before my watchlist reloads. If somebody prefers to unprotect it, I'm all for it, but I choose not to, at least for now. – ClockworkSoul 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not look excesive to me, by any means. Even looking through the history, it looks as though it's nothing that's not able to be controlled. That's just my opinion though. ~ UBeR 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've re-sprotected for a little bit. The level of vandalism was insane. --Slowking Man 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea to make this main page an exception to the usual don't-protect-main-page-articles rule. After all, this isn't Warsaw Uprising (1944) or Geology of the Death Valley area: it's Stephen Colbert. – ClockworkSoul 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, the elephant guy. ;) – ClockworkSoul 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: I have to say, why is this a featured article? It's not even that long!
:FAs don't have to be long - just really good and comprehensive. --Gwern  (contribs) 02:11 21 November 2006 (GMT)
::...and agenda driven. Haizum 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, you disagree with his position, therefore it's wrong to FA this article? The speech happened.  --Kizor 10:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I did some googling, and I found a handful of sources - of not exactly the most reliable calibre - which claimed he was invited by Mark Smith, the outgoing President of the White House Press Corps Association. Raul654 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a reliable print source which says the same thing - http://nymag.com/news/politics/22322/index3.html Raul654 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is missing a surprising amount of images and details for an FA. ~ UBeR 07:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to images, any currently in circulation will almost certainly be copyrighted. Fair Use means we can only really justify using one or two in the article, and only to illustrate key points. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: I think that this article could use one more image -- a wider angle showing both Bush and Colbert.  A main reason that this satire of Bush was so remarkable is the fact that Bush was sitting four paces from where Colbert was standing. Spebudmak 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a great picture Here. It's on dvmx.com, and I don't know what the image policy is for that... I'll see if I can find anything else in case that doesn't work. PerryPlanet 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that picture is great.  Does anyone know the rights for it?  If that doesn't work, another option would be to do a vidcap from the video under fair use--the problem is that the version on Google Video is too low-resolution.  Anyone have a better quality video source they could capture a frame from? Spebudmak 00:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is also a slightly smaller, stylistically better version of this perspective that you can find on Google Images, but I think these are Associated Press images. —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This has got to be the quickest an article has ever been FA'd since its creation... not even 6 months... nice work, guys, and an entertaining read :) Kareeser|Talk! 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have full faith that this article will become one of the most viewed feature page articles on here, and stay on top for a long time. Good to see that FA include stuff that wouldn't be expected to reach that level. Hilarious, I might add. Kaiser matias 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably an over-zealous leftist adminstrator doing his duty! :rolleyes: ~ UBeR 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Shouldn't there be a wikiquote link?  I guess we leave the page alone while it's a FA? - Peregrinefisher 09:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a wikiquote link - a rather big one at that. Raul654 09:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I missed it too. Guess I'm just used to seeing interproject links under the "External links" section rather than embedded in the main body. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote

message: Although President Bush shook Colbert's hand after his presentation, Colbert received an icy response from the First Lady
That doesn't sound quite like encyclopaedic language. Can this possibly be changed to something more neutral and meaningful, especially considering this is an FA now? Gimlei 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between writing that is enyclopedic and writing that is dry to the point of desiccation. The quoted fragment seems fine to me, so long as a cite is provided (there are two) to qualify it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Geejo. Raul654 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded - and I'll be quoting that in the future. --Kizor 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I made a couple of changes attempting to fix some blanking of the article and, due to the fact that I was making changes from work while paying attention to other things, ended up reverting to a version that was also partially blanked.  This was a mistake on my part and not an intentional attempt to vandalize the page.  Thanks for catching it, but I don't need it pointed out yet again on my user talk page. Eceresa 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I Screwed Up

message: This a great page, well written, kept me interested and half smiling to the end. I really enjoyed seeing it on the main page today.  Congratulations to the authors - wonderful to see some original and different material here. Giano 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great page

message: I cannot gain access to this article, at least not through the Featured Article link.  It just says "I like cocaine energy drink.  It makes me feel high."
:That's a particularily imaginative example of vandalism. The project gets that a lot, especially in high-profile articles such as this one, and it's usually swiftly defeated. If you have the bad luck to find a featured article vandalized, I'd say the best thing to do is wait thirty seconds and try again. --Kizor 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is this article?

message: They send congrats for the daring featured article choice.  --  Zanimum 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha sweet. --kizzle 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huffington Post

message: I don't believe that footnote 21 (regarding Scalia laughing in response to a joke) supported the statement.  I changed it to an article that supports the proposition. Katulus 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote 21

message: I'm curious - does anyone know of any build-up that Colbert's routine received in the days and weeks prior to the dinner? I know, for instance, that Jon Stewart's gig at the Oscars was trailed weeks beforehand on The Daily Show, and it would be interesting if anyone pointed out the blatantly obvious beforehand - that Colbert wasn't the type to pull punches and it was probably going to be mighty interesting... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.194.62 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think his show was available at iTunes yet, so I was limited to just the comedycentral.com cilps back then. However, I saw nothing about it in the blogosphere until Crooks & Liars posted a clip from the speech after the fact. So I doubt it received much pre-show build-up, or there would have been some buzz before the dinner. -- Brian.fsm 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  His appearance at the event wasn't hyped if that's the question, other then through in-character commentary. The event wasn't hyped either. None of the dinners are hyped or advertised as they do not have commercials / sponsorship, they are quite long and they are broadcast live late in the evening. It's not the sort of stuff that gets on most radars. How to incorporate this fact into a wikipedia article if there's no direct mention of it in the Media(tm), that's another question. IshaMessmer (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I remember Colbert mentioning this multiple times in the week beforehand, and Stewart wishing him good luck on the Thursday before,in the end segment of The Daily Show where he and Colbert have a scripted transitional conversation. I have no proof, however. -- Viewdrix 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having watched the Colbert shows before that, I didn't notice any buildup, although I can't say whether the Jon Stewart thing was true or not. There were a few mentions afterward, but not much. -mattbuck 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Before the dinner...

message: Does anybody know how george bush felt about stephen colbert's speech? he seemed to be enjoying it and he also seemed to like the comedian impersonator he had. I think george bush doesnt take the jokes offensively. he was making fun of himself too 24.166.154.108 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: George W. Bush

message: Why does the article mention Bush's "then"-declining or sinking approval ratings? Are they not still declining? --Lyght 01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he may have a revival. This keeps it safe for all eternity :) mattbuck 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Then"-declining approval rating?

message: "Colbert still occasionally references this performance on The Colbert Report and included the speech in the appendix of I Am America (And So Can You!)."
I really feel like this should be included somewhere, even if not in the intro (trying to keep it concise).  I couldn't find any suitable section, though.  If it should be moved elsewhere, go for it.  I'm always a little cautious when editing FA's. - Boss1000 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book addition?

message: I don't think the article is improved by adopting arguably pejorative terms (left-wing/right-wing) just because we're citing a source that does.   If either of them self-identifies with those labels, that's one thing, but I don't think they do.  These are living people, after all. Croctotheface (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: left- and right-wing are common USAdian terms for liberals (generally Democrats) and conservatives (generally Republicans), and indeed, I heard "left-wing" used to describe a South American leader on the BBC world service last night; I don't at all think they're considered pejorative, as "socialist" or "reactionary" would be, unless -- as you say -- *those* labels were self-applied.--Baylink (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeling Franken and Matalin

message: From up above and getting close to three years ago -
:"This article lacks prominence. ... From the deletion discussion: 'I think we should resort to ten year test (I would prefer one hundred, but I am willing to be disagreed with). Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years? It was a comedian, doing a comedy routine. That happens all the time. It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care.'"
I remind briefly that in the 18th century, "A Modest Proposal" was just another satire, and satires happened all the time. "The Wealth of Nations" and "Das Kapital" were just a couple more books among many books seeking to make sense of it all. "Mein Kampf" was just another failed artist's politically filtred autobiography. And the newspaper articles behind "All The King's Men" were just another way for newspapers to sell copies.
99+% of all things written are forgotten without visible trace. History will judge which traces will remain. We cannot. - Tenebris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.245 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will concur.  The article (which I linked to from our list of performers at WHCDs) told me things I didn't even know then, and by the very fact that *it's the only performance with its own article* I also learned something important.  Not that I didn't already know *that*, of course, but...  Excellent coverage, good balance and background.  Shame it was an FA then, as it seems a candidate now, too.--Baylink (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I recently stumbled across clips of the dinner, and wanted to learn what kind of reaction his routine had - because it's not every day someone roasts the (former) president to their face! This article had exactly what I was looking for. --Fishy c (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The test of time

message: "In DC the response from the politicians and those who cover them, both groups targets of Colbert's satire, the reaction was predictably negative."
Been way too long since I edited Wikipedia, so I have no idea what lil' template to use for that. Just that it's hyper-biased. 203.143.248.114 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nasty Sentence

message: "Bush did not understand what Colbert was doing. He is not intelligent enough to grasp the concept of satire, and he was under the impression that Colbert was complimenting him. This is why he did not get angry and kept smiling throughout the performance."
I don't write for Wikipedia so I'll leave this up to the experts to fix, but I just wanted to point this out. 173.33.219.42 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jab at Bush? 

message: I's the article good enough for GA?  Spongie555 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: GA?

message: This article is great and reminded me that we need a 2011 version.   The CSPAN clip of Obama at the dinner just broke some huge record, they're reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangledorange (talk • contribs) 
:Are there as many third party reports about the dinner? Something being "great" is very subjective, and part of the reason the 2006 dinner has an article is because of the large number of reports surrounding it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no scarcity of sources--  if your threshold is very very high, then you just need to remember the request and wait--  because nobody's going to stop writing about it any time soon, I suspect.    --Tangledorange (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed article: [[Barack Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner]]