Talk:Jeff Dunham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Re:First puppet

No. Jose was not Jeff's first puppet. It was Walter.--Jdaniels15 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delta Farce

Jeff Dunham was in delta farce as amazing ken, shouldn't that be referenced? Firio (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Add ref

{{edit-semiprotected}}

Please add the following ref at the end of the first paragraph: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/magazine/01ventriloquist-t.html |title=Comedy for Dummies |publisher=New York Times Magazine |date=2009-10-29 |first=Jon |last=Mooallem}}</ref>

-- 67.98.206.2 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Already done by Tim1357.[1]. snigbrook (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Character descriptions

{{edit-semiprotected}} Walter - the line "Yeah, it was forty-seven years ago" doesn't make any sense without the preceding question and answer of "How long have you been married" to which walter replies "Fourty 6 years" You could change the line "Has been married for decades" to "46 years" and then the reply would make more sense

Peanut - Peanut is covered in purple fur, not white.

69.73.88.43 (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Peanut is purple skinned with white fur, if you look at Jeff Dunham's official website you can see a picture of him. As far as the question about Walter, are you saying to change the quote? Is the quote incorrect? If it is incorrect, do you have a source for the correct quote? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Peanut - agreed, sorry about the mis-information

For walter, the quote is correct, however without Jeff's preceding question, it doesn't make much sense to put emphasis on the "Seven" because we don't know why he was happiest 47 years ago. with the information that Walters been married for forty six years, then it makes sense why he was happiest 47 years ago. 69.73.88.43 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, when describing other characters, one character noted is little ugly-ass jeff. If you watch the video, they refer to him as ass-jeff repeatedly at one point. The name should thus be, little ugly ass-jeff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.87.204 (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding material not supported by sources

User:Nightscream has restored the following material: "Dunham saw the ban as an infringement on free speech and a double standard" and has claimed that this is what Dunham personally said. This is not true. This argument is not mentioned in any of the sources and is not an argument that Dunham himself has made. This is what Dunham actually said:

But Dunham begs to differ. In a statement to FOXNews.com, he said: "Achmed makes it clear in my act that he is not Muslim, so I'm sorry the gentleman Khan didn't see my entire show. "I've skewered whites, blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, straights, rednecks, addicts, the elderly, and my wife. As a standup comic, it is my job to make the majority of people laugh, and I believe that comedy is the last true form of free speech." Dunham — whose other puppets include Peanut, Bubba J and Walter, a grumpy retiree — said he has no plans to retire the controversial act. The comedian said moves like this stymie the freedom to poke fun at any group. "I truly believe that laughter can heal many wounds," Dunham said. In a jibe at the South African complainant's name, he said: "I thought Khan was awesome in Star Trek." "If it would help things," he added, "I'm considering renaming Achmed, 'Bill.'"

No mention of "double standards". No mention of "infringements on free speech".

Remember, this is an encyclopedia and we can only report what people actually say -- not what we want to put in their mouths. Factsontheground (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Nightscream also removed the latter part of the following material: " was banned by the South African Advertising Standards Authority after a complaint was filed by a citizen stating that the ad was offensive to Muslims, and portrayed all Muslims as terrorists who would kill to get people to be quiet." This material _is_ supported by sources:

The ASA said Khan had complained that this was offensive to the Islamic religion, and created the impression that all Muslims were terrorists who would kill to get people to be quiet.

Again, we have to report what people actually say here. Nightscream, why are you removing material supported by sources and adding material that isn't?Factsontheground (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't. You're the one who, in the case of two of the three disputed passages, has added unsourced material, and removed sourced material. These are the three passages in question:

• Dunham's birth date. There is no source provided for this per WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. If I've erred, can you please point out which source says it's April 18?
• "who would kill to get people to be quiet." This is not a case of removal so much as copyediting, which constitutes much of my editing activities. All I did was edit the passage to include most salient information that needed to be conveyed. The persons in question were upset because they perceived the character to be portraying all Arabs as terrorists. The addendum "who would kill to get people to be quiet" is overkill. It's more or less a case of "Okay, we get it already." You don't need to add that last portion, and doing so constitutes poor writing. Just because the source felt the need to make that poor editorial decision doesn't mean Wikipedia has to. An encyclopedia is supposed to summarize the most salient info.
• Dunham's views on free speech and double standards. Dunham's views on this are in the FOX News source:

I've skewered whites, blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, gays, straights, rednecks, addicts, the elderly, and my wife. As a standup comic, it is my job to make the majority of people laugh, and I believe that comedy is the last true form of free speech."

It is this quote from which my version of the passage is derived, so there is no "false statement." But since you feel it's editorializing, I've edited the passage to replace my paraphrasing of it with the entire direct quote, so there's no ambiguity. Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDB supports the 18/4 birth date [2], which is what you find if you bothered to do a cursory search instead of going on a spree of removing material.

The statement about killing to be quiet is not overkill; it's what the complainant ACTUALLY SAID. Wikipedia should not cherry pick what people say but should summarize it as accurately possible. And it's amazing that you think that half a sentence extra is "overkill" or unnecessary.

And again that quote about "skewering" says nothing about double standards. It's good to see that you realize you were wrong, even if you're not man enough to admit it. Factsontheground (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you really need to calm down, and perhaps read WP:Civility and WP:ASG with respect to comments like "...if you bothered to do a cursory search instead of going on a spree of removing material." I've done searches for Dunham's birth date, I assure you, and have not found any that pass WP:RS. Wikipedia does not consider imdb to be a reliable source because much of its content is generated by users rather than its staff, and lacks editorial oversight.

The fact that a given comment is what someone "actually said" isn't the point, nor how much of a sentence it is. Part of paraphrasing and summarizing is including only the most salient, relevant, to-the-point information. Conveying to the reader that the persons in question were upset because they thought Achmed constituted a portrayal of all Arabs as terrorists conveys the point well. Adding that additional passage makes it more clunky, and does not add anything of great substance to the passage's meaning. Readers know what terrorists are, after all. They don't need a slew of annotations or qualifiers making explicit reference to Achmed's signature phrase, or how it is interpreted. Readers can also follow the source links to read the original source, if they wish.

Dunham names all the various groups that he has lampooned, and such, it seemed to me that he was making a point about double standards, which I thought was a reasonable paraphrase. I have no difficulty considering other editors' opinions, nor admitting when I'm wrong, which is why I tried to see your point of view, and compromised accordingly by changing the passage. But if you require a more explicit admission to this lest you become angry, I'm fine with that: You had a valid point that my paraphrase of that material may have been an interpretation that others might not have gleaned from reading that source. I don't think this is the case, but I'm not so certain that I can't admit the possibility, or that you were right to raise this point, any more than in any of the other various instances since I started here when I've admitted to others that I was wrong, apologized for errors on my part ([3][4][5]), and thanked them for offering their viewpoints and other information. ([6][7]). But when you make comments like "even if you're not man enough to admit it", as well as that aforementioned one, it seems to me that again, you may benefit from reading policies such as WP:AGF, WP:Civility, etc., since part of editing here means occasionally disagreeing with other editors, and in those cases, it is crucial to stay calm, and not make unwarranted accusations or assumptions about each other. Peace, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Picture of Jeff

Would it be possible to swap out the current photo of Jeff with the one available via the below link. It's a much more recent photo of Jeff.

http://www.comedycentral.com/press/images/jeffdunham_show/jeffdunham_3.jpg

Dunhamreg1 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love nothing more to replace that godawful pic currently in the article, but we can only use pics that are in the public domain or free licensed. If it's protected by copyright, we can't use it, and the fact that it's at comedy central.com indicates to me that they own it. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to copyright on that image, we wouldn't be able to use that one. What's needed are free images or images that are released under licenses that are compatible with Wikipedia. Something taken by a person who went to a show, press conference, photo signing, or similar event where Jeff Dunham attended would be the best sources, as long as the photographer clearly released the image under a compatible license. More info can be found at WP:IUP, primarily in the "adding images" section of that policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Critical Praise and Controversy

The critical praise and controversy section may benefit from more articles and balance the negative and positive opinions of Jeff in the press:

Huffington Post Article "Success For Dummies": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-morris/success-for-dummies_b_350592.html New York Times Article "Comedy for Dummies"  :http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/magazine/01ventriloquist-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 Los Angeles Times a rticle which states "Jeff Dunham has become something akin to a rock star": http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/04/entertainment/et-dunham4

Dunhamreg1 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

Due to privacy and legal issues, can we remove the line about Jeff divorcing his wife? Thanks so much.

Dunhamreg1 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Note: See Conflict of Interest below)  _{Guy M | Talk}  05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What legal issues? It's valid, sourced content, available publicly available in the source cited, like Time magazine. Hell, it's even in the NYTimes story that you provided. Nightscream (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you by any chance the subject of this article? – ukexpat (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See this edit, which appears to be related to this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove Paige's name, so the line reads:

As of May 2009 Dunham was in the process of divorcing his wife, with whom he has three daughters.[3] Dunhamreg1 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to answer our questions? Nightscream (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The material is sourced to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901490,00.html which states the name - so we're not leaking any information that's not already publicly available - as a result, I'm not understanding the reason for requesting its removal from the article. Unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name, I'm not currently seeing a clear reason to remove it. If such a court seal exists, then information about it should be directed to Wikipedia's legal counsel for review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User Dunhamreg1 has a conflict of interest. See Edits: WP Help Desk question (Asking how to edit protected pages of celebrities) and WP Help Desk request (admitting managing Jeff Dunham).  _{Guy M | Talk}  05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, we do not know if Dunhamreg's username is an indication of his being a fan or one of the Dunhams himself. Second, even if Dunhamreg is Jeff or Paige Dunham, he has every right to express his concerns, which he is properly doing both here and at a Help Desk. There is plenty of precedent for information to be removed from BLP articles if the subject requests it for privacy reasons, or even for such articles to be deleted outright in some circumstances. At the very least, it's okay for Dunhamreg to discuss the matter. Nightscream (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"[...] I work at a management firm for an artist who's page is protected. Is it possible to become an admin for that page?" -Dunhamreg ([8])

Since Paige Dunham isn't a celebrity (or known "artist"), I would believe Jeff Dunham is the better bet. Plus Jeff Dunhams page is protected. Plus Dunhamreg has displayed general interest about Jeff Dunham, and not just specifically about Paige and Jeff's relationship. And the only edits by Dunhamreg is on this talk page, it's not a leap of faith to believe s/he represents Jeff Dunham. I guess referenced material on WP isn't as relevant as I have thought over the years.  _{Guy M | Talk}  22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about that part about the management firm. Nightscream (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of Melvin and Achmed's Trademark Line

According to Amazon.com, the name of Melvin is "Melvin the Superhero," not "Melvin the Superhero Guy." http://www.amazon.com/Jeff-Dunham-Spark-Insanity-II/dp/B000S6LS66/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1264037155&sr=8-1

Also, Achmed's trademark line is "Silence, I Keel You," not "Silence, I Kill You." This is stated in the second to last paragraph on his bio of his webpage.

Can those two changes be made?

208.77.235.178 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunham refers to him as Melvin the Superhero Guy in the show itself. The second matter is merely one of an accent. Nightscream (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Peanut (NEEEEEEEEEEOWWWWWWWWWW)

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KK3FlVC2w&feature=related (From Begining)

2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZjMgbRUsZM&feature=related (5:47, 6:39, and 8:18)

3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd0pYR2vmrE&feature=related (0:55, 1:17, and 4:39)

4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWThRmRW6GE&feature=related (0:55, 1:01, 1:37, and 3:18)

5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DDmnv7BT1Q (0:46, and 1:54)

All different episodes so it means he does it in EVERY EPISODE it must be his signature move —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACE$MAKER (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of the information in those primary sources. The interpretation of the primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Unless a reliable secondary source describes it as his signature move, it does not belong in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081025003952AAxNJ4O

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acI12jO0HSQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACE$MAKER (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comedians do not create entire new acts from scratch for every single individual appearance in a given tour, or even across multiple appearances; They typically will write a new act and reuse it in multiple locations until they feel that everyone has seen it, and it has gotten old, and will sometimes even maintain older material as a recurring bit. The fact that Dunham had Peanut use that move in different specials and appearances (which is what they were, not "episodes") may be attributable to this. I notice, after all, that he stopped using it when his career exploded, possibly because he figured now everyone had seen it (though I could be wrong about this).

Even if it is his signature, this can only be supported by either Dunham indicating it himself, or a reviewer or critic that constitutes a reliable source. The content on Yahoo! Answers is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Even if it were, that move wasn't even referred to as his signature move by Yahoo!, but merely by the person submitting the question.

Also, make sure you sign your Talk Page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i guess it's the same thing with the fact that peanut always puts is mouth on jeff but

   Walter: Aw, shut the hell up! (condescending mock laughter) also, I don't give a damn.
   Achmed the Dead Terrorist: SILENCE! I kill you! ("kill" sounds like "keel")
   Peanut the Purple Woozle: (quickly) That's good-ity, that's good-ity, that's GOOOOOOD!
   Melvin the Superhero Guy: Da-da-da-dahhhh!
   José Jalapeño on a Stick: On a steek! (often interjected within segues)
   Bubba J: I'm doing purty goood! Then I've been watching NASCAR and drinkin' beer!
   Sweet Daddy Dee: Oh! That's funny shit right there! Ha haaa! (moves his top lip to make a 'tssht' sound) 

they say on wikia that these are the CatchphrasesACE$MAKER (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikia can say anything they want to say, but it is not a reliable source. On Wikipedia we summarize what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. If you can find reliable sources that call these things signature moves or catch phrases then they can probably be worked into the article. Until a reliable source is found, they do not belong in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree ... Wikia is not a reliable source. It's also pretty clear that Jeff Dunham doesn't consider most of those to be catch-phrases: they do not appear in the merchandise material sold on his website - and even the ones that do appear on merchandise aren't all used in the current version of the act (as of November, anyway).

As GBfan said, a reliable source is needed to state that any of those are catch-phrases. Until such sources are found, Wikipedia shouldn't be listing them in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

?Sparky? the Fire Breathing Dragon

When I was young, and I mean 10-15+ years ago, I remember Jeff having a Dragon character. Absolute riot. I can't find hide nor hair of a mention of it though. Anyone else remember this? I've browsed his website, unfortunately it's all in flash and so I think not indexed/searchable by google. Nothing obvious in the store. I'm guessing that this character was used SO long ago that it's simply pre-ceeded the DVD/internet era. 67.68.45.132 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean Scorch, and it wasn't Jeff's character. It was Ronn Lucas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.80.165 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Jeff hasn't had a Dragon character (at least since 1989), though his Gorilla character was absolutely hilarious!! It's amazing how characters such as Coffee Guy have segued into superheroes - Jeff's a genius! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.118.114 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I also remember Jeff with a dragon. I'm fairly sure it was on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. In the act fire came out of the dragon's nose (actual flame, not special effects) and Jeff said "WHAT was THAT?". The dragon answered "flaming snot". I laughed so hard I could barely breathe. I told my grandson about it and he said he found the clip. I have not seen it myself. 68.184.206.98 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request from Evilgumbi, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please edit the length of time Jeff Dunham was married to his ex-wife. His Wikipedia page currently states that in November 2008, he and his wife of 14 years had separated. However, in one of his shows (Jeff Dunham: Spark of Insanity), which took place September 14, 2007, he states on stage that he and his wife have been married 17 years. So if he and his wife separated in November 2008, he would have been married to her for at least 18 years, not 14. Evilgumbi (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done:He was on stage, so he might accidently say the wrong thing.Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dinner for Schmucks - Debbie

I believe we should mention the Debbie puppet in the article. I've gone ahead and added it into the relevant place in the article where it states that Jeff is in the movie but I am thinking it might be more suitable in the "Other Characters" section. What do you think? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nana Puddin'

When I was little, I remember seeing a christian show for kids called Nana Puddin' that I swear was hosted by Jeff Dunham and a monkey-like puppet similar to Peanut. I feel it should be added to the article. However, it's apparantly a really obscure show and I can't seem to find any concrete evidence that he was on it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombEJesus (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Identity Crisis 2010 from Oct 14th Tullio Arena in Erie PA

October 14th, 2010

I attended Jeff Dunham's show in Erie PA at Tullio Arena, and several new details about Jeff Dunham came to light from the man himself.

He hasn't liked to talk about, but the most significant thing revealed is that he has indeed divorced his wife, and that his divorce has been final for roughly two years (and Walter really wanted to know what it was like to be devorced!). His wife got the famous Blue~ Toyota Prius and house in the divorce (Jeff got the Hummer), and now Jeff has his own house to live in while the wife got the original house.

He also announced that he has completed the head for his new puppet in development, "Achmed's Son," whom I am pretty sure he named but I fail to remember (will has buddy I was with if he remembers his name). His son will be a soft spoken "British" character who is "half dead." Apparently the right part of his head will be half Achmed (skeleton), and the left part "burned up person" (As Jeff put it, it will be "really messed up."). He said the inspiration for the character was Sayid Jarrah from Lost (played by Naveen Andrews), who apparently is a soft spoken Brit in real life (unlike in the show Lost). Achmed's Son will apparently disprove of Achmed's terrorist actions, but only talk about it in a "soft spoken manner." Jeff stated to keep checking his website for "updates" in the development of this new puppet.

Diane was shown as well. Jeff confessed at the beginning of the show that her material was completely new and that some(most) of her jokes had been written the day of the show. He stated that in his earlier days, he'd find a comedy club with a few people inside, and go in to test his new material. Now that he was doing large venues like Tullio Arena (nearly 8,000 in attendance), he had no choice but to test new material at the end of these large shows!

I apologize if I haven't posted this correctly. I know the source is truly me, but these are details that can be expected to be sourced elsewhere sometime in the future. This is my heads up!

TheXev (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Monty Python reference

In the section on Achmed the Dead Terrorist, there is a link to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I don't think pointing out that Jeff Dunham stole a joke from the Pythons is really relevant and is at best speculation. Can we have that removed? Failing that, can we have the whole article retitled "Jeff Dunham (hack)". Cheers folks. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Melvin's nose

Nightscream, Here is an exact quote from the video: Melvin the Superhero Guy: I'm making a deal with the commissioner to light up the sky with a spotlight of my symbol. Jeff Dunham: What's your symbol? Melvin the Superhero Guy: A big nose in the sky. The trouble is, sometimes it doesn't exactly look like a nose.

That's it. That's not quite an allusion. And since it's not a fact, that makes it an opinion. And even if it is an allusion, an allusion made in act like this, is meant to be just that. It's not something that needs to be (or should be) explained in an article on Wikipedia.

And, while it's true that Wikipedia is not censored (profanity is not an issue here), It is also true that we are to edit things that are not appropriate for an article.

Now, if you can find a source where Jeff states that that is what he intended then you might have something. Otherwise please remove it. Musdan77 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First, let's put aside the argument "And since it's not a fact, that makes it an opinion", since this isn't really true. There are many types of categories into which ideas can fall other than just these two. An idea is not automatically an "opinion" simply because it's not a fact.

As far as the act and the passage in question is concerned, the fact that the audience is clearly intended to understand that Melvin's nose resembles a penis is easily conveyed by watching that scene, which references this more than once, as well as things like Dunham's facial expression, the audience's laughter, etc. First, when Dunham asks Melvin what his most distinctive feature is, Melvin sharply turns to face Dunham, so that his nose is in profile, allowing the audience to see just how big and specifically-shaped it is. Dunham does not come out and point this out explicitly, but covers this innuendo up by having Melvin say, "My costume". The exchange involving the spotlight then occurs after that. When Melvin says, "Trouble is, sometimes it doesn't exactly look like a nose", which gets a considerable round of laughter from the audience, and an awkward look on Dunham's face as Melvin leans in toward him slightly. A viewing of this scene, and all these little nuances, make it clear that the similarity of his nose in shape to a penis is what's being alluded to. That's not an opinion, it's what Dunham clearly intends the audience to understand. If it's not, then what exactly do you think he meant when he said, "Trouble is, sometimes it doesn't exactly look like a nose"? We don't need a source to explain every single joke in a standup act, any more than we need one to for every line of dialogue in a book, or every shot in a film, when the intent behind it is clear. There are some things that are so obvious and self-evident, merely describing them is sufficient, and Verifiability can be satisfied by someone by just watching the program.

Because the other character descriptions I wrote or edited included some description of their physical appearance, especially where the appearance is an unusual or distinctive one that ties into their character or personality (Peanut and Achmed in particular), and since I already included information on Melvin's eyes, it seemed appropriate to make this consistent by describing Melvin's nose, since the act made such a point out of it.

But if you disagree, we can start a consensus discussion, and invite uninvolved editors to watch the Melvin portion of Spark of Insanity (assuming we can find an online clip somewhere), and then indicate whether they think that passage is accurate and appropriate. And if a consensus forms against that passage's inclusion, then I'm fine with removing it. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything you just said there, but you're missing the crux of the issue that I was trying to make. I am not denying what is being implied in the act, but it is just an implication. And the implication is actually part of the joke. And as I said, it does not need to be (or should be) explained in the article. It's sort of like giving away the punchline. I really don't think that Jeff would like the way it is written. Here's how I would write it: "His most prominent feature is his large nose—which is the object of jokes made referring to what it resembles." Any objections?

Here's the link to the video Musdan77 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the video many times, but decided to watch it again, to bring a fresh editor into the equation. I had an 8 year-old child nearby watching the video with me. (Shoot me. I watched R-rated movies when I was his age.) Even he caught on to the penile nature of the joke. As to whether or not it is relevant, I would certainly say it is. Melvin's nose is his most distinctive feature aside from his poorly-fitting hairpiece, and even that is used for slapstick effect only once in the routine. I think the phallic reference should stay in the article. There is no need to sanitize Wikipedia, and this is relevant to the man's comedy routine. As for whether or not it gives away the punchline, all of our plot synopses are spoilers, and for some reason, we no longer use spoiler alert tags. I think it has something to do with WP:SPOILER and WP:NDA. I would think most people reading an encyclopedia article about a comedian want to know about their style of humor, and if you look at the article on Edgar Bergen and his dummies, you'll even see specific jokes. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Works/Discography Section?

Could anyone add a Works/Discography section or something? Could use one, came here looking for one. Shrumster (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jalepeno Pepper Section

Jalepeno Pepper does not have a Latin accent since I'm pretty sure Jeff Dunham does not imply that he speaks Latin but rather Spanish. Therefore, he has a Spanish accent. You don't have to be from Spain to have Spanish accent you just have to speak Spanish. I would fix this myself but the page it protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DottieBella (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm from Spain myself and I would say he has a Mexican accent, not a spanish one. Just like Dunham has a southern accent and not a British, Nigerian or Australian accent. I would change it, but the article is blocked. --83.52.227.20 (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Middle Name of Jeff Dunham

Jeff Dunham's middle name is not "William Robinson." This should be removed.

Jreader25 (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Just following up here. How do we get this changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreader25 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Spouse of Jeff Dunham

As Jeff is no longer married to Paige Dunham, she should be removed as the spouse.

Jreader25 (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please advise if there is any other way for me to alert an administrator about this edit.

38.106.41.130 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Star Search

Jeff Dunham was never on Star Search. He commented about this on the radio, saying that a lot of people think he was actually on this show, but infact wasnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.128.100 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff & his now-ex-wife

Jeff & his wife did NOT get married in 1994, they got married in 1990. In his 2007 special "Spark of Insanity", he clearly states that he has been married for 17 years. They may or may have not seperated in 2008, but did not file for divorce until 2009 & was not finalized until 2010, so they were married just shy of (or just over) 20 years. I have looked this up on many websites & wikipedia is the only one stating that they were married for 14 years, whereas the rest all said the same of what i said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.115.114 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(Old-time Jeff fan) I agree. We've been following Jeff Dunham since 1989, and his jokes in 1991 or 92 included a monologue that mentioned a little girl (whom we believe was Paige's daughter whom Jeff adopted after they married). The comment in wikipedia that Jeff started using Walter around 1996 is also incorrect, Walter was most definitely in his act in 1989!

Achmed Jr.

Don't forget to put that he is terribly homosexual. (He was hitting on the stagehand with quotes such as, "he can fix my pelvis any day" when Achmed's 'spine' got caught in his 'pelvis') It's one of his most endearing characteristics if you ask me, and without it he wouldn't be nearly as funny. He would be just a British terrorist's son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincy819 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

Jeff Dunham announced on December 26th, 2011 at his Controlled Chaos show in Columbus, OH, that he and girlfriend Audrey Murdick are engaged.

Oneill.122 (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a published source to add that to the article. Please see WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS and WP:CS. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and can't find anything confirming this myself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Note he has stated this himself now on twitter so I added into the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also a press release on his website: http://jdwwwprod1.jeffdunham.com/sites/jeffdunham.com/files/download/Dunham%20Engagement.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.41.130 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

In the second paragraph, the introductory information can be updated. Jeff has over half a million hits on YouTube and has sold over 7 million DVDs. This is clarified in the Bio Section of his website and in various press releases.

"He has sold over four million DVDs, an additional $7 million in merchandise sales,[5] and received more than 350 million hits on YouTube (his introduction of Achmed the Dead Terrorist in Spark of Insanity is the ninth most watched YouTube video).[1] A Very Special Christmas Special was the most-watched telecast in Comedy Central history, with its DVD going quadruple platinum (selling over 400,000) in its first two weeks

Dunhamreg1 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Because that information is derived from secondary sources, which are not themselves updatable, the only way to update it is to find a more recent secondary source to replace them. Otherwise, we have to use the "as of" notation to indicate the date to which those figures pertain, such as "As of October 2009". The passage about the Christmas Special already does so, as it mentions that the 400,000 figure pertains to sales in its first two weeks.

We cannot use his website, because that's a primary source and using it to support material on his accomplishments is inappropriate for obvious COI reasons. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2012

It is also heavily implied through comments that Achmed Jr. is gay, which usually shock his father.

99.239.59.159 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

please be specific what you would like to see changed. Please quote what the article currently says and what you think it should say for changes. If you want to add info then please tell us where you think the new info belongs and what it should say. Also please provide reliable sources for the information in either case. GB fan 03:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the only critics are those prejudiced against Dunham?

I think that there is a really unfair and one-sided bias in this statement: "In October 2009 The Jeff Dunham Show enjoyed good initial ratings, but was not well liked by critics, who did not find it funny, and either questioned the wisdom of translating his act into a series, or conceded a prejudice against Dunham, his previous specials, or ventriloquism itself." It doesn't matter that there a bunch of citations to critics admitting prejudice, the fact is that if you state a sentence in this way. Isn't "prejudice against" just another way of saying "dislike his humour"? If you wrote that a critic disliked Monty Python's Holy Grail because s/he was "prejudiced against Monty Python", that wouldn't be fair either. Please update to properly represent the fact that some people just think Dunham isn't funny. Darkhawk —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Darkhawk. First of all, new discussions go at the bottom, not the top. Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-)

The critics in question who were cited in the passage, indeed conceded, in some cases explicitly, to having a prejudice against not only Dunham, but ventriloquism in general. This is more specific than simply "not liking" him, so naturally, the passage will accurately reflect that. However, this is not the same thing as saying "only" those who disliked him harbored a prejudice against him. The full sentence, however, does not rely merely on those critics who said this; the first part of the sentence, you'll notice, says:

In October 2009 The Jeff Dunham Show enjoyed good initial ratings, but was not well liked by critics,[28]...

The portion of the passage, and the cite at the end of that portion, does not specify the rationale given by those critics. However, I can see how one might interpret the second portion of the passage as you did, and changed the beginning of it to read:

...some of whom either questioned the wisdom of translating his act into a series, or conceded a prejudice against Dunham, his previous specials, or ventriloquism itself.[29][30][31][32]

Note the boldface, which restricts this description to only those four who were cited. Is this acceptable? Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously.....Why So Many Talk Sections? (Personal Opinion...) Needs A Clean Up or Update

48 (Now 49) Talk sections? Have some of them been resolved? If so, they should be erased. But wow, there are a lot of Dunham fans out there, who think they know a thing or two. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the practice of erasing talk page discussions (though it will remove ones that violate its policies, constitute threats, etc.). What it does when a talk page gets too big is archive the page, but I don't know how to do that. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I manually archived 20 old sections GB fan 03:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2012

The Jeff Dunham article states, "Following his bit, he was invited to sit on Johnny Carson’s couch, a mark of approval that only three comedians had ever garnered during their first Carson appearance.[2][10]"

However, this is false. While it was rare, at least 15 comedians were invited to sit on the couch with Johnny during their first appearance, including, Steve Wright, Freddie Prinze, Roseanne Barr, Eddie Murphy, Ellen Degeneres, Drew Carey, Yakov Smirnoff, Kevin Nealon, and Andre Philippe Gagnon. I have verified those 9 and that it was their first appearance (via YouTube and Johnnn's introductions and there are others well.

I believe this false information probably first came from Dunham's own publicity materials. SevenPhoenixPhd (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done but not by me; I am just closing the edit request. Any questions regarding the details of the edit made should be directed to Nightscream (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Achmed the Navy Seal

Should Achmed's description be updated to mention his "Navy Seal training"? In the newest special, Controlled Chaos, Achmed panicked when asked about Bin Laden's death, claiming he had nothing to do with it and that "that Navy Seal training was just for laughs". 12.45.169.2 12.45.169.2 14:43, August 28, 2012

Hi, 12.45.169.2. Welcome to Wikipedia. For future, reference, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them.

Regarding your suggestion, articles must summarize the most salient information about a given topic, and should not include every single example. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA explain some of this. This is particularly relevant to writing about fiction, including biographies of fictional characters, which need to not treat every single known "fact" about them as if they were true, but summarize the basic traits of those characters, including only a modest number of examples, and emphasizing, when possible, an out-universe perspective rather than an in-universe one. See WP:OUTUNIVERSE for more on this. Nightscream (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Achmed's limpness? Whether it's a running gag or something Jeff uses when it happens, Achmed's feet generally flip upside down at least a couple times in a show, he has been known to have parts stuck together and requiring some work to get unstuck, and on the last few shows Jeff has, deliberately or not, pulled off some of Achmed's bones to Achmed's shock and anger. Issues with Achmed's body tend to come up almost as frequently as "I Kill You!". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See previous answer. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, November 26, 2012

OK, I merely thought this might be different as it's not a one-time joke, it's something that's been done from the start with his character, growing more exaggerated with each case (in the first, he's just shocked; later he claims to have scoliosis and polio, mutters about how it always happens and threatens Jeff after he pulls his arm off; ultimately he reaches such a point that he commands an assistant to duct tape his legs to the chair so they stop flipping). This is just about as much a part of his character and act as his trade line, or the shape of Melvin's nose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Mini Jeff Dunham Puppet

He has also appeared in Minding The Monsters as a villain called 'Loser', Peanut once said he's 'Ugly Ass Jeff' to mock Jeff himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.193.59 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes and missing text and additional info

Achmed Jr's article has spelling errors and a possibility of missing text, Achmed Jr was the first of his puppets to be printed from a 3D scanner as seen on Bio's 'Birth of A Dummy' 81.108.193.59 14:31, October 23, 2012

Melvin

Melvin as seen on Birth of A Dummy, once has smaller eyes until Jeff changed it to the way he is now. 81.108.193.59 14:31, October 23, 2012

Change to Filmography

In the Filmography section, it currently states the only Biography film that Jeff was in is titled "I'm No Dummy" and dated 2009. This is incorrect. The title of his biography film is "Jeff Dunham: Birth of a Dummy" released in 2011. This biography was released on the biography channel as a TV special. Birth of a Dummy Trailer on YouTube by Biography Channel As well as IMBD.com has this released in 2011. Shadowbat2034 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by the "only biography film"? I'm not clear on what this phrase means. I've looked through the article, and couldn't find any reference to this. The only thing that the Filmography table says is that he was in the 2009 documentary I'm No Dummy, which he was. What exactly is it that you're saying it incorrect? Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

was he ever on the Merv Griffin show?

I apologize if this any improper question or forum, but this is driving me crazy and I can't find any information anywhere! I have a distinct memory as a child watching the Merv Griffin Show with my grandmother, back in the early to mid 70's of a very young Jeff Dunham doing a bit with Peanut. Is my memory faulty or did he do a small bit on that show? 70.16.99.95 (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeff and Melvin

I've been watching Jeff's shows. And it doesn't look like Jeff doesn't use Melvin anymore. Supermariokart64 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Jeff Dunham and Achmed.JPG to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jeff Dunham and Achmed.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on February 2, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

American ventriloquist and stand-up comedian Jeff Dunham with his puppet "Achmed the Dead Terrorist". Dunham, whose puppets Time magazine has described as "politically incorrect, gratuitously insulting and ill tempered", uses Achmed to satirize terrorists.Photograph: Richard Mclaren

Promo?

This whole page reads as if it was written by Dunham's manager or something. So many details are so specific, and this just reads as promotion material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.21.135 (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)