Talk:The Colbert Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Colbert Report has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG The Colbert Report was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] linear timeline

A linear timeline of the show would be good, so that significant happenings can be added in brief, without searching through the other sections (with an internal link to the meatier bits). 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ColberT ReporT

Writer's strike - ColberT returns... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conan O'Brien/Jon Stewart

Considering how far this three-way feud has gone tonight, I think a small section about it should be added to the Recurring Themes. The Clawed One (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (ApJ (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

It's not recurring and is not even a theme, including it would be purposeless.—Noetic Sage 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true, it's a notable event in the history of the show. (ApJ (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Agreed, considering its spanned several episode and three seperate comedy shows now. The Clawed One (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added until after it's over, however (which appears to be tonight on Late Night). (ApJ (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Additionally, it should not be added without reliable sources.—Noetic Sage 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For example...? (ApJ (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

For example, a newspaper or something referencing that this information is even notable. At least every paragraph in an article should have a reference.—Noetic Sage 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So... we wait, then? (ApJ (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

If its references we need...

[1]

There's more, just Google "Conan Colbert", but I don't have the time right now to post them all. But they are there. The Clawed One (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Conan feud is a much smaller thing than everybody is making it out to be. People have argued that it is notable in terms of the history of the show: I disagree. Consider some of the other events on the show that could be considered notable: The Pundit Swap, in which Stephen appeared on Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly's show before interviewing O'Reilly on the Report under a "Mission Accomplished" banner. The Green Screen Challenge, which lasted for months and culminated in a lightsaber duel with George Lucas. The Decemberists feud and the all-star Guitarmageddon. All of them were significantly bigger and were given much greater attention of the show. Furthermore, Stephen's character regularly engages in feuds with celebrities; it speaks to his character's personality and his tendency to make everything about him. The comedians themselves acknowledged that the Conan feud was just an excuse to "waste time" during the strike.
I said when this was inserted into Stephen Colbert (character) that if this belonged anywhere it was here - personally, I don't think it even warrants a mention here. What was at best a three or four episode-spanning joke is essentially being given equal significance here to that of months-long recurring themes like Stephen's broken wrist and the green screen challenge, which I think is kind of ridiculous. But there are two things that I think really need to be addressed here, if nothing else: First of all, the placement. The feud is discussed under Cultural Impact, despite having had no significant impact on popular culture. Unless there's evidence of such an impact, it needs to be moved. Secondly, the length. At four paragraphs, it's longer (and by implication is given more importance) than "Relation to The O'Reilly Factor" (One of the key influences on the show), "Greenscreen challenges" (which, as previously mentioned, spanned months and featured several celebrity clashes), "Hungarian bridge campaign" and a number of other key elements. Come on. It's essentially a blow-by-blow recount of the feud, for no other reason that I can see than that fans get excited when their favourite hosts crossover with other shows.
Let's be realistic. This feud is of little to know importance in terms of the show's history and is in essence no different from any of the other numerous feuds the character has engaged in. Why are we treating it as though it's the first time Stephen's ever gotten into a brawl with somebody? Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Conan Feud section

I've already argued my reasons above, but in short, it bears no relevance whatsoever to the show's cultural impact (which is the section it's been placed in), is ridiculously long, carries no long-term implications for the show and, while exciting for fandom as a whole, is ultimately unimportant in the history of the show, particularly when compared to other notable events. Shoemoney2night (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs HUGE reductions, but there should be some mention of it - maybe integrate into a section on the writers; strike. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A section on how the show was affected by the strike might be worthwhile, but even in that case I don't think the feud warrants more than a few sentences - a short paragraph at the very outside. It's not that big. Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Though where does the ColberT reporT bit come from? I know that it was pronounced that way on the Jan 7th intro, but I don't remember it being mentioned as that again for the rest of the strike. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a little unsure about that bit, too. I incorporated it along with the other stuff that was in the lead, but I don't recall it being mentioned again after that first episode back, either. I think, again, it may be more of a fandom thing. Shoemoney2night (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Colbert Bump"

I think this deserves some mention as it relates directly to the show and has been researched.

University of California at San Diego political science professor James Folwer has written a tongue-in-cheek but legitimately researched article for Political Science & Politics that looks at donations to politicians before and after an appearance on Colbert's show. And he says his research shows that Democratic candidates who went on the air with Colbert saw a (get ready now ...) 44 percent increase in their donations.

The Colbert "Bump" and Democratic Fundraising The Colbert Bump in Democratic Fundraising AStudent (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also: Rick Mercer Report.

Should the Rick Mercer Report be listed in the "See also" section? (and vice versa). These two shows are not connected except by genre, and neither page makes any other direct reference to the other. It seems like it's just there for advertising.


[edit] Legal issues

"Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks on Air America Radio, is attempting to sue Colbert for allegedly stealing one of his jokes. On September 7, 2007, he made a joke comparing Republicans to Klingons. On September 11, 2007, Colbert presented "The Wørd", where he compared Republican Rudolph Giuliani to a Klingon.[69]"

You can sue people over JOKES in the US now? You guys really are fucked. Completely. Do you patent them at the patent office?

God, I'm gonna pirate twice as hard now just for the hell of it. Thank god for ISP's that don't comply with foreign requests.

213.141.89.53 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)