Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 4

message: In the 2008 presidential bid the line at the end about all other candidates dropping out probably does not need to stay.  however, the page is locked and i can't fix it from the mobile.  Also, it should read favorite son, not favored son.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.204.12 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on locked page 

message: The Guy isn't dead, is he? Vandalism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.94.61 (talk) 09:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
I don't believe the Pope declared Colbert to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (Last fact). Seems like vandalism.
LOL, that's the funniest vandalism I've ever seen.
Also, I do not believe Stephen Colbert's middle name is Tyrone. I have seen that same sign of vandalism on many other names. It is perpetrated by username "macarion" whom the wikipedia moderators considered banning. He may actually be banned, and operating using a IP anonymizer and other screen name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.247.241 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misfact 

message: Its silly to keep this page protected.  Colbert vandalism cannot bring down wikipedia! —Gaff ταλκ 08:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but fixing it does expend time and energy that could be used more fruitfully. Tlesher 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: If we could find some picture having to do with Colbert's younger days, that would be perfect for the first body section. I rearranged it to flow (I think) better and be (I think) a bit better organized, but that leaves that space open towards the beginning.
Also, any information regarding his marriage or his kids would be awesome. I haven't checked the sources yet for anything more, but expanding that section would be very good.
Oh, and if you have any objections to my rearranging, feel free to tell me. - Boss1000 07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life & Personal life 

message: On a recent Larry King interview he stated he was of French descent. Which makes a lot sense the surname Colbert is French.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.206.222 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume this is a joke. It's plenty clear. - Boss1000 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of his wikipedia stunt? As a fact or something?WacoJacko 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small things he's done on The Colbert Report are not necessarily important to his article.  If anything, it would go under his show's article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, including to itself, and it's not extremely notable. - Boss1000 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of his wikipedia stunt? 

message: Stephen Colbert has repeatedly said on the Colbert Report that he is a strict constutionalist, and a Libertarian.
: Uh...  that's a character he plays.  Sarcasm eludes you.W@ntonsoup 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When has he said he is a libertarian? I don't recall him saying either, and it would be in-character, which is useless to this article regardless (looking for THIS article?). The source cited states he is a Democrat directly, as well. - Boss1000 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat? 

message: In reference to his "two oldest brothers" dying in the plane crash:  Paul and Peter were not his two oldest brothers.  They were the two "next-oldest" brothers in line of birth order.  His oldest brothers are, I believe, Jimmy and Eddie; but definitely not Paul and Peter.  I'd edit the entry but don't have time to figure out the way to do it.  Thanks.Meow House 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. Cheers, Jude. 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two oldest brothers 

message: I believe, when not in character, his last name is pronounced: COLE-bert. Thoughts? J-stan Talk 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, his name is always pronounced "khol-BEAR". When he was a kid, he went by "KHOL-bert"; when he moved to Chicago, he changed the pronunciation. He's explained it in several interviews. Actually, the article mentions it too. Cheers, Jude. 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: It's been added in the personal life section that Colbert broke his wrist on-set recently. While it's true, and certainly referenceable, it's not really a huge event in the context of his life. I'd like to remove it; anyone object? --Jude. 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and remove it.  It's trivial and a great example of recentism.  --ElKevbo 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Jude. 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  It's very trivial and if you really wanted to know about a "current event" you'd try the news. - Boss1000 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It would still be trivial in the overall context of the show.--Jude. 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: er, i came here to see what the deal is with his wrist and theres no info. what happened? did he break it on camera or during rehersal? Zarcath 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrist?

message: I will leave this to the genuine scholars amongst you, but a search for the phrase "news parody" on Wikipedia and Google showed no actual genre by this name or scholarly articles to speak of.  Perhaps, due to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, it should finally be recognized as an official sub-species of parody and have a Wiki article written.  Talk amongst yourselves.  J.A.McCoy 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't find any reliable sources then creating an article would be pure original research and thus unacceptable.  --ElKevbo 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Try News satire. I'll make a redirect for your term. - Boss1000 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''News parody'' as a genre and article

message: Just saw an episode of The Colbert Report in which Colbert's Ashkenazi Jewish roots were all but disclosed. They had a guy on from The Genographic Project and they analyzed Colbert's DNA and found that he is a part of Haplogroup K, meaning that it is very likely that he has recent Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors. Just thought I'd mention that here -- it could be mentioned in his biography here. --172.131.8.203 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert's Ashkenazi Jewish Roots 

message: "The thing I like about Wikipedia is that it lets democracy determine reality." 216.80.64.112 05:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a quote on this page already. If you got it from there, great.  It belongs there more than here. - Boss1000 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki on Colbert/Colbert on Wiki 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that Stephen does the voice for Phil Ken Sebben on Harvey Birdman? It could go under his career in comedy or something. "GET SOME" 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the filmography at least, though I know little of when he began that and whatnot. - Boss1000 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law 

message: Wikipedia's own policy says that IPA should be used. I would have edited this page to help you bunch of amateurs conform to your own policy, but it's protected. Please get rid of the idiosyncratic respelling - "Khol-BARE" is particularly absurd. Why "Kh" instead of "K"? This could be interpreted as representing [x] or something, and the pronunciation of the word "bare" varies across the English-speaking world. We shouldn't need to have this stupid argument every time. IPA is written into policy for a good reason - it is clear and unambiguous. Please sort the first line of this article out and help yourselves create the serious encyclopedia you aspire to. 79.75.178.11 17:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't agree with the tone of your message, the general point of "use IPA" is well taken.  --ElKevbo 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making the change. My former faith in Wikipedia is partially restored. 79.75.178.11 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: A while back, I noticed that the photo of Stephen Colbert at the head of this article was embarrassingly ugly.  It made Colbert look like he'd been sitting under a sun lamp for days, and the people behind him are better lit and more in-focus than he is.  I did what I could to remedy it, and came up with this version.  The person responsible for the original took offense and called my version "a travesty", and accused it of looking "like crap".
Of course, this is all purely subjective.  However, I'm curious to hear what the rest of the community thinks of it.  I made the change months ago, and no one seemed to mind until now.  So, what's it to be?  Should we keep the original, or the new version?  -- noosphere 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely keep the original.  Your version is a dishonest travesty.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think the original is a dishonest travesty.  There are ways of taking pictures that make the person look worse than they do in real life, and the original demonstrates that quite well.  The only way it could have been worse is if it was lit from below so that he looks like a halloween monster.  So, I tried to lighten up his face and get it more in to focus.  Sorry that you don't like it.  But, I hope we can hear some more opinions.  -- noosphere 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if there was some way to tell that the person really was random, it would probably be a bad idea.  It's like flipping a coin.  I'd much rather hear from the community of people who've actually put some effort in to maintaining this article.  -- noosphere 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a version of the image with a blurred background, and i fixed his crows feet. you guys can use it if you want, but i don't know how to add an image on wikipedia. Here it is http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/30362/2006081395887231984_rs.jpg 129.128.235.107 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His skin still looks like it's got severe sunburn.  Sorry.  --  noosphere 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert image 

message: Steven Colbert's website says that he was "Born and raised in South Carolina".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.135.175 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: born in D.C?

message: I don't know how to fix this, but wriststrong redirects here, but it's only mentioned on the Character Page. It seems to make since to redirect it to the Stephen Colbert (character) page, or else add a mention of it here. Interpretivechaos 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! I made the change. Thanks. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wriststrong

message: Isn't this biased? I know Colbert thinks that conservative pundits are uninformed, but to say so in a neutral article doesn't quite seem right. There are plenty of people who believe that Colbert is just as misinformed as he believes others are. I think that this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.95.35 (talk • contribs) 
:The lead says that he portrays the character of an uninformed opinion leader, which is undoubtedly true.  It says nothing about conservative pundits being uninformed or what Colbert's opinion of conservative pundits is (I'd guess that he has just as many negative opinions of liberal pundits as he does conservative, but as my opinion, that's irrelevant).  You're reading quite a bit into one sentence that simply isn't there.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Colbert has himself referred to the characters he portrays as "high status idiots" which is considerably more sharp than the lead paragraph.  If this is how he himself describes the characters that he portrays, then obviously that's what they are, objectively speaking. Larry Dunn 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Uninformed" opinion leaders"

message: Currently the article has a sentence: "Stephen Colbert has recently agreed to give the 2008 graduation speech at Maryland high school, Quince Orchard. Located in Montgomery County, Quince Orchard High School has no true connection to Colbert other than many students frequently watch his show.". 
If this sentence is to remain (not even referenced) , why not list every publicity event Colbert does in front of an audience of which "many frequently watch his show". Just contact his agent and reprint his full publicity schedule every year.  Now, let the ludicrous and surreal inclusionist rationalizations begin!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.234.131 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  It's not notable.  If he were to come to to where I live, I'd be ecstatic, but I'd know that it's one appearance of hundreds, thousands. - Boss1000 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this in the article?

message: Colbert wears it on his show. Does anyone know its significance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.52 (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for "Wriststrong" at Stephen Colbert (character).  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red wrist-band 

message: Let's not forget that if Colbert indeed files papers, Comedy Central would have to pull his show in some, maybe all markets under the 'equal time' law/clause (I forget exactly, but I remember Schwarzenegger's movies were pulled from TV). I'm not sure if he would take that risk, or even be a breach of contract. Socby19 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable networks aren't subject to § 315(a).  Some follow it anyway, but it's not legally required.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, technically, does anybody with broadcast rights (except NBC) have the ability to air Law & Order with Fred Thompson? (I'm asking, not trying to tell you otherwise). Socby19 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cable typically abides by the Equal Time rules to avoid a legal case which could result in that rule being changed to cover cable as well.   They act as if they were already restricted because they don't want to actually be restricted.  -- Vary | Talk 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The law in question defines "broadcasting station" as "a community antenna television system".  Cable networks do not fit in that definition.  In fact, cable networks in general aren't subject to FCC's content regulations.  They do self-regulate (presumably to avoid a law exerting more control on them), and most follow the intent of equal time even though they're not legally required to.  (Edit conflict with Vary — exactly.)  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TBS is aired Thompson week alittle while back so yes anyone (except NBC) Gang14 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential campaign vs. equal time

message: Until a reliable source actually confirms this is not a serious run for either the South Carolina primary(ies) or a full run for president, we cannot have a title as opinionated as "Satirical".  While it's not confirmed it's serious either (the removal of the election tag was proper), we just don't know at this point what this is. --Oakshade 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Satirical"  for Presidential run is pure [[WP:POV]]

message: IF ANYONE CAN READ THIS:
In the Stephen Colbert article, there is a misspelled (I think) headline:
"Satiriical...2008"
If someone could change that and then delete this post, that would be great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbcole (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know how to use Wikipedia 

message: :Category:United States presidential election, 2008 should be added, as Colbert appears at United States presidential election, 2008, because he is affecting the election, in a notable, newsworthy, way, just as Al Gore does, and others. 132.205.99.122 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the annoucement was definite, and no hoax.  Therefore, Category added. KyuuA4 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically an elaborate bit on his show, so I'm not sure what it's doing in the first paragraph of the intro. Larry Dunn 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His Character on CC may have announced his candidacy, but Colbert the person has not, so the catergory was removed.  Arzel 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category should appear, because AL GORE is a member of this category, and he IS NOT a candidate. The same reasoning, (having an effect on the election and through major media outlets) applies to Stephen Colbert. Further, Michael Moriarty is a member of this category. And as Michael Moriarty has only made a press release stating his run, it puts him in the same boat as Colbert. 132.205.99.122 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing Colbert the person, with Colbert the actor, which is what he is on TV.  Furthermore, he is not effecting the national election, although it will be interesting to see if they include him on any presidential polls.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Stephen Colbert (character) should be included in the category? (or should Michael Moriarty be removed instead?) 132.205.99.122 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This person/character dichotomy can lead to some confusion -- a character cannot run for office in the US -- and I am not stating an opinion on it either way.  However, whichever it is, it seems obvious that it's purpose is no more than a glorified bit on his show, which does not need to be mentioned in the lede, so I'm taking it out (again). Larry Dunn 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:United States presidential election, 2008 

message: Since Colbert is running for president, I am wondering what his views are on various areas. What are his views on Gun control? Does he support the people trying to ban law abiding citizens from owning firearms? Same with things like taxes, illegal immigration, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this would be an interesting but ultimately futile experiment.  Just which Steven Colbert are you going to use?  The character "Steve Colbert" is anti-bear, pro-pretty much anything that Bush believes, mostly anti-liberal, and takes an extreme position on just about everything that he talks about.  The person Steven Colbert is a Democrat, and from all reports pretty much opposite of what his character represents.  So....regardless of what you put down as his political positions, they are most likely wrong to half the people that would read this....other than the anti-bear position.  All of this stems from the absurd belief that he is actually running for president.  It is a joke people. Arzel 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He'd have a better chance than most of the crackpots. Even if it is a joke, he'd get more votes than most serious candidates, who are jokes of a different sort (ie. not a serious contender). I'm sure he's having a bigger impact that the candidates for most of the third parties. 132.205.99.122 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt that he would get any significant number of votes or that he will have any significant impact on the election in general.  Arzel 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a place to park protest votes, he'd be a good choice, as it'd be likely to get national news coverage on the number of people disaffected by the real choices. 132.205.99.122 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Colbert's Political views''' 

message: We don't seem to have a section on that article. As he made the announcement in character, info should be there too, specially placed 132.205.99.122 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there.  Colbert '08.  Arzel 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added it. 132.205.99.122 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert (character) for President 

message: The beginning of citations of the difficulties of continuing to use his cable television production company and show for campaign purposes: If Colbert actually files as a candidate for a primary election, he, via a political committee, would have to pay for all  corporate broadcast production costs, otherwise he bumps up agains some corporate contribution prohibitions. -- Yellowdesk 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal elections laws 

message: I just found this: Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008 132.205.99.122 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  campaign article? 

message: * Make Me America—The official I am America (And So Can You) book website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  links to add 

message: born and raised kids  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.148.123 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just raised, not born.  Check the reference.  Stephen Colbert (character) may have been, but this is the real person's article. -- Vary | Talk 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert was born in Charleston, SC 

message: I never questioned this before, but now with all the vandalism, I'm wondering, is Stephen T. Colbert really Stephen Tyrone?? I have a feeling it's something geekier, like "Timothy." Anybody know for sure?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.252.208 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the article is right. I know, it's weird. Illinois2011 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrone? 

message: it should be noted that his name appears on the firefox credits list in Help -> About, maybe it is someone else with the exact name, but I doubt it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.98.60 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite impressed that someone actually read the Firefox credits list. Illinois2011 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite interesting. However, wikipedia guidelines such as WP:TRIVIA says that trivia sections should be avoided. dposse 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia section 

message: Could this article be featured? Check, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes... I mean, this is probably a better article than that one. Okey, it it could be better but it's hard to make a really good article on a guy who's alive. I just want someone who's been through the FA process to take a look at this one and maybe put it up for a vote.
Maybe it gets on to the show and we could stop having the vandalism promotions on elephants. =)
--84.217.206.150 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest problem will probably be stability, at least as long as Colbert runs his faux presidency campaign.  Arzel 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arzel, you don't know that it is a hoax.  I really don't understand why you keep insisting on this before all the facts come out. Illinois2011 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's just that no one has yet gotten around to updating the article with a star. The FAC discussion itself has already been closed as "Promoted", and if you'd checked the FA list, you'd find out that it is already there. The entire FA-finishing process isn't completed instantaneously; different users and bots update different things over a period ranging from a few hours to a few days. Raul adds it to the FA log and lists it on the main FA page; GimmeBot updates the articlehistory and colours the closed debate a soothing blue; and some other user, working after all the others, adds the star. It's a complex process. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: Wouldn't that be under the wiki article "Stephen Colbert, the character" and not him himself... because it is somthing that his character is doing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.205.124 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point it is unclear exactly who is running.  Although I think it would be unlikely that if the name appears on the ballot, that could be taken as a character.  We can't elect Donald Duck to be president.  Illinois2011 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "presidential run for 2008" 

message: This censorship is practically unbearable.
--G G Plopper 03:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only semi-protected.  And labeling even full protection "censorship" is inaccurate hyperbole.  --ElKevbo 03:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Unlock the Page