Talk:The Colbert Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good article The Colbert Report has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG The Colbert Report was featured in a "WikiWorld" cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Raptors no longer "On Notice." Stephen just moved them to "Dead to me."

I tried to change this on the chart, but for some reason it doesn't seem to appear on the edit page. Could someone more experienced please change this? D prime 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikiality: The final word?

Okay, I know I've been a relentless campaigner for giving Wikiality more credit -- at least a mention on this page, and it's own, brief article. I've already more than demonstrated that it's become an internet hit. JDoorjam, an admin, has insisted on preventing that, using the argument that since there's no "absolute" criteria for inclusion (although I more than demonstrated its worthiness with relative criteria), it should only be mentioned as a subset of truthiness.

Well, I think that we should all feel quite embarassed about this stance, given that Wikiality is now one of the "TV Words of the Year" [1]

For shame, Wikipedia. For shame. Can we at least agree that *now*, long, long after the term and the commentary became a hit, that we can give them mention? -- Rei 00:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a mention somewhere is in order; It's been credited in a source. However, I still think some other people looking to object will find a loophole and run away with it. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • I'm a hot toe picker • WP:NYCS} 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"For shame"? Give me a break. All I've ever asked for is an objective threshold for inclusion in order to avoid this article becoming a dustpan for Colbertcruft (both t's silent). Becoming "a hit" is absurdly subjective and is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. I certainly think being called a "TV Word of the Year" is worth mentioning. What, exactly, is there to be "embarassed" about? Wikipedia isn't supposed to break news, it's supposed to store and organize notable information. Wikiality was already mentioned in the Wikipedia in popular culture article and the Colbert Report episode guide, but still hadn't risen so notably above any other gimmick on the Report that it was clear it warranted inclusion in the main article on the show. That's what the entire debate was about. That Wikiality was named a "TV Word of the Year" is certainly notable for the show beyond being notable for Wikipedia.
PCH, what "loopholes" are you referring to? And being referred to by a source wasn't ever the issue, as it had been covered by MTV, CBS, and the Washington Post. It was whether there was anything differentiating the impact of Wikiality with the impact of Colbert's Lamont/Lieberman coverage, or his mockery of Mel Gibson, or anything else that had multiple news stories written about it. Now it appears it does. JDoorjam Talk 07:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about its own article. Maybe just a redirect and mention along with truthiness and Gaysrael. Yes, put that last one back too. It was there until the whole Colbert vandal spree. --Kalmia 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Wikiality mention- This time, it's subtle, they assume you know the context

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5286458.stm

I tell you, this is a bigger story that we're representing.

Ariginal 12:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that really a "wikiality" mention? I can't find the term anywhere on the page. The only allusion to Colbert is how he explicitly encouraged fans to vandalize the Elephant-related articles. Has Colbert even mentioned "wikiality" on the show since the initial episode? I haven't catched it myself; "truthiness" is still mentioned frequently though. --TM 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA pronunciation

This article used to have actual IPA characters to indicate the French-ish pronunciation of Colbert, and now they're all question marks. Did someone edit the page with a non-Unicode browser? Jaysbro 19:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The IPA still shows up on my browser... Schi 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report

What can you say about this great show. All I know is that you cannot improve perfection. Like our great eagle the show soars with intelligence and knowledge that rock your socks off. If you cannot take the truth grow a pair of manberries before you watch again, because it will make you a man.

                                           Bruce Rietz 
                                             a colbert deciple

amen! sincerly a fellow deciple.

[edit] Reference Needed

A reference is needed for the assertion that The Colbert Report retains 98% of Daily Show viewers. The nearest citation at 23 actually suggests that the show only retains 75%, however, it is an old article. Mysticfeline 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The first day it aired it is said it retained 98% of viewers. For some reason people still quote that number when obviously no show could ever retain a percent that high consistently. Even back to back episodes of the same exact show can't do that.

[edit] Elephants and The Great Doombringer

Why isnt there a reference to the August 1st episode of the Colbert Report where he tells people to vandalise Wikipedia? I beleive that this should be in here, because It kinda shows his character, and is Wikipedia history as well... Patrick Flynn 18:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathiastck 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
i 2nd thatQrc2006 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This has already been discussed in length, please review archived discussion. --TM 07:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Be more specific as to where this discussion can be found. SERSeanCrane 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I third it.-Some person

[edit] Colbert joke

i suggest we add Template:funnybut

The joke is getting old. Humor is great sometimes, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions. ~~~~

to all jokers from now onQrc2006 10:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big errors in Program Format section

Why does it say "Typically, Colbert starts each episode by praising bears, eating honey, and talking about Winnie the Pooh..." at the beginning of the section? That's completely false. The Steven Colbert character hates bears; in fact, to such an extreme that he often refers to bears as "godless killing machines." He doesn't eat honey either, and doesn't like Winnie the Pooh. I can get sources if needed.

  • It was just a bit of valdalism, and has now been taken care of. – ClockworkSoul 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a reference where he puts Grizzly Bears on notice: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/on_notice/onnotice_061206.jhtml

[edit] Exagerration

"The World Awaites"?

I changed it. Indiawilliams 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those Who Trespass

I took out this bit:

Colbert often refers to his fictional novel, Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure (recently renamed Alpha Code 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Codeventure), which follows the adventures of a character based on Colbert himself. The novel is a satirical reference to Bill O'Reilly’s thriller Those Who Trespass; some reviewers claim that both the hero, an Irish-American cop from Long Island, and the villain, a no-nonsense television journalist, are versions of O'Reilly himself.[1]

In case anyone wants to revert, here's why I took it out: the section this fell under was "Relation to The O'Reilly Factor". While O'Reilly did write that book which may very well be a version of O'Reilly himself, the assumption that the fictional Tek Jansen novel is based on Those Who Trespass is a bit of a jump. I see the parallels (in that Tek Jansen is a heroic version of Colbert, etc.) that support the comparison but there is no source given to support that Alpha Squad 7 is actually a parody of Those Who Trespass. (The cite given is a review of O'Reilly's book from 2004, pre-Colbert Report, and of course does not mention anything about Colbert or Alpha Squad 7.) If someone were to find such a source, then this information would probably go into the Stephen Colbert (character) article, as the (alleged) parody is not directly related to The O'Reilly Factor (the show), not O'Reilly himself. Schi 23:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted uncited "criticisms"

As this article is to be encylopedic, I reverted the criticisms that were not cited and posted anonymously. Kukini 19:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Fail (... lead)
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass (I'd say borderline as it sometimes crosses the line between reality and fiction within the article)
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Fail (see comments)


Additional comments :

  • Lead section way too short and off-track.
  • The bullet points in the section The set ('The Eagle's Nest') isn't necessary unless it is turned into prose.
  • The images Image:Thecolbertgang.jpg, Image:Colbertreport.jpg, Image:Colbert-zrinyi.jpg need to give their FU rationale. The image Image:Colbert eagle sequence.jpg should be removed as it wouldn't stand for Fair use with WP's policy.

Please feel free to request more comments and to answer to these if you disagree or want more insight. Drop by my talk page or GAC again once the modifications have been carried over. Lincher 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Lincher 19:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added fair use rationale for all the images, but I don't see why the eagle sequence should be removed? As for the prose, I'll try to improve the lead. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have also tried to improve the lead [2]. Thoughts? Schi 01:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I added in a couple of gramatical corrections to the lead too, so this should be satisfactory, at least for GA status. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?? Why does the eagle sequence have to be removed? It is a great picture that shows the "patrotic images" satire. it's going to be a real shame to lose it. is there anyway we can keep it? dposse 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Wikipedia's fair use policy, but I don't see why these don't meet fair use. WP:FAIR#Images seems to okay logos, TV screenshots, and publicity photos. The Daily Show uses similar screenshots and that article apparently meets good article criteria. Can someone explain what needs to be done to make the Colbert Report's images fair use compliant? Schi 23:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I added to the Fair Use rationale. Is it ok now? Can we keep it? dposse 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle's Nest

I removed a couple things from the Eagle's Nest section:

  • Colbert often points out his Emmy and Peabody Awards (from The Daily Show) located on a mantelpiece behind his guest interview area, an apparent reference to Bill O'Reilly, who claimed in 2000 that his previous show, Inside Edition, had won two Peabodys. In fact it had won one George Polk Award in 1996 – after O'Reilly had left the show.[3]
This is a little problematic for a couple reasons. The assertion that Bill O'Reilly claimed to have won two Peabodys when his show actually had won one George Polk Award in 1996, when O'Reilly wasn't there, is not supported by the source. The source just shows that the show won in 1996, and is silent on all the other assertions (O'Reilly's claim, the fact that O'Reilly wasn't part of the show.) There is the other problem that it is an apparent reference to this incident. I believe that Colbert probably does point out his awards in a reference to the O'Reilly incident, but it would be better supported in the Wikipedia article if we could come up with a source that actually links the two. There should at least be a source that documents O'Reilly's mistaken claim.

I also reworded this part:

  • Colbert's desk viewed from above is a large C which also looks like the symbol for Omega.

to say: "Also, Colbert's desk viewed from above is shaped like the large C in the show's logo." It seems to me that most Cs resemble omegas, and I think the desk is in a more direct reference to the C in Colbert's name and the show logo. Schi 19:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Nice work done on rewriting part of the text and adding fair use to the images as it now stands for GA status. Cheers, Lincher 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! thanks. dposse 18:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Papa bear" source

Googling is being unproductive in finding a reliable source for the "Papa bear" nickname. This blog (which is not a suitable source) summarizes the Dec 7, 2005 Fresh Air interview on NPR as mentioning "Papa bear" O'Reilly. Anyone can/care to listen to this and confirm so we can attribute the nickname to this source? Schi 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not know why citation is necessary. Everytime he has referred to O'Reilly on the show he has called him Poppa Bear and I'm sure many others editors can prove this fact. It may be original research but it is true. Gdo01 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know that we all know it's a fact. But I guess per the guideline WP:Cite, it's been challenged so we need to find a source. Schi 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, according to WP:NOR, television programs can be used as a primary source, so the observation that Colbert calls O'Reilly Papa Bear on the Colbert Report is sourced -- the source is the show itself. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't explicitly cite the subject of the article in cases where the subject is also a primary source -- it's considered to be implied. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 06:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the cn tag. I assume no one has a problem with this given Lee Bailey's rationale. Gdo01 06:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Lee Bailey. Thanks. Schi 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Screen Challenge montage

On the October 12th episode Stephen played a montage of all the videos made with a movie score playing in the background. Does anyone recognize this score (I know it's John Williams, but not sure which movie)? Here's a video of the montage: [4] --Ouzo 00:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Information on Youtube?

I think that it should be mentioned in the article that the Colbert Report is one of the very few popular shows on the air to actually allow and condone the posting of clips on websites like Youtube. I feel that this is integral to the show's success, and a least a sentence or two should be devoted to it.

Daily show does it to. It's not specifically unique to Colbert. Besides, both shows put virtually their entire show online on comcent.com to watch in video. Why complain that it's available on youtube? Just saves them bandwidth. TheHYPO 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert's Portrait on eBay

The article right now claims: In celebration of one year on the air, a portrait of Stephen Colbert was auctioned on E-Bay with all proceeds going to charity. As a testament to the popularity of the show, the portrait reached US$10,000,000 within an hour and a half of the auction opening.

I'm not sure that qualfiies as a testament to the popularity of anything. Last I checked the winning bidder was someone who bid 40 million dollars, yet also recently spent 15 bucks on a used space heater... just a guess, but I'm thinking these bids aren't all on the up and up. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the popularity comment and just left it as the bid getting to that value within hours. I also believe that these bids are bogus especially since it has now reached (I believe) the upper limit of bidding at a dollar under US$100 million. I wonder how Google will treat this. Gdo01 06:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another one of Colbert's publicity stunts that has gone too far. Don't be surprised when ebay pulls the auction because no one is going to pony up anywhere near that amount of money. This entire coverage of the situation is entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia is Not a soapbox WP:NOT, and I move that the mention of this be removed from the article until such time as the auction is completed. Wikipedia does not need to be an advertisement for Colbert, anymore than it already seems to be. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Given the current situation of the bids, I agree. Google will not enforce it, the bidder won't pay it, and all this will be good for is a laugh tomorrow on his show. Gdo01 07:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
While it's probably true that the bids are bogus, the anniversary show/portrait auction may count as notable. I can see that it might be on the early side to include in the article. However, the AP article about the anniversary show and portrait auction has been picked up by about 100 news outlets, it seems. Schi 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No objections to including something about the anniversary show and the auction, especially if AP's covering them. Covering the bidding itself though seems a bit original-researchy, since the bids, real or fake, haven't been discussed on the show or in a reliable secondary source. At least, not yet. I'll be interested to see what Colbert does with this tonight, if anything. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

Well...he talked about Wikipedia again on the report...mentioning that some elephants need vasectamies, and did the "I called it" thingy... Patrick Flynn 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.:Prepare for some major vandalism...again!

[edit] Wikiality is back!

He mentioned wikiality on the 18 October 2006 show. He cited an article that mentions elephant overpopulation. --Kalmia 05:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New dropdown screen?

The show already had a plasma/lcd behind colbert's right shoulder when a bit required it - but recently in introduced a 'drop down' (via a button that sounds a lot like the god machine from TDS) screen that appears not to be a tv (it has no frame or anything). Does anyone know what it is? I was thinking possibly a greenscreen, but that would be difficult from a technical standpoint. Maybe it is a TV and I just didn't see the frame. TheHYPO 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "interview area" referred to as "the study"

Colbert referred to "the interview area" as "the study" during an episode this past week, but I can't remember when, exactly, he said it. It might be appropriate to change it in the article but exactly when he said it should be found first. Does anyone remember? JDoorjam Talk 19:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Word

I think that someone should make a page where they have all the main "word"s there are and they should list what appear on that one with the words that follow on that night

Considering how many episodes the Colbert Report is going to have, it would be unreasonable to write down everything said on the side during The Word. Maybe a fansite can do it but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gdo01 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Just checking

An anon seems to keep adding this to Colbert-related articles:

The Colbert Report originally aired on June 20 2005 for three weeks, but went off the air for reworking until October 17 2005. Colbert fans frequently debate the “anniversary” of the show, with the majority believing that June 20 is the rightful anniversary.

This doesn't have any basis in fact, does it? -- Bailey(talk) 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any Google link to anything with June 20, 2005 and Colbert Report in the same sentence. It might have been the day an ad for the Report was first aired but there's no way to prove that. Gdo01 03:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been able to turn up anything other than the October date on google either. I just wanted to double check that there wasn't anything to it (like the date corresponding to when one of the fake ads first ran). I'm going to go ahead and assume it's simple vandalism or a mistake. Thanks for helping me search, Gdo01. (There's got be something better I can address you as...) -- Bailey(talk) 04:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I am a huge Colbert fan and can remember the first episode and don't remember a multi-week hiatus, and can't find any evidence the first episode wasn't 17 October. I also recall Stephen mentioning Stone Phillips was his first interviewee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Colbert_Report_episodes_%282005%29 http://www.tv.com/the-colbert-report/show/45593/episode_guide.html ~ Strathmeyer 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Colbert Report recurring elements

The Colbert Report recurring elements has been listed for deletion, your comments are welcome. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As of today, it's deleted, but the article has been put up for deletion review, in case anyone's interested. -- Bailey(talk) 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The information housed in the deleted Colbert Report recurring elements page can now be found on two different sources on the Internet. The original Wiki information can be found at the Colbert Wikia site. The information, edited to clean up the original data, can be found temporarily on the Colbert University page at NoFactZone.net. The staff at NoFactZone.net are working on a sister site that takes the original Wiki information and expands it into a static knowledge source for Colbert fans. Hopefully with this new structure, the information will be in a format that will be appropriate for the Colbert fans searching for information not available on Wikipedia. Nofactzone 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the intro.

the intro is a bit redundant, don't you think? Can someone please clean it up? dposse 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I made one edit, but if there are other problems, feel free to correct them. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it said "satire" one too many times. I think its ok now. dposse 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Painting

Can we add the final value of the painting and it's charitable donation to the article in some way? thanks. ThuranX 04:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it went for over 50k might make it relevant to the discussion of the show's reception; if you need a reference, try here. -- Bailey(talk) 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guest interview segment

This article in Slate might be a good source for fleshing out a section on the guest-interview segment. I don't have time now to properly incorporate it, but wanted to throw it out there if anyone else is up for it. Schi 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recurring characters

As P.K. Winsome has now appeared more than once on TCR, and actually has a Wikipedia page of its own (which I have just edited), is it worth mentioning recurring characters (or at least pointing out PKW) in the TCR Wikipedia page? pbryan 07:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a sub-article, per WP:SS on recurring characters in the Report. It would probably need some references before, seeing as any article that borders on fancruft seems to be deleted, unfortunately. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tek Jansen

This Colbert Report page is pretty good, but there is no section on Tek Jansen. Someone should add one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elshizzo (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

A page has been created (altough it may be deleted) Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad Seven 71.119.177.42 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly "Papa Bear"/fear of bears

I still have a problem with this. Although the new text is an improvement, I don't recall ever watching the show and getting the impression that the "Papa Bear" nickname and the business of bears being evil were in any way related. Pointing out something ironic without citing a reliable source seems like an unpublished analysis to me, which is textbook original research. Also, even if a passage is merely two statements of fact, the organization of those facts can serve to advance a point of view. In this case, the passage advances the point of view that O'Reilly is somehow a force for evil and that is the message that Colbert is sending. It is certainly possible that the subtext of using a bear-related term of endearment for O'Reilly when Colbert professes to consider bears evil is what the text implies. However, without a reliable source for the interpretation, it fails both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Consequently, I'm going to remove it again. Croctotheface 04:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation that "the passage advances the point of view that O'Reilly is somehow a force for evil and that is the message that Colbert is sending" is only half sensible: the second half, that is, that "that is the message that Colbert is sending". His whole show is pretty much is based on this message; it doesn't take much imagination to think the unstated bear connection is part of it, and it would seem a shame not to mention it. Furthermore, the "fear of bears" you mention is less related; the relationship is between Papa Bear and bears as a threat, fear being merely an irrational reaction to the threat. Dicklyon 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between believing someone has a negative effect on the public discourse and believing them to be analagous to a "godless killing machine." Regardless, the interpretation that "Papa Bear" is related to bears as godless killing machines is an opinion, and if it is not sourced to a reliable third party publication, it fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Just as a reminder, WP:NOR prevents inclusion of "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." As far as the idea that it would be "a shame" not to mention it, why? Most of the stuff on the show is funny, if that's the standard you're using for what would or would not be shameful to omit. I don't see why this particular unverified potential comparison is so worthy. That said, if there is a reliable source that advances this interpretation, I wouldn't be opposed to including it with a proper citation. Croctotheface 09:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters - OR

I've tagged the "Fictional characters" section as original research, because there are no references cited, and it appears to be the original observations of the editor/editors who wrote it. Aleta 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this original research? Aren't the actors portraying them pretty obvious, and/or verifiable in the show credits? It's not like P.K. Winsome (as an example) is a real person who just happens to look exactly like actor Tim Meadows. --Boradis 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No argument about the actors playing the parts. It's the descriptions of the parts themselves I was thinking would be original research. Maybe I'm wrong though. Aleta 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. Most of the descriptions merely detailed the characters' appearances and actions, which, since they are contained within the article's subject, usually don't require citation (as it's like asking for a source that there is a swooping eagle in the opening). It's probably just more helpful and efficient if you remove, qualify or specifically tag (with {{cn}}) any claim you view as OR. --TM 03:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In the case of articles whose subjects are works of art, specifically film, television, theatre, and books. A reference is only required when the source of information is no implicitly obvious. In the case of many film articles (including FAs), you will see that the Synopsis sections of the film articles are not cited. This is because the source of the work is implicitly obvious: the work itself. It is the same in this case as well, it is implicitly obvious that the characters section's source is the television series. The Filmaker 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly/Colbert

They are supposed to be on each others' shows around January 18th:O'Reilly, Colbert to appear on each other's shows --YoYoDa1 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilobbying

Should Wikilobbying (i.e. The act of paying people to edit Wikipedia in order to be more favorable for their cause) be added?須藤

No. WP:NEO dposse 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
YES. It is a real thing that happens and if more people knew about it, people wouldn't be able to get away with it! Drms 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Drms
If more third-party articles are released on the Wikipedia vandalism, or it receives any recognition as a new word, as was the case with Wikiality. -- Viewdrix 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"The act of paying people to edit Wikipedia in order to be more favorable for their cause" is not, at this time, a documented phenomenon (outside of, as far as I know, a single case - that of Microsoft). If at some point it becomes worthy of note in an encyclopedia, then it can be noted here. As for the word "wikilobbying", it's a neologism (Google presently returns zero hits on it) and is therefore not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. - Brian Kendig 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply it get its own article, merely mention and definition on this one. Perhaps something like "On the 29 January 2007 show, Colbert invented the term blah blah blah which he defined as "blah blah blah". That kind of thing. 須藤 06:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All I see i him giving a name to something that CLEARLY happens. Politicians rounding out rough edges in their profiles (It has happened) Bands adding ill gained Critical Acclaim (it has happened.) Because He has spited Wikipedia in the past ... Does not make him any less correct about this, and several other things in the past.Wergoheb
Whether or not wikilobbying is deserving of its own entry, I do not believe it was called for for the moderators to delete it and protect it within a few seconds of it having been created. If it were any other word, it would at least been tagged for noteworthiness or for being a neo/protologism, and would've been given some time for discussion before being deleted. The moderators summarily deleting it without so much as hearing the case for it just because it was invented by Stephen Colbert was a severe overreaction. It was also highly uncalled for to ban users for vandalism for creating the entry. Even if you disagree with wikilobbying having an entry, I fail to see how creating an entry for it can rise to the level of vandalism.TV4Fun 07:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There's always deletion review. Gdo01 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we can't mark it for review because it's been protected against edits. TV4Fun 07:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would you need to edit the article? The steps here say nothing about accessing the article. Any way if it had been deleted without protection, how would you access the article if its been deleted? They've already taken this into account and thats why you don't need to access the deleted page in order to put it up for deletion review. I think you haven't been on Wiki long and should really research guidelines and processes before you start complaining about something you have complete control over. Gdo01 07:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this covers most of those people: Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Definition_of_disruptive_editing_and_editors basically just the second point. Gdo01 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The creation of the Wikilobbying entry I don't think constituted vandalism necessarily, but all the entries I saw (you can still check the history) consisted of spam or nonsense. Mike wiki 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that it should be included on the Show's page, unless there are enough examples and discussion to warrant a full, fleshed-out page, and not just another stub. However, the term should not be ignored.須藤 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Why is the Wikilobbying discussion on the Colbert subpage? I get that he coined the term on his show. I even get why it was speedily deleted and locked--I mean we're not talking about a small amount of Colbert releated vandalism in the last few hours. But Colbert was actually reporting news.

It's not like we don't know that this exists or talk about it. When biased edits of a certain type are made to articles, people check where they are coming from. Have you ever looked at the incidents board or anything like it? Edits partial to the school coming from the IPs of school computers, professors instructing their students to make certain types of edits--you think that people don't lobby of wikipedia? And that they don't lobby through their edits? That they don't try to appear impartial so that those edits stand and that that information presented that way is disseminated and passed on? That's lobbying and it's a brand new type of lobbying. It's Wikilobbying.

But why must that discussion be defined under the fictitious term "Wikilobbying"? If these are all established behaviors, then they should be covered under their already coined names. Having sections for all of Colbert Reports's original terms on the Colbert Report page allows for a description of what established ideas that term covers. Truthiness does have it's own page, but it's not like we couldn't define it here with appropriate links to Wiki's on trust, truthfullness, accuracy, media trust, etc. etc.Mike wiki 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally when you go to a webpage and you read an article that's passing on factual information, you look and you see who's passing this information on--what bias could they have to present it a certain way. You can't do that at Wikipedia. You can look at talk pages and edit histories but if it goes back more than a little bit, it generally becomes a part of the article. Readers don't go through edit histories--they read what's there and a good wikilobbier can change what a reader comes away with without making the article seem biased.

Whatever your opinion is--whether or not you think that this should be an article, this discussion shouldn't be taking here. It should be taking place somewhere specific to the article. The colbert report wouldn't have a section on this--it might have a section on words he makes up and it could have a sentence on this, but it's fully inappropriate to have a section in this article on one episode's word. Now this article might need a section on all of Colbert's Wikilobbying, but that's another point.

As suggested to me by some editors, why not turn this ^ into a WP:ESSAY? I'm not sure it should be it's own article because it seems to be specific type Media_manipulation, even though more widely known terms like Google Bomb have their own entry, others are only included as special cases and suffice with a redirect like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_wash . Mike wiki 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do your opinions belong? At the Deletion review for Wikilobbying. TStein 10:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the deletion review is for the posts that already were made under this title, which mostly consist of "First Post" and other nonsense/spam. The real question is whether the term should have it's own article, which is a question of whether or not the title should be protected (no one can add to / modify the page) or not. I could be wrong however =)Mike wiki 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion reviews aren't just for the actual text that was deleted but for whether or not the article should exist. And since the article was protected to keep it from being recreated this is the place for such a discussion. Normally, in cases like these where a nonsense article is created, it would be speedily deleted, but the space wouldn't be protected, so if an editor wanted to create an article on the topic they could. TStein 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so shouldn't the people in favor of a standalone Wikilobbying article be speaking in favor of unprotection, as opposed to disagreeing with the deletion? How might we support unprotection at Deletion review for Wikilobbying? Mike wiki 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that yes, discussion for the page deletion should go on there, as per TStein. However, we can discuss the separate matter of whether Wikilobbying should be included on this page or not. I feel it certainly should, regardless of whether Wikilobbying gets its own page or not. 須藤 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that a section should be devoted to terms coined by The Colbert Report, as the show frequently makes up words or combines other words, so it would be appropriate to have a sub-section of the show's page, similar to the "fictional characters" section. Terms such as Truthiness with their own page can be linked, and other terms like Wikilobbying can redirect to the TCR page. Mike wiki 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.須藤 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's time to lighten up

Stephen Colbert is not doing anything wrong by talking about wikipedia on his very funny show. He is exploiting the problems that wikipedia faces, including vandalism and nonsense. Microsoft paying people to write a more positive entry is something that wikipedia must combat. Stephen Colbert and his show is mocking wikipedia, and I think that this community needs to come to terms with that. He may not intend to do so, but he is actually improving wikipedia. Everything he is saying is true. Businesses, if wikipedia is not careful, are going to write their own entries and POV will go down the drain. So while elephants may or may not be increasing because of Stephen, it sure is making wikipedia users more aware of the issues that this encyclopedia faces. Reality is a commodity! Oh, and we must be aware of bears...I mean businesses, because if we are not careful, wikipedia is just going to be one big ad. Benje309 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Stephen, with a 'ph'. 須藤 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I Fixed It... thanksBenje309 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree I think the attention that Wikipedia gets from the show is beneficial and the challenges posed by malicious or farcical Wikipedia posts serve to improve and refine the site and its capabilities.Mike wiki 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert is a gadfly in the mode of Socrates, warning us that Wikipedia is prone to "Truth by consensus" dangers. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 06:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Having to semi-protect all related pages because of zombies who follow his every command is extremely detrimental to Wikipedia. We don't need Colbert to encourage this; vandalism is alreday quite rampant, and Daniel Brandt is already doing some productive work to keep Wikipedia in line (like the plagarism investigation). Hbdragon88 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But in line with Benje309's comments, whether you agree with them or not, you have to admit that Colbert is far more recognized than Brandt, who I had never heard of until your mention here. And, again, in line with what Benje309 said, The Colbert Report points to problems in society through satire, including (such as last summer with "Wikiality") through in-character praise of said societal fault. However, this reminds me of the Chappelle Show, in that, according to creator Dave Chappelle, the show became part of the problem and not the intended solution when it grew popular. While trying to satirize racism, according to Chappelle, the show ended up promoting it because of the large amounts of fans who did not completely understand it. In the same way, while those who understand the appeal of Colbert as satire recognize the intention, those that find it funny a television show has caused disruption in the real world with voting a Hungarian bridge to be named the "Stephen Colbert Bridge", a new holiday in Oshawa, Ontario, and Wikipedia vandalism just aid to it. -- Viewdrix 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Brandt is productive, at least, such as getting editors out to cleanup some plagiarism, exposing the person who edited Seigenthaler's biographpy and running at least two editors off (I believe he is responsible for retiring Katefan0 and Gator1 from Wikipedia work). I think everybody knows how reliable Wikipedia tends to be. Colbert can satirize it without directing people to do disruptive shit; Wikiality in itself wasn't disruptive (IMO), but his instruction at the end of the bit to change a random fact was. Hbdragon88 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second, are you saying that the illegal harassment and subsequent resignation of Kate was not disruptive? That is 10000 times worse than anything Colbert could ever possibly do. —bbatsell ¿? 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just listing examples in which Brandt affected the project, as the previous poster said that he/she had not been aware of Brandt's actions before I mentioned his name. "Productive" in this sense didn't necessarily mean positive, as his involvement in the Seiganthaler incident clearly didn't come out to be very positive (getting the pizza guy fired). Hbdragon88 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
At least with Colbert Nation vandals, you can time the fallout precipating from a broadcast episode, like on a schedule, not like the erratic regular vandals. For zombies, they sure are punctual. - The Lake Effect 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the claim that either Stephen Colbert or his show are "funny". Can you cite some reliable sources to back that up? JuJube 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC) "Funny" and "not funny" are inherently POV. It cannot be proven either way mathematically. Not suitable as a discussion topic for Wikipedia.須藤 18:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the number of viewers a good measure of funniness? Just name the least funny television show you can think of that still qualifies as funny, and we'll compare viewership. If the idea of people who like things that you don't like scares you, perhaps you should sign off of the Internet. ~ Strathmeyer 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

suggest adding a pointer to this external site:

http://www.shipbrook.com/onnotice/

It's the "You're On Notice!" customized graphic generator.

[edit] Cultural impact

I think some of the other content from the article (such as Oshawa Generals and Hungarian bridge) should be under this section. Or, the section should be removed entirely. As it stands it seems Steven Colbert's only cultural impact is getting a dining hall named after him. I don't know which solution would organize the article best. C. Kilpatrick 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon

I'm just wondering why there's no mention of "Tech Jansen" anywhere. Drake Clawfang 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It fails notability. The article on it was deleted a while ago due to WP:N and WP:A. dposse 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilobbying should have its own entry on Wikipedia

Why was the page Wikilobbying deleted? It will not let me recreate it. I know that I can create an unbiased version of that page which will be written in Wikipedia-style. There is no point of deleting factual articles. The more articles on Wikipedia, the better. It is a topic which needs its own article. The article will probably be about 3-4 paragraphs long, but many articles on Wikipedia are even shorter. Randomfrenchie 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 30, the topic has been brought up and struck down again. You should also read WP:NOT#IINFO which basically boils down to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Just because something is factual that doesn't mean it deserves a Wikipedia article.
Another thing, have you actually seen anyone use the term wikilobbying? Its undoubtedly true that it does happen but who uses Colbert's word to describe it. There has been no reputable published source using the word since the episode aired. Compared to truthiness, wikilobbying is a dud just like wikiality. Gdo01 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not make an article? What would be the advantages of not making one? I will watch it and handle it myself if I have to. Randomfrenchie 02:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why make it? I think Wikipedia manipulation or Internet lobbying or some other more official and widely used term would be better for an article about this topic. As I've said no one uses the term Wikilobbying Gdo01 02:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the more factual entries on Wikipedia, the better. Maybe if we make an article, more people will start using the term. We could include more information on an article named 'Wikilobbying' than one named what you suggested. Randomfrenchie 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow there is no reasoning with you. Wikilobbying is a term used by no one. Wikipedia does not help people start using terms. We inform, we don't create words or popularize them. As for wikilobbying being a better title, you could make a better article from the word shit since it encompasses so much more than just feces (it applies to dirtiness, as an interjection, an insult) but you would never find a respectable person talk about feces in an article called shit. Same goes with wikilobbying. If that article is ever created, I'm sure you'll see a lot more vandalism (check out shit's history page) than real content. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO and many others before writing an opinion based on nothing but the fact you like the word. Gdo01 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
First, who the heck put this at the beginning of the talk page? I'm moving this section to the bottom of the page, where it belongs by date.
"We inform, we don't create words or popularize them."
Ok, so inform on Wikilobbying. It was a neologism when Colbert sent everyone on Wikipedia into hysterics--Google returned 0 hits for it. Google presently returns 53,000, and that number climbs daily. Those are blog hits and articles--yes, LexisNexis now returns hits for Wikilobbying to. And your argument that if the article is created we'll see more vandalism than real content is just crap. Lots of articles are targets for vandalism--that doesn't mean that they aren't worth writing. So we'll have to be vigilant or the article will have to be semi-protected. If your attitude in life is not to do things because other people might try and wreck them, then I don't know what you do all day, and I certainly don't know what your doing trying to work with a wiki.
Anyway, this entire discussion is pointless. If you think an article is something that should be had, write one on a subpage, and then bring the issue back up. Arguing in hypotheticals is silly. For anyone who didn't read the Deletion review log and wanted to, there's a link. TStein 10:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to state my opinion. Let's address this point by point: ♦As stated above(way above,again and again and,etc.) wikipedia is not an "indiscriminate collection of knowledge"(if it were we would be half way through the "every word known to man" articial). ♦No one uses the word because it is akward, sure truthiness could have an artical as it has been used in local newspapers at least once and furthermore is useful. Using the definition Stephen gave find another word that fits better then truthiness. Compare to wikilobbying, which as stated above(I believe) can be substatuted for at least 2 other shorter and concise words. ♦I agree,we do not try to create words/terms on wikipedia. Furthermore,the word will be effectivly dead in a year. wait 10 months and you might find 1 page featuring it(by the looks of it,probibly this one). ♦I also agree. Sure articals are targeted all the time for vandalism(Having president bush's page on wikipedia puts the average rate up 47%, I jest of course) and they are noteworthy(frankly,they are targeted because they are noteworthy),serously; people don't wake up and say"hmmm I think I'll vandalize wikilobbing today,no they head straight for Iraq war. ♣Final thought:Retracting what I said earlier about truthiness,it has an artical and you will notice it is longer then 3 paragraghs.--Wilson 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the stage/set..

just something I thought a bit odd that isn't mentioned anywhere (not sure if it's worth adding), but part of the set of the Colbert Report includes portraits of (the actors who play) Drs. Gregory House, Robert Chase, and Eric Foreman on Fox's "House". Not sure what the relevance of it is but they're pretty prominent in many shots.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Colbert_Report_8e67.html"