Talk:The Colbert Report/Archive 2

message: I'm reasonably sure that for every congressional district piece, the district is referred to as the "fighting X", e.g. Colorado's second district, "the fighting second".  Anyone else noticed this?  And if it's true, could it be put in the congressional districts segment?--PIngp0NG 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fighting districts

message: This is already mentioned in the truthiness article.  Is this section really necessary? 70.225.231.57 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colbert on Wikipedia? 

message: After Ash Wednesday's show, perhaps it's time to add a section specifically on Colbert's spirituality. He frequently mentions that he is a practicing Catholic in interviews, does segments on religion, and hosts religious guests (not all of whom are Christian). Is this all that different from Jon Stewart's frequent references to Judaism? To me, those reference seem more ethnic than religious. At the very least, Colbert's easy invocations of Jesus and references to scripture set him apart from the great majority of television hosts (the exceptions being televangelists), and that seems notable. --Tysto 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He exaggerates the religious practice of his character in the same way as his political views - though he also joked that Pope Benedict used to be a Nazi. - Reaverdrop 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious content

message: How did he predict all the oscars perfectly? Does anyone else think he might of had some inside knowledge? (Along with his ability to see into the future of course).Dapoloplayer 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Da Cobert Code 

message: I read on the weekend Howard Kurtz did a response to a comment that Stephen made about Kurtz and CNN Reliable Sources.
Not only will Stephen pay attention to comments made about himself will come back swinging and attack.  Stephen is getting under the skin of the mainstream pundits and journalists.--Tjkphilosofe 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting under the skin of mainstream 

message: The Parody of The O'Reilly Factor section lists the Tek Jansen book as a parody of Oriley's book Those Who Trespass, but the title and plot seem to more closely resemble the cheezy sci-fi thriller novels like tekwar or Alpha Squad. Tho he does try and sell it in an oriley paroding way, I think this should be edited. The text on the page [tekjansen.com] seems to support this.
tekjansen.com is (at least appears to me) to be unlicensed. It may need to be marked as unofficial since, like Colbert Nation, the proof as to its ownership is difficult to determine with absolute certainty. 65.198.167.147 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tek Jansen - Alpha Squad 7 - Lady Nocturne - A Tek Jansen Adventure 

message: I've done a big revision in which I've reorganized the sections and removed a lot of redundant material, trivia, and breathless "this one time..." anecdotes you would never find in a print encyclopedia. Find it at The Colbert Report/edit. I'm tempted to go further and, for example, strip out the whole section on TCR in Canada—lots of shows are seen in numerous countries. If there is a consensus that the edited version is an improvement, I'll move it over. --Tysto 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Big revision

message: I am having a problem with this section and all the additions to it like The Word, Da Colbert Code, Better Know A District, etc. This stuff should belong on The Colbert Report recurring elements page and already do. Now I don't want to go ahead and delete it because it has become a big section and we would still need to keep the Format of the Show section itself. I just don't know how to revise it. What do you guys think? --Barinade2151 03:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everything after the bulleted list can be removed and merged with reoccuring elements. --waffle iron 03:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them and added an invisible note to other editors to please not re-add them. --Tysto 04:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format of the Show

message: Did anyone confirm O'Reilly's quote in Newsweek?  I thought Colbert made it up, but I don't have that Feb 2006 issue.  --68.249.8.204 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it on the web and added a link to the article. I used a cite tag for the first time, so perhaps I didn't get it quite right. The URL I gave is for the webpage (the second of three that constitute the article) that contains the quote. I didn't give a pagenumber or a publisher. I hope this is an improvement, though. Tim Ivorson 16:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's good enough for me.  I don't know how to cite either.--68.249.237.53 20:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so O'Reilly has said even on his program that he was going to go home, watch the Daily Show and Colbert and go to sleep. J. M. 07:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly's O'Reaction 

message: An IP keeps adding "fan links". A fan petition is hardly notable or useful. Get a blog. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan links? 

message: Has a Bald Eagle really been named after him, or is just a running joke?
Yes, the San Francisco zoo has offered to name a baby Bald Eagle after him.  http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=412827  Bob schwartz 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bald Eagle 

message: I believe most of colbert's views would more likely follow those of modern american conservatives as opposed to the more extreme right-wingers. As well he is based alot upon bill o'reilly who would likely be reffered to more as a conservative as opposed to someone who is 'right wing' as well someone like Joe scarbourough would very rarely be reffered to as a right-wing mdeia personality. -Brodey
:Huh? Most people don't split hairs between right-wing and conservative, or liberal and left-wing. They're synonyms, particularly if you understand the origin of the terms. --128.205.218.25 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, even William Safire got the origin of left- and right-wing wrong in his On Language column (which he acknowledged after I corrected him). - Reaverdrop 03:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might see a difference between right-wing and conservative, but I think an even bigger difference lies between those terms and republican. -JNighthawk 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced right-wing with conservative 

message: why isnt there any critism of his show here?
* Is there really a significant criticism of Colbert other than "not funny"?  If so, we should be adding very long criticism sections to a lot of comedians.  Carlos Mencia comes readily to mind. --Trafton 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Crossfire's criticism of John Stewart as rebutting the "hurting America" quote. If we're going to add "critism" section to comedians' entries, we could add "critism" section on artists, musicians, really anyone I suppose ("...though others complain of the banality of Shakespeare...")MotherFunctor 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll retract this statement, to an extent, since I've seen the Correspondence dinner routine. I loved it, I'll say, but can't deny he's entered himself into the political arena. Still any criticism of him would probably have to come from THE GUT, not much else to criticize.MotherFunctor 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critism 

message: Is it notable that he used Wikipedia on air? -- Tawker 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the reference to Wikipedia should stay in the article.  I've seen every one of the shows, but I am also heavily into Wikipedia (my edit count is over 4,000, as you can see from one of my user boxes about wasting too much time on Wikipedia).  I laughed hard at the metion of Wikipedia.  Let's face it - there is a lot of plain nonsense on Wikipedia.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which we should try to eliminate.  I say take it out, as it says nothing important about COLBERT. --JChap 07:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Word WP Ref today 

message: There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor. Nevertheless, the show itself, despite Colbert's personal leanings, seems rather apolitical, and if not apolitical, then lacking in a viewpoint, to me. The article doesn't help me clear up any of these thoughts, which I have no basis for making rather than suspicion and the feeling I get from watching The Colbert Report.
Could someone clarify and perhaps change the article to make it clearer in these respects?
The intro needs to be cleaned up as well. It should mention he satirized right-wing or republican views but to mention specific shows such as the o'reily factor and lou dobbs as right-wing/republican shows is POV. Even on the pages of such shows no mention is made to categorize them as republican right-wing shows.  Duhon, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:On the May 4, 2005 All Things Considered interview with Robert Siegel , Colbert described his show by saying this: "As The Daily Show is to headline-driven news, this will be to O’Reilly, or Hannity, or Scarborough Country."  And, on the December 2005 Fresh Air , he said that he also patterns his character on Stone Phillips, Geraldo Rivera, Anderson Cooper, and Lou Dobbs (he loves how Dobbs can spin a metaphor).
::There seems to be little to no political slant on the show, and when it comes up, it is conservative, and I suppose he is mocking these views with his demeanor.
:errrr, are you joking? The show is all about mocking conservative media, and mocking implies criticism. Of course there is a slant. Its a show made for liberals, just like Fox news is tailored for conservatives. Brentt 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political slant to show? 

message: I found this in the "Trivia" section of the article. It is interesting to Wikipedians, but really does not do anything for outsiders using Wikipedia as a reference. For discussion, I'm moving it here: 69.177.176.154 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you may have a point. It is already in the list of celebreties who have mentioned Wikipedia; however, it could be useful in this article as the... articlee (?) mentioned the articler. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree this portion of the article should be deleted as it does not tell the reader anything important about the subject. --JChap 23:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should stay; I happen to love self-referential humor.--Ryan! 04:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that somebody put it back in. Ryan, I can see your point. However, if you were writing a normal encyclopedia, would you put "self-referential humor" into it? And what does the statement tell besides that certain Wikipedians are chauvinists? I don't see the point of putting "trivia" in a respectable encyclopedia, so with that in mind, I say take it out! 69.177.176.154 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My vote is clear.  But I respect democratic will.  If it is ultimately removed, then please at least record it in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense.  It's a great one-off.  Thank you.--Ryan! 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ryan!, I agree with you that this does deserve to be moved somewhere. However, this is already in Wikimedia in popular culture, and it doesn't seem to be BJAODN material. Wikipedia is generally referenced more in its own articles than it really should be. If you think that Wikimedia in Popular Culture is inadequate or inappropriate for things like this, please make another page to put things like this. 69.177.176.154 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be kept. Truth, accuracy, reference and the distortion thereof are essential themes of The Colbert Report. That Colbert should claim ignorance of an intellectual pursuit and diminish his source is perfectly in-keeping with the show and worthy of a small note in the article. Al001 20:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Wikipedia 

message: From the Trivia section - ""The Eagle's Nest" was a code name for the Kehlsteinhaus, Hitler's home in the German Alps near Berchtesgaden.", doesn't provide a point of reference within the sentence. Looking back, one of the categories is described as "The set ("The Eagle's Nest")", however with the parenthesis around the Eagle portion leads one to believe this is an unofficial name. I'd propose changing the title of the category to reflect that the Eagle's Nest is the official name (if it is) and to add a mentioning of the set in the trivia sentence. Zarcath 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Eagle's Nest? 

message: I'm removing this:
* On May 9, 2006, Colbert made fun of the veracity of Wikipedia during his segment The Wørd in which Colbert's nightly monologue is accompanied by humorous bullet points on-screen.
** Colbert: "Who the hell does Sigmund Freud think he is?!" (Bullet point: Carl Jung?)
** Colbert: "I, for one, had no idea who he is, so I did a thorough study. Read the entire Wikipedia entry." (Bullet point: Even the Accurate Parts.)
Maybe we should put it up at the top of the talk page; wouldn't bother me. But it's an inconsequential factoid for the article, unless if you have a particularly strong interest in Wikipedia -- an audience for which, in the spirit of WP:SELF, we should not be writing. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good cut. --Tysto 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, I'm a killjoy 

message: Someone added a link to Brass Eye, this seems pointless. I took the liberty of deleting it, but it seemed like I should put that here. J Arn 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brass Eye? 

message: In my opinion, there has been a noticeable change in the persona of the Stephen Colbert character over the last few months.  When the show started, Stephen would sound completely serious about all of his "convictions," but lately he has been breaking character a lot more and using wholly different types of humor.  Has anyone else noticed this?--Mikejoyce 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism