Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Was that really him in drag on the show with norah vincent?

just wondering, i certainly wasnt sure. part of his early comedy career?

Yes, that's him portraying Raven in Wigfield (see page 82 of the book). There are photographs of Colbert, Amy Sedaris, and Paul Dinello as the characters of Wigfield throughout the book. Todd Oldham took the photographs and there's a "special thanks" to him in the credits of that Colbert Report episode.

Plural and singular nouns and verbs

"The couple has"? "has"? Damn that sounds stupid. It might be right, but it sounds like ass. Do we say 'they has'? Nope. Written language should reflect the spoken.

Changed it...

Fire Star 16:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The couple has" sounds fine to me, and it's grammatically correct. No, we don't say, "They has," but in this case, I think couple is singular, not plural. The couple is one thing.

Yes, it's fine. One couple has, two couples have. Whoever said it sounds stupid is completely wrong.

Actually, it does sound awkward to most British speakers of English who regularly see collective nouns as plural entities, right or wrong notwithstanding. Fire Star 02:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Popular segment"?

"The Colbert Report" was never really a segment on TDS, was it? It was more of a spoof ad for a fake show.

Now that you mention it, it was mostly that: and ad for a supposedly much longer show. Clever literary device, like a Borges book review. --MarkSweep✍ 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Childhood info

Does anyone know if what Colbert says about his childood in this interview is true? It seems like he's being serious when he says his father and two brothers died when he was 10, but he is a comedian, so there's a chance that it's false. Can anyone verify it? --Carl 05:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dopers can --Alterego 01:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

He has stated that on at least three occasions in interviews. additionally, he will never mention his father in any event of his life after the age of 10, which adds credibility to this.

This was also mentioned in the 60 Minutes interciew that ran 4/30/06. They said it was an Eastern Airlines crash in 1974. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=87041&key=0# reports a DC9 crash on Sept. 11, 1974 in Charlotte, NC. Seems to be the most likely match. This crash was not in wikipedia's List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. Gotta say, seeing the 9/11 date sort of creeped me out, but like the birthday problem, I assume it's not a statistical stretch. Mykej 06:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The story was not made up. I don't think we need to debate this any further, but you feel you need additional evidence, there is an obituary for James Colbert in the Washington Post on 9/15/1974. However, some of what's already been added to the main article may be considered original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Also, the Straight Dope forums are not an acceptible source for an article, even if those guys do claim to always be right... Lee Bailey 06:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The entry mentions the "urban neighborhood of East Bay Street." I live here in Charleston in that same urban environment and there is no neighborhood referred to as "East Bay Street." East Bay does exist and is an important past of the Charleston penninsula, but it runs the entire length of the urban center. Also James Island can actually be seen from downtown, and the article makes it seem a lot farther than it is; such a move around Charleston is not uncommon. Thirdly, the "Lowcountry" includes much of the southern portion of South Carolina making the usage of the term in the article senseless. I would edit this myself, but it's locked and I figure it can be updated by someone who really cares about verification.

Neutrality?

The two paragraphs concering Colbert's work on Daily Show and Harvey Birdman are a bit much, IMHO. This level of detail seems sycophantic and irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry. Someone who isn't already a fan will learn little or nothing from these references. I got rid of some of the most blatant excesses including some weasel phrases, but more editing is in order. I think those paragraphs should be virtually eliminated. Thoughts?

Sparohok 01:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's odd that that section has only a passing mention of Strangers With Candy, actually, since I see that as a bigger thing that he had more of a part in, yet it has so much information on Harvey Birdman. I don't see a problem with that much information on the Daily Show, but if Strangers is only just mentioned, Harvey Birdman probably should be too. Shivers _talk 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Media controversy

I'm reverting the latest edit about media controversy unless it can be better explained. Per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, statements like this should be more specifically sourced. This is especially true in this case because I don't see any mention of it in the press. If this is in fact published opinion, then we can discuss it more or add it back. --Interiot 17:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted text regarding Media Controversy:

Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, a news satire program on the Comedy Channel has raised hackles with his black humor about popery and papist plots on the Supreme Court (responding to the new proposed Roman Catholic majority on the court), charging that with the Alito nomination, there is finally a "pipeline to the vatican" and the pope on the court [1] (Aired October 31, 2005, 11:30 P.M. EST).

The possible way to salvage some of this content would be to say that some viewers were offended by Colbert's quip about a "pipeline to the Vatican," although currently the remark has made no impact on the press. But even then, to say some instead of one (which would not be notable enough to include anyway), we need to find at least one other person who feels this way. And even then, wouldn't that belong in The Colbert Report and not here? Jacqui ^{★ 20:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)}

Come on, we can't mention everytime anybody might be offended by something someone says. That is not encyclopedia worthy. I doubt if those comments are even worth mentioning. Colbert, as many comedians, do a lot of things TO offend people. In Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle's bio does it mention every offensive comment they've made. This is not worth discussing.

French heritage?

Do we know "how" French he is? I know he's said that his last name is French, but is it his father, grandfather, etc. who's French? "French Americans", the category I took out, usually refers to people of at least 1/4 French descent.Vulturell 23:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I heard him say, "Come on, Colbert," under his breath to himself on last night's show, and he pronounced the "t," so I'm guessing this is the real pronunciation. Also, he was referred to as "Irish" on Colin Quinn's show on Comedy Central. BrianGCrawfordMA 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he said in an interview with Letterman that the rest of his family pronounces it "COL-bert" (with the "t"), and that he just pronounces it the other way for comedic effect. Davis21Wylie 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually he said that his father wanted to be "Col-ber" but he didn't want to disrespect his own father (Stephen's grandfather) so he stayed "Colbert". He also said that about half of his siblings are "Colbert" and half are "Col-ber". He didn't say he chose "Col-ber" for comedic effect, but he did crack several jokes about that choice. I think that that his saying "Colbert" the other night was a subtle joke. Qutezuce 10:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my 2cts, the proper french pronounciation of his last name is something like "coLber"; You don't pronounce the T at the end but you do pronounce the L. Colbert was a minister of finance for the king Louis XIVth. Anyway, I often heard being refered as a french guy and I just saw the daily show with Bernard Henry Lévy and in his intervention at the end, I couldn't notice a particular accent in the word he pronouced but it's hard to conclude from this if he knows French or not. -- Anonymous

I will note that Colbert *appears* to be a French surname. Its history is not easy to dig up, but the first famous Colbert i believe was Jean-Baptiste Colbert, from France. It is likely the name moved into the UK after the Norman Invasion of 1066. Because of this and the assertion he made, Stephen is likely of Irish descent, but the name itself appears to be French. It certainly sounds more French than Irish. -- klhuillier (not logged in right now)

Regardless of the history of his surname, it is entirely possible that Stephen Colbert is both French AND Irish. He did have two parents, after all. --Tellybelly 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

auto shop commercials

wasn't he briefly a comedic spokeperson for BF Goodrich or some other automotive repair/maintenance company?

He starred in commercials for Mr. Goodwrench. BrianGCrawfordMA 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

I disagree with the IPA rendering of his name. Listening to my own speech, and Jon Stewart's when he used to introduce him, I have concluded that (as is normal in American English) the "o"-sound before an 'L' is almost never a diphthong. It is usually a "short-o" as in "daughter" for those of us who have not undergone the "cot-caught merger". This is the sound represented orthographically in the IPA as a backwards lowercase "c". Also, that "l" should be velarized. If there are no objections by tomorrow, I think I will change this. Thanks.

The pronunciation of "Colbert" looks like Russian. I am not an expert on this, but if this encyclopedia is for practical use, the pronunciation key is lost on 99% of the readers. I doubt it really helps anyone, but if they genuinely want to know how to pronounce his name, this page won't help. I say we go back to something like kol BER' Perhaps those of you who know more about it might be able to help. For those of us lay people, looking at that pronunciation key is like trying to read music if you haven't been taught. Throw us a bone.

Deaf in one Ear

here it mentions that he is deaf in one ear...... can we find out which ear?

KV 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is totally my guess, but he mentioned [in one of the interview links posted in this entry] that he had some sort of tumor removed from his ear as a kid. If you look at his right ear, it is clearly a little "off." So my opinion is that the damaged external ear matches the deaf ear. Jake 67.162.166.143 07:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In his bit with Captain Coconut, Stephen Colbert (the character) said that he didn't have a tumor. But Stephen Colbert (the actor), apparently, did. If Colbert keeps diverging from his persona, there might have to be a separate entry for the actor and the character. JohnnyB 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You really touched on something I have been long thinking about, JohnnyB. With Jon Stewart, you often see into his actual personality, but with Stephen, you just never get the sense that you know who he actually is. But I suppose that's just how the show's format is set up. 67.162.166.143 04:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia "controversy"

What's the deal with this? Why does it keep getting re-inserted? It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's not news, it's not important, it has no implications. The "boycott" on Uncyclopedia (which I can't find on Uncyclopedia, btw) is irrelevant. The joke "Jesi" or "Jesii" (he used the former on the show, for reference), is a common joke. My kudos to those of you who are keeping this material out. If this gets re-inserted I shall be upset. Makaristos 08:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If he's being accused of copyright infringement, then it could be worth a mention. But I didn't see anything in their Colbert article that indicated that they were terribly bent out of shape about it... and since they are basically a poor-man's version of the Onion, written by "The People", then even if they were truly upset, how would we truly know? If someone re-inserts that paragraph without attribution to back up the claim, then don't get mad, get even: Threaten to eat their young. >:) Wahkeenah 09:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it even matter if they could attribute it? I don't think it's worthy of inclusion. It's only important if, as you say, he's being accused of copyright infringement, which I don't see at all. They can go ahead and cite their own article all they want, but there's no evidence for anything anywhere at all. Not only will I eat their young, I'll consume their souls. Makaristos 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking a fresh look at the page, yes, they mention the alleged controversy, but there's nothing about a "boycott", nor do they seem particularly upset about it. In their approach to writing, a "boycott" would be defined as a perverted scoutmaster's favorite piece of furniture. As for the vandals, you could have filet of souls, ja? Wahkeenah 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Filet of souls sounds appealing, but I might prefer a diet of worms. Makaristos 10:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those Roman Catholic conventions served a spartan lunch. No wonder Martin Luther cut out early. He was on the run, dying for fries, a shake, and a Wittenberger on a bun. Wahkeenah 10:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

How about just filet of sole? Only one sole. It can be the sole sole of any sole individual who dares post that bit about Uncyclopedia. It can be the right or left sole, but it doesn't matter, as long as it's the sole sole. It could be the sole soul sole soul sole soul, now that I think of it. Actually, I think I'm going to turn in for the night, or at least what remains of it. There you have it, citizens: our challenge for verifiable material. Makaristos 10:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you are the sole authority on these matters. :) Wahkeenah 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Awards?

Stephen has (as he constantly points out) two peabodys and two emmys... I know the Emmys are both from the Daily show as a writer (if I'm not mistaken)... But what are his Peabodys from? Also Writing on Daily? None of his awards are mentioned in the article. Perhaps someone with better intell can make note of his awards in the article?

From the Peabody site: Comedy Central`s "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart `Indecision 2004`" won a Peabody for its presidential campaign coverage; the Peabody Board citied the show`s appeal as "satire that deflates pomposity on an equal opportunity basis." This is the program`s second Peabody; it also won for its 2000 election coverage. --Anson2995 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous

I enjoy watching the Colbert Report, it's a great show. However do you not see how ridiculous all of this is and how easily this encyclopedia is being manipulated? Two celebrities mention wikipedia on TV and suddenly there are more than 100 edits across three pages in the span of one evening? If Huffington had come on TV and said that the American Heritage Dictionary said Colbert didn't invent the word "truthiness" and he responded by saying "fuck them", do you think there would even be more than a passing mention here? For a supposedly neutral encyclopedia, everyone sure gets excited by a little bit of press. Wikipedia is not a sports team; let's stop basking in the glow of reflected glory and move on. Semiconscious • talk 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar predictions

Anyone know if he got those Oscar predictions correct? I think it would be interesting to add into the Trivia section Chickenofbristol 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC

Yep, the DaColbert code correctly predicted all five winners.

Oscar attack ads

Just a small fact check, but the narration of the fake Oscar attack ads during the 2006 Academy Awards seemed to be the distinct voice of Rob Corddry and not Stephen Colbert. Perhaps someone can find proof of this in writing.

No way in hell, dude. That was Colbert.

It was Colbert. Just Google "oscar attack ads colbert" and you get all the proof you need. Also, sign your posts on talk pages, please. Makaristos 17:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

are these ads online anywhere? thanks. Bwithh 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? It sounded like Ed Helms to me, which makes more sense as he does a lot of the voiceovers for the Daily Show (in addition to being a current correspondent).--69.207.41.106 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It was Colbert! [2][3][4] Makaristos 06:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

ColbertNation.com

Is ColbertNation.com Colbert's official site or not? I think it is--he keeps referring to it on his show, he sells (or at least appears to sell; I haven't actually attempted to buy anything from it) his stuff there, it is copyright Comedy Central (scroll down to the bottom), his writings are on it...

I have returned it to its official status pending somebody coming up with better evidence than this that ColbertNation.com is not his official site. Makaristos 07:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A whois query reveals that the domain name is registered to Comedy Partners, the company that owns Comedy Central. The same name is also registered as the owner of ComedyCentral.com and SouthParkStudios.com. Shouldn't be any more reason for confusion on the issue. --Anson2995 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

His official website is at comedycentral.com, if you check the Colbert Nation, it is called the Unofficial website. 75.3.4.54 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I can't find it. I stand by my previous statements. Makaristos 07:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Its the official fan site, not official site. Created by fans. He just likes it because the Colbert character is so egotistical. _-M ^o P-_ 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, where does it say that? It's owned by Comedy Central and copyrighted by them. He refers to it on the show as if it's his official site. I don't see why he can't have one official site and the show have another (much like Bill O'Reilly). Where does it say it on the website that it's "unofficial"? Makaristos 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It says on the site the #1 Fan Site. It can't be his official site, then, all it could be is the official fan site. 75.3.4.54 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's part of the gag. Makaristos 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As Makaristos said, That's part of the gag. It's Comedy Central's creation of a fake fan site. How the site should be listed on wiki? Unknown. It is an official site in that it's run by the show, and the network. It's a 'fan' site only in fiction. That should probably be how it's billed on here. a Parody fan site.

It's not really even that complex. It is run by Stephen Colbert's #1 fan. His #1 fan just happens to be himself. 204.69.40.7 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrone?

I hardly think that Stephen's real middle name is Tyrone. It's listed as such on ColbertNation.com but that site isn't very reliable, not to mention I think it's a Star Trek reference as Captain James T. Kirk's middle name was Tyrone which is somewhat strange of a name. - Brent Randall, April 10

Kirk's middle name was Tiberius... but of course, this being Wikipedia, that would have been pretty easy to look up... TheHYPO 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert is Irish, so it doesn't seem that strange for him to have a middle name such as Tyrone. 75.3.4.54 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering Tyrone is an Irish county, um, nope. hateless 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

White House Correspondents' Dinner

This guy is now officially my hero. He went from being a fairly popular but just "another" comic to entering my personal all time hall of fame. I just hope he doesn't end up "missing" due to a CIA operation.

After a quick Google search, I found that he really is hosting the Correspondents' Dinner... should the article mention this? Shivers _talk 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure! - Reaverdrop 17:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Be careful on what you say. This was a really virulent Bush bashing session. Now, I agreed with most of Colbert's statements, but it'll hit the fan tomorrow...J. M. 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Woah, I just saw the videos of him at the dinner... I agreed with most of his statements too, but... ouch! Now I'm left to wonder why whoever picks the host picked him to host it. Had they ever actually seen his show? Shivers _talk 17:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The guy who arranged for his appearance, an AP reporter currently the head of the White House Correspondents' Association, was cited afterward in the news practicing the ancient art of covering one's ass, as saying he had not been very familiar with Colbert's work. - Reaverdrop 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful performance. On CSPAN, they showed Colbert's entering the building hand-in-hand with a woman that, I must presume, was his wife. Would like to check though. Was it? MrZaius^talk 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was Evie. I surprised to see Ed Helms in attendance as well. Lee Bailey 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to report in such detail on the download details. Couldn't one just see it on TV? C-SPAN offers the whole dinner as a small stream, probably even live. I'm not too interested in youtube stats or how many parts there were. Moreover, who will know about youtube in 5 years and who will know whether "3000 seeds" is much or not so much? I'm interested in reactions and impact. -- Jan, 3rd May 2006

Ok, but other people might be interested in those aspects, especially considering the major news networks claiming Colbert's performance "unfunny". --kizzle 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I find it difficult to judge whether "3000 seeds" is a high or a low number. -- Jan, 4th May 2006

I don't know what to say, read up on the BitTorrent article? 3000 is an incredibly large amount. --kizzle 02:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I know now what a seed is. And I understand that this tells me that there are atleast 3000 persons on the web having the file. (Okay, probably many, many more, but maybe the people who downloaded it, just felt better about offering this file opposed to others and so, a much higher percentage granted uploading permissions.) However, the BitTorrent article tells doesn't tell me, whether 3000 is much, compared with other files. -- Jan, May 5th, 2006

Did Colbert hand in a script of his text before hand? -- Jan, 3rd May 2006

oh my G did Drudge really compare a Comedy Channel to a news channel? That guy has really caught teh ghey.... News Alert! Colbert Ratings pale in comparison to American Idol! developing... The Animal 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the right wing news core hasn't progressed past the Tucker Carlson defense: "Oh yeah, well your comedy program doesn't cover the news that well either..." - Reaverdrop 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Cohen wouldn't recognize sharp satire if -- well, if it skewered him at a White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. -- 17 July 2006

Having drooled over Colbert's courage, timing, subject matter, I'm quite biased, but I believe this was a HISTORIC routine. We'll see... MotherFunctor 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Strangers with Candy

Since I'm a relatively new Wikipedian, I'll ask before I edit, but I thought it was odd that Strangers with Candy gets such a small mention here. The show lasted three seasons, and was Colbert's biggest role prior to the Daily Show; I'd argue it's still his most significant non-Daily-Show related work. Compared to the short paragraph that Harvey Birdman gets (a fifteen minute show for which Stephen only provides a voice) the passing mention of SWC seems a little sad. Would I be out of line giving it a little section of it's own? Or is Birdman is overrepresented? Lee Bailey 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It deserves more mention. I loved that show. It was nice seeing Stephen Colbert portray a... character which... yeah, he was gay. : ) But seriously, the show was funny and noteable. Michael Lipik 09:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fer it. Anazgnos 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Expand away, but this week of all times seems like a strange time to call Strangers more important than the truthiness of his Colbert Report persona.

Actually, that comment was added before the White House Correspondents' Dinner, so you shouldn't find it too strange. Although I never called SWC more important than his Report Persona. I called it most important role before his Daily Show/Report character. But I'm abandoning that as a priority for the moment anyway; I think it's more important to get the dinner section staightened out for now Lee Bailey 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The SWC movie will be released the summer of 06

Go for it, Lee Bailey, I agree, needs more SWC content.

trivia

please write the trivia into the article itself. having a trivia section in an encyclopedia entry is uncouth. Kingturtle 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia is a hotbed of uncouth activity, guy. I'd say that a goodly percentage of articles that are at least a single screen in length have a section for trivia. 204.69.40.7 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A hotbed of uncouth activity... alright! I knew I liked Wikipedia for a good reason. - Reaverdrop 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

YouTube drops Colbert clips

Citing copyvio bs. Where is the best place to watch the whole thing on the web now?--Deglr6328 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy Now has it. You might also try C-span, which has the entire evening; I understand Colbert starts at about the 1 hour 5 minute mark. Happy viewing. - Reaverdrop 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Deglr was speaking in general, particularly to clips of his actual show. The Comedy Central website has them all. Practically has the entire series is split into one clip or another. As for it being "bs", you spent millions a year producing a television series, and see how willing you are to let just anyone air it. -- Zanimum 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm no I was talking about the televised correspondents assoc. dinner which was filmed by Cspan (who did you think filmed it comedy central?) which like every other US governmental proceeding that they record they place under thier absurdly restrictive copyright. and THAT is bullshit. --Deglr6328 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if i missed something... youtube has been my exclusive site for catching up with Colbert clips (no tv even!) I watched the entire Colbert White House Correspondence Dinner routine there, this last week. MotherFunctor 07:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with this article listing YouTube references anyhow, since it is quite plain that they are illegal copies of protected material. I'm a big fan of YouTube.com but we can't endorse the open theft of what is undeniably protected material. This is not just foolish, it's illegal. This could even be a liability issue. The videos in question are almost all available via iTunes, but we can't link to that because that is a commercial site. It's a tricky issue, but it's not our place to make decisions that could have direct legal impact on Wikipedia. User:GBH 01:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Issues with Correspondent's Dinner Section

I'm glad to see this article growing, but it would appear the Correspondent's Dinner section is now badly in need of editing to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

According to WP:NPOV, this section would appear to be placing undue weight on a minority opinion -- which is, the opinion that the media was unfairly biast agaist Colbert's performance, both in under-reporting and in negative reporting.

Also, some of what's been added to the section would qualify as original research by Wikipedia's standards, which isn't allowed. (See WP:NOR). This would include the discussion of the Times letters, the observed reactions of Scalia and other conservatives at the event, and the the assertions about the beliefs of Dan Froomkin on the media's reaction.

I hate to edit out large amounts of material written by other people, but some of this is pretty clear cut, and the section covering the dinner is pushing 1500 words, so I think ::adding:: new material to restore a balanced viewpoint probably isn't the right solution.Lee Bailey 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On "Undue Weight":I don't see how anyone can properly claim, based on current information, that allegations of media bias are a "minority opinion" OR a "majority opinion." I guess my point is, we can't tell if there is "undue weight." Michael Lipik 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely disagree, as per Michael. --kizzle 18:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the sources cited in this article, a fair number of writers from the liberal side of blogosphere, a Columbia journalism teacher, and the left-of-center "Media Matters" organization have claimed that the Colbert coverage indicated a partisan bias. That's far from a majority opinion.

If you have other sources to add which meet Wikipedia's standards, please mention them, but as it stands, the amount of discussion given to the topic seems excessive.

Please, read the discussion of undue weight in Wikipedia: NPOV.

--Lee Bailey 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, don't forget MTV and the Washington Post. Also don't forget that the blackout controversy is cited on AOL news as per the link in the article. --kizzle 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think referring to this is as a "minority opinion" is argumentum ad hominem -- there's no evidence that this is "minority opinion", only an unsubstantiated assertation. Also, I'm not aware of any attempts to censor contrasting viewpoints. The article includes criticism of Colbert from: Drudge (well, sort of indirect criticism), Fox & Friends, Tucker Carlson, Matthews, and Richard Cohen. We could also add references to: Ana Marie Cox[5] (who seems mostly critical of liberals & blogs who like Colbert), Dana Milbank on 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann'[6], and WHCA president Steve Scully[7]. I think the argument about "Undue Weight" basically boils down to this: there's extensive, detailed criticism of the mainstream media in regards to this event. Do we ignore it, because the mainstream media (by and large) didn't respond? Or do we reflect the debate as accurately as possible? Brian.fsm 16:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, Kizzle. This article is rapidly changing, and it's hard to keep up with everything. Also, I was thrown off by the presence of two articles cited by Froomkin in the Washington Post; initially, I only saw the second article cited, in which he talks about the blogosphere reaction, but doesn't clearly make the case that he thinks the speech was intentionally under-reported.

In any case, as this article continues to change, a number of points I had issues with appear to have been edited out anyway. I do still think there are some issues with NPOV and neutral language in the specifics: The NYT finally reported the story three days after the fact would be more neutral just saying that they reported it three days later; The NYT credited the blogosphere for drawing attention to the newsworthiness of the story is somewhat misleading considering the link is to an article about the blog-reaction, both negative and postive; they don't go out of their way to "credit" the blogosphere for anything, nor do they acknowledge any wrongdoing in not reporting the story earlier. Also, the qualfiers following negative opinions from Fox and Friends and Tucker Carlson read like attempts to discredit any negative reaction, and the lengthy closing quote from Glen Greewald's personal blog, although eloquent, seems indulgent, especially as the final word.

Just to be clear, I did find Colbert's speech hilarious, and dazzlingly brave. I also was stunned by the lack of coverage the next day. Personally, I think the major media was irresponsibly in glossing over it, but as far as those who printed negative opinions of it, I do think in some cases it was a legitimate critical response. From what I saw, there were times when hardly anyone in the room was laughing, which is bound to fit some critics' definition of "bombed", regardless of Colbert's intent. That said, the only bias I have about this article is that I'd like to see it in the best shape it can be in. I've voted to split the section covering the dinner to it's own section, since I do believe it would be suited by the space to explain differing viewpoints adequately. Lee Bailey 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Recommend split-off for WHCA dinner section

Please discuss: This section, covering a 20 minute performance and its aftermath, now takes up 58% of the text of the entry on Stephen Colbert's entire life. It needs to be split off to return to good proportion. - Reaverdrop 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - imagine the poor fellow who comes looking for unrelated info about Colbert's Life. This may be an important event - may be used as an excuse to end press briefings - but it has outgrown the Colbert page.Juneappal 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree - I was going to suggest this myself. Much of this material is valuable, but this is an article about Colbert, and discussion of the Correspondant's dinner should probably be given proper weight relevance to his career as a comedian. Lee Bailey 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree -- This is becoming a story in and of itself. However, I think we should leave a short summary of the event in his bio (a few paragraphs), along with the link to the new article. Brian.fsm 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

People are editing both the original and the split article, which could turn into a nightmare to merge together later. I think, for now, all edits should stay in the original Colbert bio, then we can do a copy (instead of a merge) if/when the split happens. Brian.fsm 16:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think an article on the "2006 White House Press Correspondants' Dinner" would ultimately be a better destination for this than one on "Colbert at the 2006 WHCD"? That might give a little more room to discuss the press reaction as it relates to both Colbert and the Bush impersonator schtick. "Colbert at the..." could redirect to a similarly named section on Colbert. Lee Bailey 16:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too, but changed my mind for a couple of reasons. Right now, the dinners are covered here. There's not much room to say much there. Also, the story has morphed, so the actual dinner seems to be just one part of a larger story about Colbert, the media, and the Internet. Brian.fsm 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I'd support the move either way, but I don't see why the presence of an article on the White House Correspondents' Association should stop us on starting one on the topic of the 2006 Dinner seperately. I think it's kind of a shame the dinners aren't covered individually, as they are newsworthy events and also relevant to the careers of many entertainers. Lee Bailey 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of content about the dinner that could, in fact, be put into a new, separate article about the dinner (but see my dissent to renaming the existing article, below). But someone has to step forward and write it. - Brian.fsm 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a merge from tag here. The info could easily fit into the article if it was just trimmed down a bit. I don't think that his speech deserves its own article.--Jersey Devil 10:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's about much more than his speech though - it's largely about the reaction over the next week from a great many voices in the mainstream media and on the Internet. There's just too much relevant information about the media and Internet sensation in the aftermath of the dinner, that has nothing to do with Colbert personally, to shoehorn into the entry on Stephen Colbert. There's already been an extensive consensus on having them separate; because of that, I'm taking the merge tags back down for now. What there should be instead is a rename of the entry on the Colbert White House dinner aftermath. - Reaverdrop 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How about a rename to (as was previously mentioned) 2006 White House Press Correspondants' Dinner and then letting other editors add info about the other events at the dinner?--Jersey Devil 11:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me. jaco♫plane 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that there seems to be some support for this idea, should it be listed at "Wikipedia: requested moves"? Or is there another procedure for this? Lee Bailey 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I'm for a new, separate article for the 2006 WHCA dinner, if someone wants to write it, but against renaming the existing article. I'll split my reasons up so it's easy to respond to individual points.Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1) The Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is too long to shoehorn into another article. It was split from the original Stephen Colbert bio because the bio got too long and we got a Wikipedia warning about length. And, if anything, the article should be even longer. We don't yet include WHCA president Steve Scully's remarks about the debate[8]. We talk about the "Internet sensation" but have scant coverage on the sites that created the sensation.[9][10][11] We don't include a link to Ana Marie Cox's commentary in Time magazine,[12] which is different from other commentary (she attacks the blogs). We don't say anything about the reaction of the audience present at the dinner, except that some Bush aides left. Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

2) The existing Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner article is not about the dinner. It's about the Internet & press reaction to Stephen's "blistering comedy 'tribute'"^[1] Heck, we barely discuss the dinner itself (the red carpet, the hob-knobbing, the elbow rubbing). There's been a handful of criticism about whether the dinner should even continue, but they seem actually outside the scope of this particular article. Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm not against a new article -- I think a new article would be great, if someone is willing to write it. But I'm against renaming this one because this one is not about the dinner. A new article about the dinner should point to the existing Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner article -- much like the Stephen Colbert bio page does. Brian.fsm 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The article as it exisits isn't about the dinner, but that isn't to say it shouldn't be expanded to include that information. Right now, this is a rather exhaustive treatment of a twenty minute speech, and as far as the media reaction section goes, a large part of it would have to be replicated to make an article on the dinner complete. I'd be more than willing to contribute that content. I'm thinking this discussion sould be moved to the "Colbert at the White House" article talk. Lee Bailey 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to write an article about the WHCA dinner as a whole (at 90 minutes, I have not watched the whole thing). I think, in the "dinner" article, the treatment of Colbert and the media reaction to Colbert could be rather brief, with a link to the existing Colbert article. However, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner is no more about the dinner than Pearl Harbor is about Hawaii. Brian.fsm 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm soliciting comments on this subject over at Talk:Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, since that's where the article is now. --Lee Bailey 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... this is confusing. This page now says the discussion continues on that page, and that page says the discussion continues on this page. Which is it? -- noosph e re 21:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It should continue there. Sorry for the confusion. Lee Bailey 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All the information on that is sourced and notable so theres no reason to merge it back in just to lose some of it. However, maybe we could replace one of the quotes from Colbert's speach itself with one of the quotes (say, the Time one) about the impact that it has had in the main article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the article

The aticle states:

Editor & Publisher also compared Cohen's comments on Colbert to comments he made soon before the invasion of Iraq, when he 'declared that Saddam Hussein "without a doubt" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise."'

Who made the joke about the WMD? Colbert or Cohen? The sentence, as it is written now, makes it sound like it could be either. (It's probably obvious to those who actually KNOW who said it, but I don't and this sentence is not helpful.) And the web page that the article links to as a reference does not mention this. Eje211 11:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Cohen's remark, although I'm not sure that Editor and Publisher really draws a comparison, persay. Its only mentioned in the footnote of the article cited. The link is here: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002462678 Lee Bailey 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Silent "T"

To clarify, the silent "t" is not a result of French heritage (I removed, btw, the reference to Jean-Babtiste Colbert, which was out of place), but an homage to his father, who always wanted to have his name pronounced that way but could not because his father, Stephen Colbert's grandfather, lived in the same town and might be offended. After his father died, Stephen Colbert decided he wanted his name pronounced like that in a tribute to his late father.

Source? --kizzle 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One partial source (in vital stats section): Great Charlestonian? Or the Greatest Charlstonian? 67.46.0.13 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What about this section? The association of his name as French may stem from the Colbert Report short that first appeared on The Daily Show, in which Colbert, after the title is said with a silent "t," states, "It's French, bitch!"

or maybe people assumed it was french name because he would pronounce it its french form? --Duhon

I don't see this as having any merit or relevance.

Can someone please provide a source acurately stating he hs no french herritage whatsoever? --Duhon

Harry Taylor?

Colbert's performance at the dinner was compared to Taylor in the article. I had to look him up to be reminded of who he was; WP only briefly describes him on a disambig page. Perhaps more should be added regarding Taylor (and a cite to someone comparing them), or would most people remember who he was? Шизомби 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Taylor's performance was sad and lame. He showed liberalism at its most sniveling.

Mention on Colbert Report

Anybody else catch the Wikipedia mention during "The Word" on the the Colbert Report? We've finally made it! – Clockwork Soul 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just love the joke on "The Word" sidebar. "Even the accurate parts." --Who What Where Nguyen Why 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, he said he used us to find out who Sigmund Freud was, so he's giving it some credibility! VolatileChemical 05:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Even the accurate parts" made me laugh so hard I woke up my wife. :) – Clockwork Soul 06:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we've actually be on before, apparently. Wikipedia:Celebrities who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia. --Rory096 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that the mention was

a joke, and
a product of his WRITERS? Michael Dorosh 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, anyone got a link to that eagle they named after him? IE the clip where he first talks about it

Deaf?

An anonymous user changed the trivia bit that said Colbert was deaf in one ear to read Colbert is NOT deaf in one ear, saying, "He wasn't really deaf, it was a joke he made. It even says it was a joke, but be careful how you word things." The source cited says, "Colbert is forty-one, a native of South Carolina, one of eleven children, the father of three, a suburban guy, and deaf in one ear. 'I had this weird tumor as a kid, and they scooped it out with a melon baller.' " -The New Yorker, July 25, 2005[13] The bit about the melon baller is obviously a joke. But otherwise, The New Yorker seems to be saying, fairly unambiguously, that Colbert is deaf in one ear. Does anyone else know of any other sources that make mention of his auditory capabilities?--Ryan! 08:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned it as part of his "Stupid human trick" involving his ear on David Letterman, or if he didn't say it directly, I know he at least implied it when he mentioned he did, in fact, have an operation on his ear as a child. I believe the video is on YouTube. He also mentioned the operation on the show in response to criticism that his ears are too distracting, though again, I can't remember if he said right out "I'm deaf in this ear", and because of that, I can't decipher whether the anonymous user meant that the mention on the show was a joke, or the mention in the New York Times article was a joke. -- Viewdrix 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In this article (the "Vital Stats" part at the bottom), he mentions being deaf in one ear without making a joke. Someone might want to change the citation, to clarify matters. 24.151.31.245 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives