Talk:Jon Stewart/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Link

Why would a link to the man's actually tv show be inappropriate? http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/february-28-2008/ http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163255&title=recap-week-of-2/26/08&byDate=true They should all be available for people to know where they can watch online. Memoemoe (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)memoemoe

Also the link posted in external links under 'Official site for The Daily Show on Comedy Central' is only available to Americans therefore I believe the link http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/february-28-2008/ should be available for Canadian audiences. Same content. Memoemoe (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)memoemoe

News parody as a genre and article

I will leave this to the genuine scholars amongst you, but a search for the phrase "news parody" on Wikipedia and Google showed no actual genre by this name or scholarly articles to speak of. Perhaps, due to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, it should finally be recognized as an official sub-species of parody and have a Wiki article written. Talk amongst yourselves. J.A.McCoy 00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Drug use?

I've noticed he often talks about DXM or cough syrup in a way that indicates he's done it. I'm assuming around college or high school. I don't have any dates for episodes or anything but I'm sure he's likely to say something about it again eventually. Is there any concrete proof suporting this? --72.138.186.64 19:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He's said that he used to smoke pot, but that's the only ever drug he's said he's done to my knowledge.

Wife's Name?

This article calls her both Tracy and Tracey... any source for correct spelling? --AMK1211 19:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be spelled "Tracey". That's how it's spelled in the source of the picture (from the NY Times, link here) as well as in a copy of their name change application (from the Smoking Gun, link here). I changed the name in the infobox. Strangely, I was about to post this, but decided to look at other sites, and IMDB, Yahoo! Movies, and possibly others, spell it the other way... But the petition for the name change is probably the best source. --Kshieh 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seems like we've got some anon determined to smear this guy... I just reverted another malicious edit. Time to lock? 72.132.144.48 09:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course anons will vandalize Jon. He's a good guy, with something resembling a soul and a concience. In that sense he's unique in america.

Joel Mchale

I heard a rumor that said that when Jon leaves the daily show Joel Mchale from The Soup would be the person to replace him. Does anybody know if this is true?User:Alfredosolis

I doubt this. There have been no reports of Jon Stewart considering leaving the show nor has there been any reports of his replacement. --70.60.0.70 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would he leave? I mean besides running for prez

Why do we have to mention Half Baked in his introductory sentence?

I remembered he had only a very small part in that movie. A really small part. In fact, even Wikipedia's article about Half Baked said he only had a "cameo" appearance. It is not worth mentioning in his introductory sentence which is an important part of an encyclopedia article. The first thing that comes people's mind about when the hear/read the named: "Jon Stewart" is of course only The Daily Show. Half Baked is a cult movie but not that huge of a cult movie like Star Wars and 2001: Space Odyssey. I want to get rid of that line: "and for his role in the cult film Half Baked." It is like putting Colin Powell was a board member of Time Warner in his introductory sentence when he is not best remembered for that position. If there is no objections on why we should keep in his introductory sentence then I will delete within a week.--Anonymous Cow 05:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) ----

Good call; I always wondered about that. Thanks! Drernie 17:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Quick comment: I doubt anyone would consider Star Wars and 2001: Space Odyssey, "cult movies". Those were major blockbusters, not unlike Jaws or Back to the Future. Half Baked is probably even just a tad too popular to be considered "cult". A cult movie would be something more like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Heavy Metal (movie), or the Evil Dead series. (In this last example, Army of Darkness was pretty popular and may not be considered a "cult" movie, however there's a large number of fans who have no idea that it was the third installment in a series. The series as a whole only has a small cult following, though Evil Dead 2 has had an enormous influence on modern horror films, as most horror movie-makers today were cult-horror addicts in their youths.)
Okay, that wasn't so quick. --Corvun 09:04, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Crossfire cancellation

An anon has added a bit that Jonathan Klein has stated that he decided to cancel Crossfire 6 months before Jon Stewart's appearance. This is the first I've heard of this, and in fact, is the opposite of all news stories I've read. Could someone provide a source for this? Bbatsell 18:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I made the change based on the entry on Tucker Carlson's wikipedia page, which is not disputed there. All trustworthy media sources I could find only report that Jonathan Klein mentioned Jon's criticism in his press release and said he agrees with his point of view; they don't mention whether or not it had any influence on his plans for Crossfire. If nobody else can find any non-wikipedia confirmation of Klein saying his decision predated Jon's appearance on Crossfire I think we should change both texts to say it's uncertain whether his appearance was a direct cause of the cancellation. Vampyre 18:16, 13 October 2005 (GMT +1) (I was not logged in when I made the change)

I have never made edits to Wikipedia before, but I thought I should tell someone that this section of the article was vandalized. Someone who knows what they are doing should fix the second paragraph.

Baby

Today the Colbert report stated that Stewart had a baby. Being the Colbert report, we need a confirmation before we add it to WP.

Yes, he had one. His nephew goes to my school and confirmed it.

Stewart also confirmed it on his show the day after. 128.118.128.175 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that Stewart had a girl. Does anyone know for sure?

He said on some show or another that her name is Maggie, but I don't have a source other than my withering memory. Beginning 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

needs an update

"Still, many people believe that when Letterman does retire, Stewart (a fellow Viacom employee) will replace him"

CBS is now a separate company from Viacom, therefore, Letterman and Stewart now have different employers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.210.33 (talk • contribs) .

  • Good call, I'm going to remove it. -- MisterHand 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show Going Hollywood?

This isn't directly related to his bio, just an opinion question in general. Is anyone worried that since he's gotten so popular, and the gig with the Oscars, the Daily Show is going to get a little more like Access Hollywood? I know, I know, it isn't directly a political show to begin with, but I still appreciate the Washington satire as opposed to jokes about Brad and Angelina. I can get that on Letterman... Poisonouslizzie 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

nah, no way in hell. Jon's comedy is motivated by political passion and convictions. Besides, Entertaiment jokes get real stale real quickly because they're just fluff news sotries that raise ratings but provide no service to normal people. Walk0nwalls 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As we observed with the Oscars, it is more Jon bringing the politics to Hollywood, then entertainment taking on Jon. He did a really good job too.Dapoloplayer 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Oscars

The following comment by 204.101.196.17 in the article under bibliography may better fit here:

"John Stewart's Oscar performance was not well received. Are these articles written before the event occurs?"

And it's Jon, not John.

Avw 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen mixed reviews of the performance, however the comment has correctly portrayed the ABC post-Oscar anaylsis. Dapoloplayer 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Not related to the article: what is up with the mixed reviews? What do people look for in an Oscar host? 128.195.94.157 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


IMO there's now too much on this oscar-thing in the article. On the other hand almost nothing on the book. Are these the right priorities? Avw 15:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Give it time, we're still in the midst of "Oscar Mania". In a couple weeks when things have cooled down it'll be easier to seperate what's truly important and notable. -- MisterHand 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well the Oscars section is definitely going to need some culling, as the article is ridiculously weighted in this aspect of Stewart's life (for example the "quotes" is far too big, and 6 or 7 different accounts of his performance in detail are too much. That whole section needs to be compressed down to about a paragraph or so Thethinredline 13:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There, i reduced the six paragraphs of Oscar aftermath to two. Thethinredline 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And somebody's already put it all back. Which is why I recommended we wait until the hoopla has died down a bit. -- MisterHand 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No... I only edited down the aftermath, what followed the quotes, and that's still there Thethinredline 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fraternity

It keeps getting added that he left the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity after six months. One of our open mottos is Once a Pike, Always a Pike. Therefore, since he simply dropped out of his chapter and not the actual fraternity, he is still a Pike member. All he has had to do is request his name be stricken from the national records and it would have been done, yet he never has. Perhaps he has no present "allegiance" to the fraternity, but the fact of the matter is, he is a Pike member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlk17 (talk • contribs)

Whether he officially gave notice through bureaucratic means isn't denied, what the article says is that he feels no allegiance, and felt they serve no purpose. It seems you have a bias towards the fraternity. For the purposes of objectivity I've added that he never officially withdrew. --TM 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for all this? We shouldn't be guessing how Jon Stewart "feels". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterHand (talk • contribs)
Mentions him leaving after 6 months (search for "fraternity"), Mentions how he felt, Same info. --TM 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've tried but can't find any higher-quality sources for these claims. I can't find any sort of authorized official Jon Stewart site, and comedy central's bio page on Stewart makes no mention of his college days. jonstewart.net is a fansite, imdb is user-edited, and about.com has been wrong before. I continue to have my doubts about the veracity of these claims and sources, but I will add the sources to the article for now. Kasreyn 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, most of the sources, such as the jonstewart.net source, claim that the bit about Stewart's reasons for leaving PKA are taken from a San Francisco Chronicle article. However, a google for the words "jon stewart" within the site sfgate.com returns zero hits. Either the article was never hosted online (odd, since it's said to be a 2002 article), or else there was no such article. I remain suspicious. These are poorly sourced claims. Kasreyn 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether members of PKA have some motto or other is irrelevant. Wikipedia is only concerned with whether Jon Stewart chose to leave the organization, or not. If you like, we can have both claims: that Jon Stewart left the organization, and that PKA claims he has not. Then the reader can decide what they will believe. -Kasreyn 06:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Since sources concerning this area are sketchy as pointed out by Kasreyn I shortened the information. It now simply states he left the fraternity after six months (which seems pretty well verified) while leaving out anything concerning his motives for doing so, his feelings now, the frat's stance, etc. which are all pretty subjective, and ultimately not very important within the context of the article, at least in my opinion. --TM 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Onion editor

I just heard that he used to be an editor for the online satirical newspaper, The Onion. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? Kevin 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Disregard that. I now heard it was actually Ben Karlin. Kevin 23:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


And it's a regular print newspaper that is also found online. ABart26 08:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Post 9/11 speech

do you think we should mention his monologue on the daily show on the first taping post-9/11 ? Oobie 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. -Silence 02:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Just came on here to suggest the same thing so I also agree.

His Religious Views?

What is his religious views? I'm guessing he's some sort of secular type, but I'd like some confirmation on it. --Havermayer 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You know he is jewish, but he makes fun of that fact neverthelessm so i guess he isn't too strict on anything. --Twsx 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he could be jewish yet not be religious at all. --Havermayer 06:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he is Jewish, as noted by his responce to Mel Gibson's recent statments, but he isn't a strict one. JQF 15:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he's very religous.--MoMo the Pirate 02:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Stewart probably has a loose set of religious views. If you listen closely during his joke about Dick Cheney’s quail hunting accident you can hear him say, “thank you Jesus”. Now it was most likely used to get the atmosphere of the joke right, but if he was serious about his Jewish heritage he probably wouldn’t have gone for it. swimguy112. 22 august 2006

Atheists sometimes say "thank god" or similar statements, so that's inconclusive. Also, jews have a rule where if your mother was jewish, then you are jewish, regardless if you believe in the jewish faith at all. So, Jon stewart is "jewish" but his stance on religion hasn't been verified since I dont' think that he's made any direct comments on it. --Havermayer 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He said in one episode that he attended temple once when he was 12, or something to that effect. --Espa 23 October 2006
Based on the Larry King Live interview, I think he's a secular jew. He once said "Have you heard that quote 'There is no religion without freedom, but no freedom without religion'? It sure as hell ain't true!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimdusan (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain section

I'm not sure how this section fits in this article. It has to do with the Daily Show, so it should really go in that article instead, just like all the other Daily Show moments. Maximusveritas 05:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Bridge

Currently Jon Stewart is ranked #2 in the poll to have a bridge named for him. If it's notable enough for the Stephen Colbert article, isn't it notable enough for this one too? --71.197.196.45 21:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so since he hasn't said anything about it or even acknowledged it. It's best kept to the Colbert Report article since Stephen Colbert started it.

I think so because hes #2 RANKED... who started it is pretty irrelevant besides for acknowledge of starting it. Who is ranked what is VERY relevant.

Good Article Evaluation

PASS 1. It is well written. FAIL 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. PASS 3. It is broad in its coverage. PASS 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  • Reference #1 (The Daily Targum) requires registration to get past the first page - and the first page doesn't support the statement.
  • Reference #3 (Rolling Stone) won't show pages 2 or 3, and there's nothing about Ares on the first page.
  • There's nothing to indicate where you got the french horn bit.
  • There's nothing to indicate where you got the thing about the "Leibo". (IMDb has it, though.)
  • Reference #4 (about) says he left a frat after six months, but not that it was Pi Kappa Alpha.
  • Reference #5 (yahoo). Hurray! It says what you say it says.
  • No citations at all for the next two paragraphs.
  • Reference #6 (People) doesn't mention Will Shortz at all, nor the date for the first baby's birth.
  • Reference #7 (Transcript) is nice, but it doesn't say it was a Doctorate of Arts, only that it was a doctorate.
  • Oh, shoot. Another paragraph, this time about sports, with nothing to say where it came from.
  • Followed by a three-paragraph section, called "Early Work", and not a citation there at all, either, nor in the one-paragraph "The Daily Show" or in "The Grammys" or in "Replacing Letterman on the Late Show"
  • Reference #8 is apparently a clip of the exchange with O'Reilly, but it's not there any more, having been removed for TOS violations. The clip would be nice if it was there, but it really doesn't indicate that, for instance, the ratings were high.
  • Reference #9 is a CNN transcript that does NOT confirm that When Carlson told Stewart he was not as funny in person as he was on his show, Stewart retorted, "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show". Instead, it shows that Stewart's retort followed "OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans..."
  • Reference #10 provided support for "tomorrow I will go back to being funny," but not for Martin Lawrence.
  • Reference #11 supported the Klein quote, but the "I fought the law, and the law lost!" bit appears to be Wikipedia:Original Research. I don't know if Comedy Central publishes transcripts of their shows, but if you had a date for the show where he said that, users might reasonably believe you had TiVOed the show and gotten the quote right.
  • The section on "Senator John McCain" appears to be more about McCain than about Stewart. That's a shame, because it's fairly well done.
  • And then you go into a paragraph section on America the Book, without a single cite. How do you know how many copies sold? How do you know it was the #5 book of the year. Didn't WalMart ban the book, on the basis of the nekkid supreme court? That certainly belongs in this article a lot more than the McCain section.
  • Not a single cite in the "Televison and film acting" section? And this one is so easy - all that stuff is at IMDb, and you've already cited another page from IMDb, so you must know it exists.
  • There's a lot in the Honors section that isn't backed up by the one cite.
  • The Oscars is also backed up without much in the way of citations.
  • Most of your External Links are inappropriate. See WP:EL. The only one that belongs there is the official Daily Show site. That doesn't mean that the others are bad links - most of those should be cited as references as content. It's just that according to policy, they shouldn't be External Links.

Wikipedia has three policies that determine whether content is acceptable - Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Your sources are fairly reliable, but ooh, mama, you've got a lot of original research here, and not too much verifiability. How can you be a "Good Article" when you aren't even meeting the standards for "acceptable" content?

As a biography of a living person, you need to be especially careful to nail down every fact with an appropriate citation. And since Stewart has prodded a lot of people, it's not just Stewart you have to be careful about.

It shouldn't be too hard to upgrade this article to GA status. In many of the cases where there is no cite, you probably can find the fact you need in a source that's already cited for another fact. Simply use named <ref name=something /> footnotes. You only have to supply the actual ref the first time you use a named ref.

Good luck! ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 13:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I can respond to one of these.
Reference #9 is a CNN transcript that does NOT confirm that When Carlson told Stewart he was not as funny in person as he was on his show, Stewart retorted, "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show". Instead, it shows that Stewart's retort followed "OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans..."
Actually, if you watch the video, this was a very fast exchange - first, Carlson said the bit about "not as funny in person", then Carlson quickly began saying the "OK, up next" bit in an attempt to cut Stewart off and have the last word before the commercial break (a very popular tactic of hosts of such shows). Stewart appeared nonplussed for a moment, and interrupted the "OK, up next," etc. line with the "You're as big a dick..." comment. He was clearly responding to the "not as funny in person" comment, but in trasncriptions, interruptions are usually placed after the remark they interrupt. The reference is correct. Kasreyn 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have an easy time believing tht, Kasreyn. I had that segment TiVOed, and saw it several times, and it occurs to me that you're right. However, that isn't the issue. The issue is that the transcript which is used to support the article doesn't support the article.
I know it sounds awful, but Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that things have to be true, only a policy that they have to be verifiable. It's not that nobody cares about the truth, but it's impossible to prove that something is the truth. On the other hand, we can prove with citations what others have reported. When Jon does something, he's the primary source. When CNN posts a transcript, they are a secondary source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So we try to be the best tertiary source we can be.
So thanks for responding. People with a passion for doing something are incredibly attractive, and please don't tell your burly boyfriend that I was hitting on you, although I obviously would, if only my wife would give me permission. So since I'm unavailable, turn that passion into clean up the citations. It must be annoying for him that Colbert's article is GA and his isn't.... ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I'm flattered by your praise, but you might be disappointed to learn that I'm a guy... For some reason my username seems to give people the opposite notion. I'm considering adding a warning tag to my userpage, but for now, it's just amusing.
In what way, specifically, does the transcript not support the article? Cheers, Kasreyn 09:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I get the same thing; apparently, people don't realize that Clair is male and Claire is female. The CNN transcript indicates the Stewart's retort was in response to Carlson's "OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...".
While I doubt Stewart is ashamed of the exchange, I don't think he would call it one of his bright and shining moments. Calling someone a dick is a fifth-grade taunt, the kind of thing Carlson would be capable of, if he were so silly as to use that language on his own show. Even at that, Stewart was a little slow on the uptake, possibly because he was trying to come up with something clever and less crude. If you think about it, TDS doesn't usually comment on the news of the day, but rather the news of the day before, or the day before that. It's really "The Yesterdaily Show". It's really old news on the early Monday evening broadcasts. But regular viewers don't really object, preferring fake news that's done well rather than done timely. But with CNN planning 5-year-old reruns on September 11 instead of covering current news, maybe it's not just TDS viewers. After all, ESPN classics show reruns of basketball games, and you have to think, if you were sitting in a bar watching them, you probably could get really long odds if you bet on the outcome. Could Time-Warner be planning another network to CNN and CNNHN, called the Cable Olds Network?
You might want to make a point of drawing a parallel between his slow response to Carlson with TDS's reruns, with TDS's Indecision 2000 and Indecision 2004 election year features, and pulling in some statistics about the number of slackers watching TDS, and the number of people who use TDS as their primary news source. I don't know if that would be a case of TDS reflecting changes in the country or if the country was changing anyway, and Jon just moved from SAST to TDS as the country changed.
This article, if done right, has the potential of making Featured Article. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

man of the year

the new robin williams movie, man of the year, seems to be a reference to jon stewart. many people have often stated that stewart should run for president. i think it would be worth mentioning.

I agree. I've heard a lot of news shows talking about the movie and mentioning Jon Stewart. --Ambero 07:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just started looking at reviews here : [[1]]. And I think it would be better to not mention the movie because in just about every review, they talk about how the character in the movie is trying to be like Jon Stewart, but that they've pretty much failed miserably. I like what that one guy said "It's more Jay Leno than Jon Stewart, and there's no way that's a compliment." I think to mention the movie would almost be like a discredit to Jon Stewart.
If there is evidence that the movie is modeled on Stewart, it should be mentioned. Croctotheface 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just the thing though. Everyone knows the movie is modeled after him, but I haven't heard any official statements to that affect. And of course to talk about it, we'd need a source confirming what we say. And I haven't found any. -- Ambero 06:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube link

I added ONE YouTube link, and I did it in the body of the text. It is Stewart's Sept. 20, 2001 opening on his show. Please do not let this open the floodgates for adding dozens of other links to each person's favorite humour clip. The 9/20/06 clip is more about Stewart and about the show and belongs on his page. It is important simply because it shows a side of the man that is otherwise often hidden and it appears to be genuine and is not exploitative (i.e. it is not like shoving a camera into some grieving widow's face or something like that because he was there voluntarily). If you think it is tear-jerking crap, then yank it, otherwise, let it stay. -- PinkCake 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Walter Cronkite

I removed the statement in the intro describing him as 'Walter Cronkite for a New Generation' because the referenced article discusses whether that is the case, not calls him that. We also need more than one cite if we are to show that this view is important enough to go in the intro. DJ Clayworth 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian?

Is there any evidence that Stewart should be included in the Libertarians category? I've not read a whole lot that says that he should be, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he self-identified as such. Either way I'm curious if anyone has any hard data. Fractalchez 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The page history says it was Alfredosolis [2]. If he wants to explain himself, he can restore the category but usually these categories are not used unless the person has been self-described as a libertarian and even then its iffy. Gdo01 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that he is. And he's never identified himself as such. --Havermayer 02:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He identified himself as a libertarian on last nights show dec 19th 2006151.203.181.165 18:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
He did, but it's not entirely clear he wasn't being at least a little tongue-in-cheek, as he was making fun of Kristol as he said it. - Che Nuevara 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its a comedy SHOW.. who knows what he really is unless he says it OFF SHOW...

Are Oscars more important than Grammys?

I don't understand why the paragraph about Jon's hosting of the Grammys is under the "Professional background" section, while the information about him hosting the Oscars is mentioned under the "Honors" section. Aren't those things similar enough to be put under the same category? --Ambero 07:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

New and Improved (Somewhat)!

Well, I changed the lead (added more) to make it better meet the criteria of the WP:LEAD. I know right now it's not perfect, but it has improved. I also went ahead and moved the Grammys bit so that it's by the Oscars section because they really needed to be in the same place. I think the article stills needs some work to get it up to GA standards, but I think we can do it and make it even further! And I am by no means finished working on it. I stopped here because I just wanted some feedback and maybe some help. If you guys really loved Jon, you'd want him to have the best wikipedia article he could possibly have, right? As lame as it sounds... It's the least we could do. Stephen Colbert has a higher rated article that Jon does right now! I mean, I do love Stephen... But we can't have that. -- Ambero 08:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone at all be opposed to adding a picture of Jon and his wife in the Personal Background section? Like, maybe this one: [3]
Or maybe we could add one of Jon when he was young? [4]
Or can we even use those images? I don't really know, it's just that that section seems so bare. -- Ambero 05:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added that picture of Jon and Tracy (in case you couldn't tell.) -- Ambero 19:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CGL Foundation

Maybe I'm stupid, but this: "Stewart also admits to being a heavy marijuana smoker around this time period (but after being urged to stop by the CGL Foundation in December of 2000 he quit)." just doesn't make sense to me, for two reasons:

1. It makes it sound like this CGL Foundation got Jon to stop smoking marijuana in 2000, but then the article goes on to talk about him smoking cigarettes.

2. I looked at the source after the CGL Foundation thing, and the only thing I saw in there was that Jon admitted he smoked pot. There was nothing about the CGL Foundation or anything there.

I know somebody already talked about this above, but from what I see, it still hasn't been addressed. -- Ambero 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Trivia: he shares a birthday with musician and 'Late Show with David Letterman' band leader Paul Shaffer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.132.145 (talk • contribs) 21:36, November 28, 2006 (UTC).

Photo

Could we get a better picture for Jon Stewart? The one that's there now makes him look like death warmed over. --Saforrest 17:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Ambero 22:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, pleeease. What a horrible image. ~ Rollo44 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a dailyshow promo pic there before?--70.60.0.70 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Was deleted due to violationg WP:FUC #1. The fact that the new one is a free photograph would triumph anyway over any promo pic. Hbdragon88 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that photo is heinous- it doesn't look liek him in any respect. must be changed immediately as far as im concerned.

What's the Bias here????

I keep having my addition deleted immediately? all I'm saying is that Jon Stewart tends to lean towards liberals and democracts, for example backing John Kerry's presidential run. Duh! And that he does not appear to be a libertarian in this regard as the article says .In general the show has a left leaning nature and studio audience. I give the example of the 2004 presidential run coverage where he became increasingly deppressed and the audience booed as the map of the USA turned red. Why delete this? this is simply true:

"However, he clearly leans left in his opinions and openly endorses the democratic party, including John Kerry's presidential run. Thus, he appears to be more in line with Democrats and their big government philosophy then a true libertarian would be, as Libertarians are fundamentally coservative in their desire for small governement. In addition, when one watches the Daily Show the audience consistently jeers conservative show pieces and cheers liberal pieces and guests. During the 2004 U.S. presidential elections Jon Stewart had a map of the U.S.A. and as it turned increasingly red through republican wins over the night, you could see and hear the overt dissatisfaction from Jon Stewart and the audience." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.106.231 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Read WP:OR. Your personal analysis of a show cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Gdo01 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not my analysis, it;s my direct observations. Not to mention, any discussion involves analysis on wikipedia!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.106.231 (talk • contribs)

Could you at least read the article? In addition, that edit bloats the intro. The intro should only have necessary and vital information about the subject, not an overly long analysis of how depressed people sound and look like on a TV show. Gdo01 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the fact is that the page makes the comment that he is a libertarian despite consistently supporting the democractic party! How can you not mention that, and it's apparent contradiction. the examples are meant to support this. I can add it somewhere else, but it needs to be in there. I'll shorten it up, but the intro does go into this subject. actually, it really doesn't bloat it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.106.231 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 February 2007

You act as if you know what he meant by "downtown libertarian." This is open for interpretation and any contradiction of what he said is original research. Given that he is a comedian, it could also be purposely a joke on his own views. Comedy has many interpretation and trying to refute one interpretation leaves out all the others if they exist. This is why we only accept commentary on published interpretations of a primary source, which we can then comment on the source rather than on the subject. This is the inherent problem with your analysis. Even if it were a sourced analysis, it would belong on a separate subtopic rather than the introduction. Many introductions include titles that the subject has self-described themselves as, thats why "downtown libertarian" is there. Any refutation of that would have to be in its own subject because it has nothing directly to do with introducing the person to an uninformed audience. Gdo01 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume that when someone calls themselves "this or that" type of Liberatrian, that they believe in libertarianism. Kind of obvious. If it's so vague what he meant by this, and you don't even know then why put it in there at all!!!!! Making basic observations, using the definitions of words, is not personal research. It is relevant b/c it is placed in the intro, despite being contradictory, and by your admission vague and open to a myriad of possiblities. Except that he is using the word "libertarian" which entails a specific set of beliefs. this is not rocket science. Well i guess I'll go delete everything without a primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.106.231 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 February 2007

What? I said you needed a secondary source. A secondary source is someone interpreting a primary source. In many ways, secondary sources are better than primary sources. Deleting everything without a primary source would undoubtedly make Wikipedia worse. You have completely misunderstood my point. But you are right, that libertarian title is vague and after seeing the video, I'm sure that its just a one off joke/statement that Stewart will never mention again. Gdo01 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a source for quoting Jon Stewarts endorsement of John Kerry. In addition, I see no sources for his alleged criticism of bill Orielly, Bush, and the media. So by the standard your setting that should be deleted as well. Obvious doesn't count here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.106.231 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 February 2007

Couldnt you neocons just fuckoff and die? Make this world a better place? Im seriously asking, do the rest of us a favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.141.89.53 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 31 March 2007
Its a mistake to equate liberal with democrats as if that is written in stone. Under Clinton the war on drugs, police manpower, laws, zero tolerance, and prisons were all dramatically expanded, and is that liberal? The democrats are not liberal as a party outside of paying a little more lipservice to people over corporations and evangelical religion. They pander to their pet groups but if you look at top its run by an elite and wealthy group that have had a lock on its leadership. Stewart's politics goes around the liberal roadblocks littering the way to a centrist revisioning of what policy and integrity could be in a friendlier world. He's a bit yippie with commercial saavy in the mother-load of a youthful demographic that no-one else seems to have their hands around. These people don't consider themselves liberal in the "adult" sense of liberal vs. conservative. They just consider themselves a bit gentler humanists living in a society that worships so much croque and corruption that its dysfunctional and still very Nixonian. Its kind of the seventies held in stasis except bills have to be paid. Stewarts pet peeve is that the media forces us to only frame things in a so called liberal vs conservative, democrat vs. republican framework excluding any and all creative thinking on other possibilities. This perpetuates the drama of us vs. them, the loud arguing for the excitement of a winner take all face off. He uses comedic sarcasm to bring home the unplatableness of the current regieme that puts the audience outside of the box looking in and not much liking what they are seeing. This is yippee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.236.168 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 August 2007

His Height

How tall is this guy? Everyone he ever stood with seems towering over him. Anyone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.162.105 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

IMDB has him listed at 5'7", though it seems like that height might be too generous (NOTE: IMDB is not known for their extreme accuracy). See his "mini bio" on IMDB here; this is where I got this information from. Also, please stop removing referenced material at the List of charismatic leaders page. --WassermannNYC 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
They have the set arranged on his show to look like he's as tall or taller than all his guests. ~ Rollo44 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If the Daily Show itself were a reliable source, we'd of course now have Rob Riggle's "For every real man like myself, there's some kind of five-foot-six-inch half-man bringing the whole country down." Alai 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Emmy Award

The first section says: "...culminating in 2005, when both the show and he won Emmy Awards." However, I don't think he won an individual Emmy in 2005 (though he was nominated). He did win an Emmy for the "Outstanding Writing" category for the show, but the sentence seems to imply something differently. But I don't know the intent of the original author.

The Primetime Awards Search seems to confirm this, as does The Daily Show's Awards page. --Kshieh 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Surnames

I find it strange that not a lot of attention is being paid to Stewart's choice to change his last name, from a Hebrew surname to something broad or generic? That seems worthy of some notice, although, I would suppose that it can be directed as slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.167.93 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 April 2007

Stewart's name change is a fairly common act amongst actors and radio personalities and doesn't really warrant special attention beyond the mention included in the article. Take care, --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
On top of that "Leibowitz" is not Hebrew. Jewish, yes; Hebrew, no. --Saforrest 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a "fairly common act amongst actors and radio personalities". If it wasn't it might lead to the impression that the media didn't practise the equality of opportunity it preaches. You might be led to believe that jobs and positions are obtained on the basis of ethnicity, familial ties etc. Although you do get this behaviour in other situations.

A lot of Americans whose surnames were not British modified to make them sound as though they were. The Irish have done it for centuries. Often it was done for them, either by the British, or at Ellis Island. Though of course, in the case of the Irish, they tended too Anglicise specifically. However, there are many instances of using Scottish Mc variants to modify Irish Mac/Mc names and you do get Joneses.

So...if your name is Smith and you're from Minnesota or Wisconsin, was it originally Schmidt. A politican called Smyth may have been an Irish McGowan (MacGabhann) and if you're in the media the Smith will probably have been a Herschowitz.


194.46.185.150 20:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stewartoncrossfire.jpg

Image:Stewartoncrossfire.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.

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 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 11:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh

Somebody just put "Jon stewart is a sexy beast and I will copulate with him" or something like that. I'm not a real wikipedia editor or anything but maybe one of you guys should get rid of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.142.99 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of wikilinks

There are a large number of wikilinks in this article, past the point of being distracting. Seriously, what does inflatible have to do with Jon Stewart. I am removing some of them to make it easier to read and less obnoxious. Arzel 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oh my goodness, I am dieing from laughter.  Seriously, what does inflatible have to do with Jon Stewart?  X'D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jew in intro sentence?

Does the fact that he is jewish need to be established in the opening sentence? I don't really think it's that important. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, there was some vandalization the other day that added in something similar. I'm highly suspicious of this addition.Dp76764 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In other persons profile pages their Religious orientation is mentioned, I don't see anything wrong with having it somewhere in the page. Though you're probably complaining about having it on the first sentence, which I sort of agree with. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the fact of having it in there; that's fine obviously (is it not listed elsewhere? that's surprising). The choice of words of that particular edit (the one I commented on) didn't seem appropriate is all, as I recall.Dp76764 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Guess that's what I get for going into the conversation late and not reading the article beforehand. Thanks for the update. =P Zulu Inuoe (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No Fly List

I bet he's on the no fly list... how do we find this out? --60.234.50.2 (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) User:Nzhamstar

Guest Star on The Simpsons

Did Jon Stewart ever guest star on The Simpsons, and if he did, which episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.110.74 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this article. Cln23 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
E Pluribus Wiggum--Loodog (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An idea

When Stewart appeared on the O'Reilly Factor and O'Reilly asked him what Stewart wanted to get out of his discussion with John Kerry he said that the show was about laughs:

Stewart: The same weakness that drove me into comedy also informs my show. So that same ... what we call..neediness... neuroses…
O'Reilly: If you’re not hearing the audience laugh, you’re getting a little bit nervous.
Stewart: That would be exactly correct.

Can anyone see a good place for this? It's very personal.--Loodog (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Stewart's Dad's Profession

His father is not a physics professor at The College of New Jersey. He certainly was a professor at the college when I was a student, but he was not part of the Physics department. I do not know whether he is a physicist or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.97.19 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's throw a {{Fact}} tag on it until we know then.--Loodog (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Struck/Striked

Alright, I guess I don't have a case, I can't find "striked" in a dictionary, either. I've been on strike, in my experience "striked" is used, and "struck" sounds really bad to my ears. Maybe because it's a noun in this context and not a verb, so the verb's unique tense modification sounds awful. -- AvatarMN (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you use the word "picketed"? (ApJ (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

The past participle of "strike" is "struck" or "stricken".--Loodog (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The past participle is a form of verb and only "often" are its properties shared by nouns. -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It may not sound quite right, but my Webster distionary defines Struck as: adj. Closed, or otherwise affected by a labor strike. So it would appear that Struck is explicitly used in conjunction with labor stirkes. Examples of use are <a struck factory> <a struck employer>. It is an old word that probably doesn't play well today. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"To strike" is a verb. One of its meanings is "to withdraw one's labor". I've been on strike, and I have never heard anyone say "striked". We always said "struck"; that was in New England -- the usage may be different elsewhere. It surprises me that anyone would think "the workers have struck" would sound strange; it sounds normal to me. The workers are striking, the workers have struck. Fumblebruschi (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"To strike" is a sort of shorthand for "to go on strike", basically. "To go" is the implied verb, to me. But whatever, I accept that YMMV on "struck" sounding weird in this context, and I've got no case to call it improper. It just makes me cringe, personally. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The WGA referred to shows where the writers were on strike as "struck shows" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.190.2 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Height

He was also short, and still stands just 5 feet, 7 inches (1.70 meter).

By wikipedia's own reckoning, this is an average height. And still - do we expect this to change? If he was considered short when younger, it should say if that is his opinion or the opinion of others. PaigePhault 12:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Average for a Mexican-American, but about 2-3 inches shorter than overall average or average for whites, which is a substantial difference. He is short, and that's not an opinion. I don't think it really needs to be highlighted in the article, though, even though he does remark on it with some frequency on the show.71.63.119.49 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He himself makes fun of his hight, and it is a theme in his show, but I don't really see where it would fit into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.142.5 (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberal

He is obviously a liberal. I don't understand why he never admits it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.101.208 (talk • contribs)

Um yeah...that's probably because he's NOT a liberal. Do some research. Of course he makes fun of Republicans because they've been running things in Washington for the last six years, but he hasn't embraced Democrats either. He made fun of Clinton when he was in office too. I'd describe him as a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative (he's not a fan of the HUGE deficits that have accumulated since 2001). Ericster08 06:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your idea that being critical of Democrats and enormous budget deficits is evidence for being not liberal is an interesting one. --Saforrest 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's probably because it's true. Otherwise people like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Tom Tancredo who've criticized Democrats on their pro-Amnesty agenda and who've also criticized out-of-control spending in Washington would be considered liberals, an idea that is just laughable. Ericster08 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Democrat and liberal are not the same thing, so when someone says "he's a liberal", responding "he's not a democrat" (basically) is spurious. Just sayin'. -- AvatarMN (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is liberal, but I am not sure he has ever directly stated it. He doesn't deny it, but I'm not sure he has actually said it. Personally, I think it is a given, but my personal view is not enough for wikipedia to label him a liberal. However, since both liberals and conservatives consider him liberal, it may be worth noting that many consider him liberal. I'm not sure. (71.126.142.5 (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

He's pretty obviously a liberal Democrat who supports Obama, but since he's never explicitly stated this, we can't include it.--Loodog (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)