Talk:David Letterman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Letterman article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Indianapolis Portal

David Letterman is within the scope of WikiProject Indianapolis, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana and related subjects in the Wikipedia.

Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk

This article has been rating as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana.

Indiana Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Comedy Portal

This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

David Letterman was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)

[edit] Conan and Letterman

David Letterman and Conan Obrian guest stars in the same spin city episode called "Dead dog talking". However Davids part is a voice over only for the dog rags. It should also be noted that is Davids last appearance as a actor outside the Late show. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.129.66 (talk) 03:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaufman fight hoax

Jerry Lawler recently admited the on air fight with Andy Kaufman was a "hoax".

Yup.

[edit] Married?

has letterman been married? and what about letterman's stalker? Kingturtle 04:51 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Yup, his wife, Michelle Cook, is mentioned in the article. The couple divorced in 1977. He also had a longtime relationship with his co-creator of "Late Night" - which is also mentioned. The stalker stuff should be added though..

Looks like all this stuff is covered in the current revision of the article. -- Branden

As of today, there is no longer any mention of his stalker. Can someone readd it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.129.111 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorable moments

How about a memorable moments section?

Sonny & Cher reunion
Drew Barrymore flashing
up-side-down episode
Madonna cursing

I'm sure there's at least 10 others that I'm not remembering off the top of my head Dyl 12:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Retiring?

Has anyone else heard the rumor that he is retiring? Is that merely a rumor? --Feitclub 21:54, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Various parties have made claims about Letterman retiring since the 1980's. Until Letterman himself says it, it is worthless to listen to such rumors. --Rookkey 03:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Christ Elliot

Should Chris Elliott be included in the number of appearances by comedian section? - Diceman 14:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] photo vs. drawing

Image:David Letterman drawing.jpg

100px

Re: recent drawing replacing photo. Yeargh. Keep the kids away from that one. Besides, Dave's wig looks totally fake in the sketch. Jgm 16:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aw, man, I hate that picture. :( Can't it be replaced with something from his promotional shots? Mr.Icon, 25 May 2005.

Yeah, I've finally had enough with that hideous drawing, so I removed it. We could replace it with the image seen on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Excellent, thanks. I did that one quite some time ago when I was just starting sketching, and I certainly didn't intend it to end up here. I was quite surprised and appalled to find it used in the article, and will sleep much better knowing that it's not there any more. :) The picture from The Late Show with David Letterman seems like a good candidate. Mr.Icon

[edit] Promised Tonight Show?

The article indicates Letterman claims to have been promised The Tonight Show by NBC years before he left. According to the NYT, the most Letterman got from NBC was a $10 Million penalty clause if Letterman didn't get it. NBC promised Letterman the Tonight Show at the last minute, just before Letterman's contract was going to run out, but only after giving Leno 17 months as host, which Letterman decided to reject.[2]

No--Letterman was not promised (by anyone with the authority to do so at NBC, at least) that he would receive The Tonight Show after Carson's retirement. According to The Late Shift (1995) by Bill Carter, Letterman even denied in published interviews that he wanted to take Carson's place; however, the Letterman camp (Peter Lassally and Robert Morton especially, but Bill Carter included) have very effectively spread the canard that Letterman had somehow been robbed of the opportunity to host Tonight. I removed this part of the article some months ago using another computer. Even the penalty clause Letterman had in his contract doesn't count as a promise or guarantee that Letterman would succeed Carson, only that he would recieve $10 million if he didn't get the job when Carson retired. Evidently, avoiding that same kind of public struggle over who was Carson's "rightful" successor that arose in 1993-1994 was the impetus for NBC to announce in 2004 that Conan O'Brien would be the next host of the show. Also, according to Bill Carter, the NBC executives officially deny that Letterman was EVER offered the show, even just before his contract expired. Hope this helps--all my references are to to Carter's The Late Shift. 69.166.17.41 08:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B.A. degree?

Although Dave attended Ball State, I though that he left without graduating. Can someone confirm or deny this? --Xcali 04:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just coming on the talk page to say the same thing. Letterman DID leave without graduating, but when he returned to give a commencement address -- unless I'm mistaken -- the President of the college said that the few classes he had left didn't really matter, and that he could consider himself a graduate. Still, it's not exactly correct to state that he "earned" a BA. -- MusicMaker5376 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity

Leno may regularly beat Letterman in the ratings, and has been doing it for years, but when they first went head-to-head, and for some time after, Letterman beat Leno. (I believe the change occurred around the time Hugh Grant appeared on Leno after he was arrested for picking up a prostitute.)

[edit] Jay Leno on letterman 40 times?

Lol Is that vandalism? or is it part of a joke in the newsletter (Cfitzart 06:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC))

In the early years of Late Night Jay Leno was a frequent guest on the program. It is very likely that the number of Leno visits over the ten years of the show exceeded 40.

The guest list in the article is incomplete as Marv Albert has had the most appearances of any guest (roughly 80, but I cannot verify it.. therefore its inclusion here) and Regis Philbin has had over 60 appearances himself, often in one-shot gags and not counting the episodes he guest-hosted for Letterman.

-- B.Wind, 9 August 2005

[edit] Guests who won't/wouldn't come on the show?

I thought this might be interest (and funny) to include since Letterman has had more problems with this than ANY other talk show host. Recently, Teri Garr made a joke about it in a November 2005 appearance. She said that everytime she got the call to do the show (which was often back on the old show at NBC), she'd think, "Oh no, someone else doesn't want to do the show..." She mentioned Woody Allen, who doesn't do talk shows anymore, but I know he made a rare appearance in a brief Late Show bit in the mid-90's.

Anyway, would this be a good idea? Does anyone know who would make the list? Here's what I can recall:

Guests who probably won't be coming back: Richard Simmons (anyone remember the fire extinguisher incident?) Harvey Pekor (see American Splendor)

Guests who were angered by Dave when he was on NBC but visited the show years later: Sharon Stone Joan Collins Laura Linney

Guests who would not appear for many, many years but finally visited in recent years: Tom Cruise Michelle Pfeiffer Jodie Foster (at the end of the interview, she jokingly explained, "I heard some bad things about you." or something like that) Dustin Hoffman Oprah Winfrey Philip Seymour Hoffman (well, don't think he refused to, but he didn't appear until first quarter of '06) Sean Penn (? again, not sure he refused, but was he on before? Donz?)

I think this topic was even used for a bit on the old show. Something like Vicious Rumors About Guests Who Won't Do Our Show.

[edit] Recent Guests

So, are we going to be adding highlights of all recent guest visits? I think the O'Rielly and Brooks mentions, while interesting, aren't really vital for an encyclopedic entry on Letterman. (The Oprah might stay since that is in reference to much longer and more publically known "feud"). If anything, they should be moved out of the "Hosting The Late Show" section and into a new section called "Notable Appearances" or something. Come of think of it, much of the article could be restructured in such a way .... mtz206 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly's appearance should stay since it got some good news coverage, but I don't think Brooks appearance garnered much attention, even for Dave's claim they'd be there for 2 to 3 years. BTW, I think Dave is truthful about this because I don't think he'd want to compete with Conan O'Brien, whom he's supported for many years. It would be awkward.

As for making a new section on notable appearances, it sounds all right. If other people agree, why not make a 'section break' right before that list of appearances and tag it as "Notable Guest Appearances"?

User:L1759 03:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Guests

I deleted the long list of guests inserted by 138.253.244.181. If we want to include such a listing, it should be properly formatted and in its own article (linked to by the main Letterman article) mtz206 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So Why Didnt You "properly format it and put it in its own article"???Otis66Driftwood 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)OTIS

[edit] Cast of characters

As an occasional viewer, I see running gags which might well be explained in the Wiki article. I do not understand the bit about a girl names Stephanie who brings prizes out when Letterman does "stump the band" with the audience. She wears a letter jacket, and if I understood correctly, called Dave "Mr Carney." Seems like a running gag like "Ross the Intern" on Leno, but not so funny if you don't know what the gag is. Inside jokes are only jokes to constant viewers. Letterman does resemble Art Carney.Any other running gags or minor recurring characters? How long has he been doing remotes with Rupert from the "Hello Deli?" These running gags make a tv show sort of like family or perhaps liturgy for some viewers. Jack Benny had "George Remley, the drunk musician" as a minor recurring character, for instance.Edison 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC) >

That person is Stephanie Birkitt, who has an article here. --rogerd 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside of television section

Everything in the Outside of television needs to be referenced and moved into other sections in the article. It's very crufty and should gradually end up deleted. -- Wikipedical 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic character

from section "comic character":
Satirist Daniele Luttazzi, who brought Steve Allen's genre of talk show in Italy and works as script doctor in the US, gave this analysis of Letterman at the Late show: [...] "On a personal note, I consider Letterman irreverent, but qualunquista [roughly meaning 'politically apathetic']. His jokes on the Iraq War were trivial, little informed and therefore reactionary." [...] (july 2003, Luttazzi's own site luttazzi.it)

Bill Hicks, when guest at the texat music program capziz, said: "I found out that one of Dave's rules is he doesn't like comics to talk about Jesus on his show; which I find really wierd, I mean, to pretend to be this "hip" late night talk show, while actually being as mainstream as anything".

The section above has been removed and restored several times. Is this, indeed, legitimate for the article or is it criticism that should be labeled as such?

Spacini 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Words to avoid - Article structure says to not marginalize criticism to only one section "criticism". The material above also provides some analysis of the kind of comedy given by Letterman, an area in which this article is lacking. --BMF81 11:07, 14 September 2006

- No, it really doesn't. It gives critical opinions of Letterman by two people unknown to most readers. Neither comment really illuminates Letterman's style. The "Jesus" quote, in particular, is merely trivia. There are abundant references to Letterman's style throughout this article, all of which do a much better job than either of these rather spurious quotes. I vote for removing the "Comic Character" section once and for all. PacificBoy 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

to be "known to most readers" is not in wikipedia policy. Which of course would be a silly criterion considering that most people get their "knowledge" from watching tv.--BMF81 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said above, and say delete it. When I was reading the article, I had a "WTF moment" when I read this section. --Spiff666 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I really see no reason why you want this removed. Just because you disagree with it? An article to be comprehensive can't esclude criticism.--BMF81 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the inclusion of criticism, provided it is done correctly. Since you like quoting Wikipedia's rules, here are a few that support the removal.

"A perfect article..."

"...is well documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date." You have not adequately sourced the Bill Hicks quote.

"...is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." Neither of your quotes fit any of these criteria.

"...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject." This means not just a couple of stray quotes that you happened to find that support one opinion.

Adding criticism is fine, but don't call it "Comic Character" (whatever that means). And if you're going to add criticism (and criticism doesn't mean negative; in this case it should mean both), include citable quotes from players who have relevance to the article at hand (TV critics, guest stars, current or former members of the show's staff, etc.).

At the end of the day, do you really have to stretch to an obscure Italian talk-show host to find a negative opinion of Letterman? PacificBoy 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(1)Both quotes are now properly referenced. (2 and 3) Your argument about neutrality and "exploring all aspects of the subject" just substain the need for more material to be added, not for the current to be removed. (4) Change the section name or erasing its content are two very different issues. (5)Hicks and Luttazzi are Letterman colleagues, at national level in respective countries, so they are relevant experts; about Luttazzi's nationality, keep in mind that this is the "english language" wikipedia, not the "american culture" wikipedia.--BMF81 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You made my point, my friend. It doesn't get much more "American culture" than David Letterman. PacificBoy 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The section as written represents ONLY negative views (from two obscure sources) and, therefore, clearly violates wikipedia's NPOV policy. Who cares if these two individuals have made these comments? What do their comments have to do with "Comic Character"?-Hal Raglan 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

They're are obscure just to those ignorant about comedy and satire. If you can reference more analysis about the kind of comedy provided by Letterman then add them. --BMF81 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These are not "analytical" comments, they're simply brief criticisms. Do you honestly believe Hicks' remark offers any substantial information regarding Letterman or his comedy? Your response completely ignores the main point of my comments, as well those made by all previous posters. What's the point of having a section that only references negative comments about the subject of an article? Especially when reading these individuals' wikipedia articles emphasizes that they truly are (relatively) obscure. Please note the previously provided quote: "The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." Why does it matter that these two particular individuals' negative comments are emphasized in a separate section? Why is it so important to add Hicks' claim about Letterman's alleged Jesus rule? There don't appear to be similar sections in their articles, or in Johnny Carson's, Conan O'Brien's, or Jay Leno's. If you read BLP, you'll see that having a separate "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section is not encouraged, as they exist ONLY to include negative POV. And the suggestion to simply add positive comments to the section doesn't make any sense to me; Letterman's career, popularity and awards are sufficiently documented in the main article. The consensus above is clearly to delete. As yet, you have not provided an adequate reason why the section should not be deleted. Unless you can do so, I will remove the section as per the consensus.-Hal Raglan 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hicks analysis tells that Letterman comedy excludes satire on religion, while Luttazzi's analysis tells that some of Letterman jokes are not sustained by deep information. Wikipedia policy says that we should reference primarly to experts in the field, and Hicks and Luttazzi clearly are, at national level in respective countries. I'm not for a criticism section, I'm for a section that provides analysis of the kind of comedy performed by Letterman: tropes, use of freudian humor, subjects, etc; I didn't suggest you to add positive comments, I suggested to add furhter analysis. For now that is the only paragraph in the article that discusses Letterman's comedy, and also is the only part of the article that has sources, you can't delete it just because you don't like it.--BMF81 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But "further analysis" implies that you actually believe these two brief negative comments are analytical in nature, providing insight into Letterman's humor. You say you want commentary that "provides analysis of the kind of comedy performed by Letterman: tropes, use of freudian humor, subjects, etc", and yet the negative remarks don't offer any such analysis. The remarks are simply opinions, seemingly off-the-cuff negative comments that really say next to nothing about Letterman's comedic style/jokes. Hicks claims that mentioning Jesus violates an actual rule enforced by Letterman -- if this was really the case one would think after more than 20 years of his show and hundreds upon hundreds of guests, this alleged rule would have generated some kind of widespread controversy. Contrary to your comment, Hicks says the no-Jesus policy shows that Letterman is "mainstream", not that he deliberately excludes satire that deals with religion. So he's mainstream, big deal. He appears on network television, of course he's mainstream. Luttazzi tells us he thinks Letterman's jokes are shallow. So what? You are the only one here who believes these two individuals are "experts in their field", thus automatically making their views worthy of inclusion. The other posters above believe the section should be deleted. As the section is now, it clearly violates wikipedia's NPOV policy. We can't keep non-notable, trivial criticism in an article just because you like it.-Hal Raglan 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you listen to the referenced video, Hicks (which talks by experience, having been a guest at Letterman about ten times) repeats that Letterman doesn't want satire on "organized religion" on his show; so this is an analysis of the boundaries of the subjects of Letterman comedy (gee I have to explain you everything, are you being a bit dumb on purpose?). Such a boudary doesn't necessarely had to cause big public controversity with previous guests.
- Now that you've reduced your side of the argument to simply hurling insults, I think its clear that you can offer no logical reason for this section to continue to remain in the article. You seem to be confused by what the word "analysis" means. Hicks negative comment about Letterman being "mainstream" (which is what the current quote that exists in the article says) is not analytical by any stretch of the imagination. And despite your naive belief, if Letterman really has been enforcing such a policy on his show for over twenty years, yes, this would have caused a controversy by now.-Hal Raglan 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Luttazzi's remark says that on the subject of iraq war L's jokes were not informed, which is a crucial technical criterion (it's called be relevant and it's from the "universal conversational rules") when you are making jokes on such a satirical subject.
- Luttazzi's brief comment says that he feels Letterman's jokes about the war in Iraq are uninformed. How incredibly analytical! Just because you say this negative comment is crucial and relevant to the article does not make it so.-Hal Raglan 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

they are (were in the case of Hicks) comedy writers and performers at national level (in the us/uk for hicks and italy for luttazzi, although he also works for HBO and Comedy Central), and their pieces of the 90s are now classics that have been referenced by many other comedians (and they of course satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and have an article on themselves). So if you just don't want to consider them as experts on comic monologues (for ignorance or whaterver else) that's just your problem.--BMF81 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I find it curious that you keep ignoring the POV issues that are the heart of the matter. You are obsessed with sloppily inserting a "Criticisms" section into the middle of an article. Such sections are inherently POV and are to be avoided. Simply claiming that these negative comments are profound analytical bits of wisdom doesn't change the issue. You have not even attempted to argue the issues at hand. Instead, you keep saying that Hicks and Luttazzi are/were astounding experts in the field of comedy and therefore their comments must be included here. You may be surprised to learn that calling me "dumb" and "ignorant" has not convinced me that this section does not need to be removed ASAP.-Hal Raglan 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alledged NPOV is not an excuse to delete. As for you to be "convinced", is not necessary really.--BMF81 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to convince other editors if the consensus is against you. Instead of spewing insults ("dumb", "ignorant" and, according to your most recent edit summary, "vandal") at me, you should attempt to discuss our concerns. You've simply reverted w/out explanation. You wrote and inserted the section, so you need to explain why its so vital that it remain. Nobody else wants it here. We've explained our reasons. Its up to you to convince us that your reasons are valid ones. You haven't even attempted to do so.- Hal Raglan 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that these two quotes provide an interesting insight into both Letterman's humor and his limits. While brief these quotes are definitely from experts and would be worth including in a section on Letterman's humor and style. I speak as a a fan, by the way.69.241.126.114 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, try to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. If you want to be taken seriously, its always best to try to keep your cool and refrain from attacking others simply because you disagree with them. Oh, and you obviously need to read up on what constitutes Vandalism. -Hal Raglan 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smothers Brothers

The reference to Letterman writing for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour is inaccurate, according to his IMDB entry. He didn't even get to L.A. until the mid-1970s. Can someone prove otherwise? I can't confirm it, so I removed it. - Stick Fig 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Host of The Late Show" Box

Does anyone else think the "Host of The Late Show" box at the very bottom is unnecessary, since Letterman is the only host so far? anonymous6494 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed petition link

Removed from external links "Petition to bring the Late Show back to UK television", for obvious reasons. Naphra 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Throughout this page there are references which redirect to the main page of websites. An example of this is the first reference in the lead about Regina Lasko being 13 years younger than Letterman. Since these references technically aren't references I will be switching them with the fact tag. Acidskater 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Davestand.jpg

Image:Davestand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Daveln.jpg

Image:Daveln.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Johnnyondave.jpg

Image:Johnnyondave.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Happydave.jpg

Image:Happydave.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Late Show

Late Show have always been my favorite TV show, his doubts about what I really tought of the show were understandable, what's important is his opinion now...! 70.55.128.246 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Letterman's father

On Dave's entry, his father's date of death is given as 1974, but on the entry for Dave's mom, his date is listed as dying in 1973.Does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WILLIAMS37LINDEN (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feud with Oprah

The article mentions his Oprah feud in passing, but no information is given as to what the feud was about, or what started it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.129.111 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I just figured I'd like to second the motion, what was the feud? ~User:joel.a.davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.15.232 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oprah wouldn't appear on Letterman's show for a long time after making some appearances on the NBC show. She maintained there was no feud when she finally appeared on the CBS show. It probably had to do with Letterman making too many fat jokes. Stevetimko (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political views

Removed this section because:

Letterman is not known or notable for his political views;
The section attempts to divine his views from jokes or conversations on his show rather than any stated positions or positions, and is thus original research;
Describing his (not that extreme or controversial) interactions with one particular guest is too much detail for this type of article Jgm (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An ambiguity

"Only 16 other entertainers earn more. Leno, with higher ratings, is #23 with $32 million, but Letterman owns a piece of his show."

Whose show? That is, does Letterman own stake in his own show, or does he (also) own stake in Leno's? — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 04:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Radu Catrina as a someone who has been influenced

This removal was unwarranted, Radu Catrina does actually work in the television industry in Australia. He is currently working as a writer for an Australian-produced TV show, is rumoured to be in negotiations with one of Channel 10's biggest shows (Rove), and is also currently in negotiations with RMITV and CH31 for production of his own show. He has his own page on Wikipedia, it is currently under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)