Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Colbert/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Vandalism on locked page

In the 2008 presidential bid the line at the end about all other candidates dropping out probably does not need to stay. however, the page is locked and i can't fix it from the mobile. Also, it should read favorite son, not favored son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.28.204.12 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Misfact

The Guy isn't dead, is he? Vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.94.61 (talk) 09:30, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the Pope declared Colbert to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ (Last fact). Seems like vandalism.

LOL, that's the funniest vandalism I've ever seen.

Also, I do not believe Stephen Colbert's middle name is Tyrone. I have seen that same sign of vandalism on many other names. It is perpetrated by username "macarion" whom the wikipedia moderators considered banning. He may actually be banned, and operating using a IP anonymizer and other screen name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.247.241 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

STEVEN COLBERT WAS BORN IN CHARLESTON SC

"KHOL-bert" and "Khol-BARE" -

The "KH" sound is not included in any of the real, fake, imagined, or discovered pronunciations of Colbert's surname. There are discussions and hilarity about how to say the name correctly, but the inital "C" is always pronounced with the simple "K" sound as in "cold", never with the "KH" sound as at the end of Scots "loch". So why is this bogus pronunciation in the article? And who are the left-wing pinko commie fags that won't let me edit and correct this insult to a great American? K is the correct pronunciation, and so can you!

Unprotect

Its silly to keep this page protected. Colbert vandalism cannot bring down wikipedia! —Gaff ταλκ 08:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but fixing it does expend time and energy that could be used more fruitfully. Tlesher 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to fix some grammatical and punctuation errors. Unprotect, please! Dj gamache 03:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was unprotected about 15 days ago give or take and it was only that way for about a day. Due to the constant vadalsim a admin put the protection back up. When this page is not protected its vadalized constintle ForeverDEAD 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Early life & Personal life

If we could find some picture having to do with Colbert's younger days, that would be perfect for the first body section. I rearranged it to flow (I think) better and be (I think) a bit better organized, but that leaves that space open towards the beginning.

Also, any information regarding his marriage or his kids would be awesome. I haven't checked the sources yet for anything more, but expanding that section would be very good.

Oh, and if you have any objections to my rearranging, feel free to tell me. - Boss1000 07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Irish

On a recent Larry King interview he stated he was of French descent. Which makes a lot sense the surname Colbert is French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.206.222 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


This article needs to work harder to say Colbert is of partial Irish descent. At present it only states it in three places. Woeful. -- 62.25.106.209 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume this is a joke. It's plenty clear. - Boss1000 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mention of his wikipedia stunt?

Shouldn't there be some mention of his wikipedia stunt? As a fact or something?WacoJacko 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Small things he's done on The Colbert Report are not necessarily important to his article. If anything, it would go under his show's article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, including to itself, and it's not extremely notable. - Boss1000 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Democrat?

Stephen Colbert has repeatedly said on the Colbert Report that he is a strict constutionalist, and a Libertarian.

Uh... that's a character he plays. Sarcasm eludes you.W@ntonsoup 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
When has he said he is a libertarian? I don't recall him saying either, and it would be in-character, which is useless to this article regardless (looking for THIS article?). The source cited states he is a Democrat directly, as well. - Boss1000 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

well, he's now running in the campaign as both a republican and a democrat, Neodarksaver 06:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I heard him being interviewed on Air America Radio a little over two years ago, before The Colbert Report started, and he himself noted that he is a progressive Democrat. BobCubTAC 08:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Two oldest brothers

In reference to his "two oldest brothers" dying in the plane crash: Paul and Peter were not his two oldest brothers. They were the two "next-oldest" brothers in line of birth order. His oldest brothers are, I believe, Jimmy and Eddie; but definitely not Paul and Peter. I'd edit the entry but don't have time to figure out the way to do it. Thanks.Meow House 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. Cheers, Jude. 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I believe, when not in character, his last name is pronounced: COLE-bert. Thoughts? J-stan Talk 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, his name is always pronounced "khol-BEAR". When he was a kid, he went by "KHOL-bert"; when he moved to Chicago, he changed the pronunciation. He's explained it in several interviews. Actually, the article mentions it too. Cheers, Jude. 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he never uses the "kh" sound for the initial, but rather, always the "k" sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrist?

It's been added in the personal life section that Colbert broke his wrist on-set recently. While it's true, and certainly referenceable, it's not really a huge event in the context of his life. I'd like to remove it; anyone object? --Jude. 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and remove it. It's trivial and a great example of recentism. --ElKevbo 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Jude. 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

wtf dont remove it. I had to go on this page just to see if it was true or not.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's very trivial and if you really wanted to know about a "current event" you'd try the news. - Boss1000 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

then dont put it on his life put in on his show. NEWBS

It would still be trivial in the overall context of the show.--Jude. 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
er, i came here to see what the deal is with his wrist and theres no info. what happened? did he break it on camera or during rehersal? Zarcath 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please pardon my mistakes in formatting for Talk. I'm not here enough to remember the rules and there is no easily findable explanation. Re: wrist. He broke it on June 21 during the pre-show (that is, the Q&A period with the audience before the actual taping begins), while he was running around the desk upon his initial entrance. There is a raised dais there (where the desk sits) and he tripped on the edge while running or leaping off it and fell. However, I would agree that the entire subject of his wrist doesn't belong here: what if he skins he knee next week and jokes about it? Also, if the entry does remain, someone please edit it; it's pretty clunky right now, and has a capitalization error. Meow House 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just thought that adding my own two cents would be good. As of tonight, Colbert's cast was removed, and is being auctioned off at http://cgi1.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=290153546119&Category=201, and all funds are being given to the Yellow Ribbon fund. Already it's up to 642.03$USD. The cast has been signed by several people, including Bill O'Reilly. I'm not going to add this myself because my writing skills are shasta right now, but if someone would watch the video at the eBay auction and read up on this situation and add it to this article or his show's article, then that would be great. Lunis 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the entry is gone, which is the optimal procedure to me, but in case anyone checks Talk for information on it, I wanted to clarify something. I stated above that the injury happened on June 21, and it did. However in last night's episode Stephen himself said it happened on June 27. There are MANY witnesses to its happening in June 21, including the women in the front row on whose laps he collapsed just after it happened ... and yet Stephen said June 27, and June 27 is the date that was most widely publicized by media reports on the story. It absolutely positively happened on June 21; various audience members have written taping reports describing the incident in detail. Was Stephen having a totally bizarre memory lapse, or is this Wikiality in action? Meow House 11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Daily Show

There are some statements in this article which are off topic. For example:

"After Colbert left the show, the duty of filling in for Stewart was assumed by Rob Corddry until his departure in August 2006."

At times, it feels like that girl from band camp telling of this AND that AND that ...

Also, it would be nice to see mention of Colbert's interviews of actual political figures and the 'subtlety' of his interrogations as that is what stands out to me most from his appearances on the 'Daily Show'. Colbert is quoted as saying that he considers his character the 'fool that has spent much of his life playing not the fool', but much of his material is too thoughtful for that.

I feel the "off topic" line is brief and concise. It only mentions the departure of Rob Corddry to let the reader know he is not the current substitute anymore. I think the mention of subtleties by Colbert in his interviews are best suited for The Colbert Report article if at all.
The article used to mention that last quote, but in recent years he has been using the quote currently in the article: the "high-status idiot" one. - Boss1000 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If by the last quote, you mean the "fool that has spent...", then it is still in the article. It's about halfway down the 'Daily Show' section. But, I guess what I was getting at was that his interviews are mostly too witty for that to really be true. And, this was much more evident in the 'Daily Show' before everyone knew who he was. Often times, it was the interviewee who looked like a fool and I think that deserves mentioning.
And, the off-topic bit was just one example of what I saw as a repeating theme. I have a tendency to do that in my own writing or stories, but in a formal setting (such as an encyclopedia), I think it is out of place (the band camp girl effect, that is).
Of course, I'm mentioning these things in the discussion area because I don't feel up to the task of actually changing anything. I don't feel I could do his subtlety justice (and it's kinda like obvious subtlety which is part of the problem I face expressing it). If you want, I could probably go through and change the parts that I think are off-topic (but there seems to be some disagreement on that one). Any given statement might be ok, but when you get a pattern of slightly off-topic statements, it gets that informal feel to it.


News parody as a genre and article

I will leave this to the genuine scholars amongst you, but a search for the phrase "news parody" on Wikipedia and Google showed no actual genre by this name or scholarly articles to speak of. Perhaps, due to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, it should finally be recognized as an official sub-species of parody and have a Wiki article written. Talk amongst yourselves. J.A.McCoy 00:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find any reliable sources then creating an article would be pure original research and thus unacceptable. --ElKevbo 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Try News satire. I'll make a redirect for your term. - Boss1000 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Coal-bear

Lamrock (talk · contribs) has reverted my edits repeatedly, placing "(prounounced "Khol-BARE")" (sic) in the lead-in of this article. I feel that IPA is the proper tool for communicating this information, since Lamrock's accent can't be assumed to convey this information unambiguously. I'd like to get a consensus on this. Popkultur 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid your edit to show the proper sounding of the name in plain English. I think that in other articles IPA alone is suitable enough but this one is an exception because Colbert is a name that's always been pronounced with the "T." Stephen doesn't... so I'm highlighting that note to make those unfamiliar with him get that.
The fact of the matter is 90+ % of people have no idea how to read IPA. So I hope you come to agree with me that both can be left there. ty --Lamrock 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is problematic though, because if you argue that 90% of people don't read IPA, then one could say that we shouldn't use it anywhere. The reason IPA is used is because English speakers don't pronounce words exactly the same way across dialects. I live in Boston, and can personally attest to this! I'd like to know if others see this the same way, or if they disagree. Popkultur 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of why IPA is the standard on Wiki and I have no problem with that. But the fact is true that most users here never took a lesson of IPA in their lifetimes. Colbert is and always has been prounounced 'BERT'. Even his family uses the name that way. Since Stephen has invented his own pronounciation I think the heading of this article needs to make the sound of his name clear. The IPA will go unnoticed in this case. My point is making a notice of a variant of his family name. The "T" is silent. --Lamrock 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that in the intro paragraph, it's preferable to to use just IPA. In the Early life section, an entire paragraph is devoted to the pronunciation of his name, and it uses phonetic spelling. My issue with spelling the name out in the first line is that there are more than five ways to spell it, but mainly that, as Popkultur said, words aren't pronounced exactly the same way across dialects. Cheers, Jude. 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who originally put it there, and I agree completely with Jude. We can take it off, unless someone strongly disagrees. - Boss1000 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, take it off. It's wrong. There is no "kh" sound in any of the pronunciations. Ad hoc pronunciation formatiing can be a problem, especially when it's patently wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert's Ashkenazi Jewish Roots

Just saw an episode of The Colbert Report in which Colbert's Ashkenazi Jewish roots were all but disclosed. They had a guy on from The Genographic Project and they analyzed Colbert's DNA and found that he is a part of Haplogroup K, meaning that it is very likely that he has recent Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors. Just thought I'd mention that here -- it could be mentioned in his biography here. --172.131.8.203 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there's still that 1/4th chance that he is not Jewish, but in fact, (as the graphic showed), Mayonnaise.68.54.84.110 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki on Colbert/Colbert on Wiki

"The thing I like about Wikipedia is that it lets democracy determine reality." 216.80.64.112 05:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a quote on this page already. If you got it from there, great. It belongs there more than here. - Boss1000 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Stephen does the voice for Phil Ken Sebben on Harvey Birdman? It could go under his career in comedy or something. "GET SOME" 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the filmography at least, though I know little of when he began that and whatnot. - Boss1000 01:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Wikipedia's own policy says that IPA should be used. I would have edited this page to help you bunch of amateurs conform to your own policy, but it's protected. Please get rid of the idiosyncratic respelling - "Khol-BARE" is particularly absurd. Why "Kh" instead of "K"? This could be interpreted as representing [x] or something, and the pronunciation of the word "bare" varies across the English-speaking world. We shouldn't need to have this stupid argument every time. IPA is written into policy for a good reason - it is clear and unambiguous. Please sort the first line of this article out and help yourselves create the serious encyclopedia you aspire to. 79.75.178.11 17:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the tone of your message, the general point of "use IPA" is well taken. --ElKevbo 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making the change. My former faith in Wikipedia is partially restored. 79.75.178.11 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert image

A while back, I noticed that the photo of Stephen Colbert at the head of this article was embarrassingly ugly. It made Colbert look like he'd been sitting under a sun lamp for days, and the people behind him are better lit and more in-focus than he is. I did what I could to remedy it, and came up with this version. The person responsible for the original took offense and called my version "a travesty", and accused it of looking "like crap".[1]

Of course, this is all purely subjective. However, I'm curious to hear what the rest of the community thinks of it. I made the change months ago, and no one seemed to mind until now. So, what's it to be? Should we keep the original, or the new version? -- noosphere 03:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep the original. Your version is a dishonest travesty. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
And I think the original is a dishonest travesty. There are ways of taking pictures that make the person look worse than they do in real life, and the original demonstrates that quite well. The only way it could have been worse is if it was lit from below so that he looks like a halloween monster. So, I tried to lighten up his face and get it more in to focus. Sorry that you don't like it. But, I hope we can hear some more opinions. -- noosphere 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I personaly couldnt tell the differnce nor noticed it, Why dont we get a random person in here to decide which one they like better and have them pic the image. That would e a fair compromise dont you agree and that way the best image gets in.(ForeverDEAD 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Even if there was some way to tell that the person really was random, it would probably be a bad idea. It's like flipping a coin. I'd much rather hear from the community of people who've actually put some effort in to maintaining this article. -- noosphere 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As a random person, I think the first picture is too dim to be considered good, and the second version looks like it's been through too many filters, so it also looks bad. The second version probably looks better at low res. Prgrmr@wrk 21:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a lot of image editing and I agree that the original isn't a very good picture, but it looks a lot better than your edit. The only thing that looks better in yours is the blurred background, you shouldn't have sharpened his face, or made it so pale. If you left Colbert alone and just blurred the background it would look a lot better. 129.128.235.107 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a version of the image with a blurred background, and i fixed his crows feet. you guys can use it if you want, but i don't know how to add an image on wikipedia. Here it is http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/30362/2006081395887231984_rs.jpg 129.128.235.107 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
His skin still looks like it's got severe sunburn. Sorry. -- noosphere 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

born in D.C?

Steven Colbert's website says that he was "Born and raised in South Carolina". [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.135.175 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wriststrong

I don't know how to fix this, but wriststrong redirects here, but it's only mentioned on the Character Page. It seems to make since to redirect it to the Stephen Colbert (character) page, or else add a mention of it here. Interpretivechaos 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I made the change. Thanks. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Uninformed" opinion leaders"

Isn't this biased? I know Colbert thinks that conservative pundits are uninformed, but to say so in a neutral article doesn't quite seem right. There are plenty of people who believe that Colbert is just as misinformed as he believes others are. I think that this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.95.35 (talk • contribs)

The lead says that he portrays the character of an uninformed opinion leader, which is undoubtedly true. It says nothing about conservative pundits being uninformed or what Colbert's opinion of conservative pundits is (I'd guess that he has just as many negative opinions of liberal pundits as he does conservative, but as my opinion, that's irrelevant). You're reading quite a bit into one sentence that simply isn't there. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Colbert has himself referred to the characters he portrays as "high status idiots" which is considerably more sharp than the lead paragraph. If this is how he himself describes the characters that he portrays, then obviously that's what they are, objectively speaking. Larry Dunn 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm reading too much into that sentence at all. The show is clearly a satirical take on conservative pundits - "Papa Bear" Bill O'Reily is a running gag - and so "uninformed opinion leaders" definitely has a certain connotation. He's not spoofing Franken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.95.35 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in the article?

Currently the article has a sentence: "Stephen Colbert has recently agreed to give the 2008 graduation speech at Maryland high school, Quince Orchard. Located in Montgomery County, Quince Orchard High School has no true connection to Colbert other than many students frequently watch his show.". If this sentence is to remain (not even referenced) , why not list every publicity event Colbert does in front of an audience of which "many frequently watch his show". Just contact his agent and reprint his full publicity schedule every year. Now, let the ludicrous and surreal inclusionist rationalizations begin!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.234.131 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert is very much looking forward to this event and had referenced this upcoming event so it is a valid thing to point out on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.152.253 (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's not notable. If he were to come to to where I live, I'd be ecstatic, but I'd know that it's one appearance of hundreds, thousands. - Boss1000 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Red wrist-band

Colbert wears it on his show. Does anyone know its significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.52 (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Search for "Wriststrong" at Stephen Colbert (character). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidacy

On his show, Stephen announced he is running yet my change was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D27061315 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there already was a section.
However, I must ask, do we even know if he's serious yet? how do we know it's the Actor and not the Character talking? This may just be a joke. The Clawed One 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It also does not belong at the top as a headline. Wikipedia is not a news source. Illinois2011 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it say Favorite Son instead of Favored Son? 207.32.33.16 —Preceding comment was added at 04:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It should definitely say Favorite Son. He has already made it very clear that he is running as a favorite son in South Carolina, and this should be added to the section on his 2008 candidacy immediately. It even says on that article that he is a favorite son for that state. Skittlesrgood4u 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it is a joke, it is my understanding that the Colbert Character dislikes Democrats yet he discussed running under both parties. But I agree the we should wait for an official press release. And in reference to my edit, I am sorry I had the version before that section was added open in the edit window. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D27061315 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Bid

I know it is probably still to early for anyone to know, but is he actually going to file the paperwork to participate in the South Carolina primary? I think he actually will, I'm sure there isn't too much paperwork and it would be great for his show. If any definitive source can be found for this it should be put in the article Mwv2 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Federal Election Committee Website about Stephen Colbert. Then again I don't know if stuff goes through them for primaries. 24.125.39.99 07:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So he really is running for president. Under what party? I saw someone add this to the article about the 2008 election and reverted it thinking it was vandalism.--Avant Guard 09:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should add a reference to: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=v&t=25628&m=88755 which has both the video from the daily show and the video where he announced on his own show. Also, this is a good article that I didn't see linked: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFzxF7XLwi7Il2DVEE6la0NVo--gD8SAP1MO0 69.140.170.242 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert isn't running. He was clearly satirizing other candidates by doing all that on the Daily Show and on his show. Someone here should use some common sense and remove the section from the article. dposse 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I've removed it, for now; it may belong in the article on the character or the show (although the breathless blow-by-blow has long since gotten old) but treating it as a serious presidential bid is completely inappropriate at this point. -- Vary | Talk 15:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We have no sources saying that he was joking. Until that happens, we should keep it in. We don't have to state it as an absolute "Colbert is running for President". Just say that he claims that he is running for the Presidency in South Carolina. --- RockMFR 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What proof do you have that he's not running? I agree that his candidacy seems unlikely, but he said that he is doing it, and until he denies it, he is a candidate, whether he is on the ballot or people write him in. Illinois2011 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. He made the announcement in character. Why do we have to go through this every time this guy does something like this? The person he plays on The Colbert Report is not real. He doesn't need to deny this any more than he needs to deny any of the other absurd, satirical things his character says. We don't need a source that shows that what he says or does in character does not hold true for the portrayer; we need a source that says it does. But since you asked, USA Today doesn't believe him: "Exactly how far the mock conservative pundit planned to stretch his impression of a presidential candidate wasn't clear." [3] The section blurs fiction and reality. That's not a good thing. -- Vary | Talk 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that we have varying opinions here, but this edit warring has to stop. If you are going to remove it from the article, at least move it to the character article and perhaps have some sort of a reference about it on the main Stephen Colbert article. This seems like a stupid thing to keep arguing about. Illinois2011 15:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already there, actually, and it's been handled quite well, so the section from here doesn't need to be moved over there. -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I just remind everyone that a) the talk page is here for a reason, and b) automated reverts (be it admin rollback, popups, undo or whatever) are for vandalism only and should never be used in content disputes? -- Vary | Talk 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I seriously feel like I'm talking to myself. David Shankbone: the show is satire. Therefore, we need a source that says the presidential bid isn't satire, not the other way around. This is exactly why we have two separate articles for the satirist and the character; to avoid confusion between fiction and reality. Right now, we only know that the character has announced his candidacy. We need an out-of-character statement from Colbert to draw the conclusion that the real person Stephen Colbert intends to get his name on a presidential primary ballot. -- Vary | Talk 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The show is satire that reports real news. We don't need to prove everything said or done on the show is a joke. Satire doesn't preclude that he doesn't plan to run for President in South Carolina. Satire doesn't mean "I might be making it up, I might not be." Satire isn't lying. He can very well run as Stephen Colbert the character using Stephen Colbert the real name. This would be an instance of blending the reality and fiction of what he does. Regardless; since both the character and the real person share the same name, he could use the real person's credentials and run in character. See the difference? The real question is...will he actually run? And the real question is...will he actually run? --David Shankbone 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that it was the character who announced his candidacy, and treating it as a serious announcement by the real Colbert in the real Colbert's article is inappropriate and irresponsible And he won't actually run; haven't you ever heard of equal time? I seriously doubt he'll get away with calling the show an exempt 'scheduled news broadcast.' Pretending to run for the presidential nomination is funny. Messing with the real presidential primaries is not, and he's too smart to make that mistake. So arguing that we have to assume it's true until he says it's not doesn't wash, I'm afraid. -- Vary | Talk 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't for you to decide whether he will run or not; that's conjecture on your part - your musing, which is inappropriate and irresponsible. Right now Stephen Colbert announced on his show and mused about it in a major newspaper column that he is going to attempt to run in South Carolina. You thinking it's all a big joke amounts to nothing. We are here for WP:V, not WP:Vary. The only way this can be accomplished is via Stephen Colbert, the real person's, SSN, citizenship, history, etc. It's appropriate and responsible; whether you think he is serious or not is beside the point. And if he actually does make the attempt, then we have you saying, "Oh, I was wrong." Which is why we rely on the person, and not on you. --David Shankbone 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reliable source citation needed.
  • No filing for committee at Federal Elections Commission
  • No filing for one of the "parties" "Favorite Son"
It's satire, and should be reported as such until each of the above is rectified. See also Pat Paulson
-- Yellowdesk 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This counts as WP:OR - we aren't here to determine whether he can do what he says he is going to attempt to do or not. We're here to report on what they say. Not whether they can achieve it. --David Shankbone 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And that counts as wikilawyering. I'm getting tired of saying this, but the fictional character declared his candidacy. Note that none of the major news sources seem to be taking it seriously, either, which makes citing the character's words as the real person's the OR problem. -- Vary | Talk 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Stephen Colbert the character doesn't have citizenship, or does he? How so? How would Stephen Colbert the character qualify under the Constitution as a candidate? Exactly.
As for news sources taking it seriously, here's a few:
There's more. You can use Google just as easily as I can. --David Shankbone 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I see a column (the post), a blog (usa today), and an article that was written before the announcement (editor and publisher). The last is irrelevant; the second is clearly tongue in cheek. The first one is less clear, but knowing the source, that was likely the intent. The most solid of those four sources, from the AP, supports my position ("Exactly how far the mock conservative pundit planned to stretch his impression of a presidential candidate wasn't clear.") And clearly, a fictional character can't run for president. That's kind of the point. -- Vary | Talk 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You are parsing things to support your own point of view. Colbert is not two people. The delineation of his character and himself is fine for Wikipedia purposes, but this is new territory; and it supports having it included on this page since Colbert would have to make any filings based upon who he is in real life. Regardless, there is enough evidence out there that makes your POV that this isn't serious irrelevant. --David Shankbone 18:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
'Parsing' things to support my own POV? I could say the same thing about you. You're insisting on taking this as a serious presidential bid when we have no reliable sources that are doing the same. This is not a pov isssue. It's a verifiability issue. We can not quote statements he made in character as coming from the real Colbert. No, he's not two people: he's a real person who plays a fictional character. The fact that the character has the same name as him does not make everything that the character says about himself true for the performer. -- Vary | Talk 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are over 400 articles on Google News taking the run seriously, although leaving it an open question. If he runs, he may act as the character, but he'll be "officially" running as the real Stephen Colbert. There's no way around that. Until such time as he states that he is not running, this belongs on this page; if he actually runs then it will be on Colbert's real page. If he doesn't, then it will can be moved to the character's page as a "joke" by his character. It's appropriate here, for now. I understand your argument, but at this moment it belongs here until it is more clear what he plans to do. --David Shankbone 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand me. I still don't think that such a long discussion of the 'candidacy' belongs here, but I'm resigned to it staying. My problem right now is with treating it as a serious bid for the presidency barring any statement from Colbert that it's not. Even if he does actually run, he's only planning to put his name on the primary ballots for one state. That is not a serious candidacy. We don't need an 'I'm only joking' from Colbert: that's implied by the fact that he made the announcement in character on his 'fake news' program. Colbert the character clearly expects to win. Colbert the actor is just playing around.
Given that the Colbert Report is a satirical 'fake news' program, it must be made clear that, whether he files papers or not, the 'candidacy' is, as of right now, a bit. And as for the '400+ articles' that are treating this as a serious candidacy: I haven't seen a single serious article that didn't qualify the report with a line like the one in the AP article ("Exactly how far the mock conservative pundit planned to stretch his impression of a presidential candidate wasn't clear.") We can't cherry-pick the reports of the announcement and leave out the fact that every major media outlet is treating this as a gag. -- Vary | Talk 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. That's OR. It's not up to us to decide what is a routine and what is not. We aren't here to judge what is a serious candidacy and whether it will go anywhere, period. We can certainly articulate that it is questionable whether the intention is serious or not, but we can't make a definitive statement, absent a definitive statement from the person we are reporting about. It's really that simple. And just because the MM alludes to it being a gag doesn't mean we have to take their word for it or not. In other words, we aren't here to assert opinions, we are here to report on what happens, and what other people say about it. --David Shankbone 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledging that all the sources we're using have pointed out that Colbert is a satirist and made the declaration in character is OR?. What about my most recent version of the section is OR? All I'm saying is that, given what we already know about Colbert and his character, and given the media coverage that has cited the fact, it's clearly relevant to the article to point out that the declaration was made in character on a satirical program. How is that OR? Ignoring that the sources we're using are treating this as a joke or a stunt is disingenuous. I'm not saying we should say 'this was clearly a joke,' but we do need to make it clear that the announcement was made in character. -- Vary | Talk 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Indecision Blog says that Colbert is running "for real". TravisHarder 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I love Colbert, but this is all a grand joke that he is playing on everyone. I compare this to the artistry of Andy Kaufman where the distinction between reality and fantasy are blurred beyond belief. If he officially files for candidacy then this would deserve inclusion into his article, but from all appearances this is through character and shouldn't be taken seriously at this time. As such I am removing the presidential bid from his article. Arzel 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


What's up with this but it's just a character that announced crap? There is a history of candidates running for office under outrageous platforms in character. And they actually are put on ballots. Why is it a problem whether it's the real Colbert or the character Colbert? If you look at *every* British general election, there are fringe parties that dress up in clown costumes and are on the actual physical ballot, and garner actual voter chosen votes.

This article should contain template Template:United States presidential election, 2008 and belong to category Category:United States presidential election, 2008, because regardless, it has generated genuine news and reactions from the actual race. 70.55.84.13 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No it should not, my humourless friend. He is satirizing the candidates and the election process, and will not appear on that template until he files with the Federal Elections Commission. He is saying all of his psuedo candidate words in the mode of free speech, not as a candidate, in the same manner Pat Paulson did. -- Yellowdesk 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Presidential campaign vs. equal time

Let's not forget that if Colbert indeed files papers, Comedy Central would have to pull his show in some, maybe all markets under the 'equal time' law/clause (I forget exactly, but I remember Schwarzenegger's movies were pulled from TV). I'm not sure if he would take that risk, or even be a breach of contract. Socby19 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cable networks aren't subject to § 315(a). Some follow it anyway, but it's not legally required. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So, technically, does anybody with broadcast rights (except NBC) have the ability to air Law & Order with Fred Thompson? (I'm asking, not trying to tell you otherwise). Socby19 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Cable typically abides by the Equal Time rules to avoid a legal case which could result in that rule being changed to cover cable as well. They act as if they were already restricted because they don't want to actually be restricted. -- Vary | Talk 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The law in question defines "broadcasting station" as "a community antenna television system". Cable networks do not fit in that definition. In fact, cable networks in general aren't subject to FCC's content regulations. They do self-regulate (presumably to avoid a law exerting more control on them), and most follow the intent of equal time even though they're not legally required to. (Edit conflict with Vary — exactly.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
TBS is aired Thompson week alittle while back so yes anyone (except NBC) Gang14 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It won't fly to be a candidate and stay on the show, and talk about being a candidate, as Colbert would run afoul of laws that prohibit corporate contribution to political efforts, and someone would file a complaint about the corporate publicity contributed without cost to the candidate and campaign. And here at wikipedia, the standard for the presidential navigation template, is substantially that the candidate must have filed with the FEC, and also be a significant candidate as well (which keeps the gnat candidates off of the list). You can bet he won't be on that template until he files with the FEC, excepting the typical drive-by IP edits. Template:United_States_presidential_election, 2008
See also Pat Paulson.
-- Yellowdesk 23:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the FEC rules even apply to primaries? I always thought they were more of a party run thing...Mwv2 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just think about it if they did not. Candidates are eligible for matching federal campaign money for primaries too. You can look it up. -- Yellowdesk 04:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Satirical" for Presidential run is pure WP:POV

Until a reliable source actually confirms this is not a serious run for either the South Carolina primary(ies) or a full run for president, we cannot have a title as opinionated as "Satirical". While it's not confirmed it's serious either (the removal of the election tag was proper), we just don't know at this point what this is. --Oakshade 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is truely the case then it should not be mentioned at all. This is not wikinews. Arzel 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to use Wikipedia

IF ANYONE CAN READ THIS: In the Stephen Colbert article, there is a misspelled (I think) headline: "Satiriical...2008" If someone could change that and then delete this post, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbcole (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:United States presidential election, 2008

Category:United States presidential election, 2008 should be added, as Colbert appears at United States presidential election, 2008, because he is affecting the election, in a notable, newsworthy, way, just as Al Gore does, and others. 132.205.99.122 18:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the annoucement was definite, and no hoax. Therefore, Category added. KyuuA4 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This is basically an elaborate bit on his show, so I'm not sure what it's doing in the first paragraph of the intro. Larry Dunn 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
His Character on CC may have announced his candidacy, but Colbert the person has not, so the catergory was removed. Arzel 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The category should appear, because AL GORE is a member of this category, and he IS NOT a candidate. The same reasoning, (having an effect on the election and through major media outlets) applies to Stephen Colbert. Further, Michael Moriarty is a member of this category. And as Michael Moriarty has only made a press release stating his run, it puts him in the same boat as Colbert. 132.205.99.122 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing Colbert the person, with Colbert the actor, which is what he is on TV. Furthermore, he is not effecting the national election, although it will be interesting to see if they include him on any presidential polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So Stephen Colbert (character) should be included in the category? (or should Michael Moriarty be removed instead?) 132.205.99.122 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This person/character dichotomy can lead to some confusion -- a character cannot run for office in the US -- and I am not stating an opinion on it either way. However, whichever it is, it seems obvious that it's purpose is no more than a glorified bit on his show, which does not need to be mentioned in the lede, so I'm taking it out (again). Larry Dunn 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Colbert's Political views

Since Colbert is running for president, I am wondering what his views are on various areas. What are his views on Gun control? Does he support the people trying to ban law abiding citizens from owning firearms? Same with things like taxes, illegal immigration, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this would be an interesting but ultimately futile experiment. Just which Steven Colbert are you going to use? The character "Steve Colbert" is anti-bear, pro-pretty much anything that Bush believes, mostly anti-liberal, and takes an extreme position on just about everything that he talks about. The person Steven Colbert is a Democrat, and from all reports pretty much opposite of what his character represents. So....regardless of what you put down as his political positions, they are most likely wrong to half the people that would read this....other than the anti-bear position. All of this stems from the absurd belief that he is actually running for president. It is a joke people. Arzel 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
He'd have a better chance than most of the crackpots. Even if it is a joke, he'd get more votes than most serious candidates, who are jokes of a different sort (ie. not a serious contender). I'm sure he's having a bigger impact that the candidates for most of the third parties. 132.205.99.122 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt that he would get any significant number of votes or that he will have any significant impact on the election in general. Arzel 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As a place to park protest votes, he'd be a good choice, as it'd be likely to get national news coverage on the number of people disaffected by the real choices. 132.205.99.122 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (character) for President

We don't seem to have a section on that article. As he made the announcement in character, info should be there too, specially placed 132.205.99.122 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's there. Colbert '08. Arzel 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I just added it. 132.205.99.122 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

boxes to add

{{future election candidate}}

Wikinews has related news:

Federal elections laws

The beginning of citations of the difficulties of continuing to use his cable television production company and show for campaign purposes: If Colbert actually files as a candidate for a primary election, he, via a political committee, would have to pay for all corporate broadcast production costs, otherwise he bumps up agains some corporate contribution prohibitions. -- Yellowdesk 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Curran, Nick (October 18, 2007). "Does 'Colbert '08' Break Federal Law?". Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2007-10-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

campaign article?

I just found this: Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008 132.205.99.122 20:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert was born in Charleston, SC

born and raised kids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.148.123 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just raised, not born. Check the reference. Stephen Colbert (character) may have been, but this is the real person's article. -- Vary | Talk 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Tyrone?

I never questioned this before, but now with all the vandalism, I'm wondering, is Stephen T. Colbert really Stephen Tyrone?? I have a feeling it's something geekier, like "Timothy." Anybody know for sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.252.208 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article is right. I know, it's weird. Illinois2011 02:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

trivia section

it should be noted that his name appears on the firefox credits list in Help -> About, maybe it is someone else with the exact name, but I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.98.60 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed that someone actually read the Firefox credits list. Illinois2011 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's quite interesting. However, wikipedia guidelines such as WP:TRIVIA says that trivia sections should be avoided. dposse 01:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this article be featured? Check, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes... I mean, this is probably a better article than that one. Okey, it it could be better but it's hard to make a really good article on a guy who's alive. I just want someone who's been through the FA process to take a look at this one and maybe put it up for a vote.

Maybe it gets on to the show and we could stop having the vandalism promotions on elephants. =) --84.217.206.150 22:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem will probably be stability, at least as long as Colbert runs his faux presidency campaign. Arzel 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Arzel, you don't know that it is a hoax. I really don't understand why you keep insisting on this before all the facts come out. Illinois2011 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you bring up Archimedes~ it isn't a featured article either. Please see WP:WIAFA for the criteria. Borisblue 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just that no one has yet gotten around to updating the article with a star. The FAC discussion itself has already been closed as "Promoted", and if you'd checked the FA list, you'd find out that it is already there. The entire FA-finishing process isn't completed instantaneously; different users and bots update different things over a period ranging from a few hours to a few days. Raul adds it to the FA log and lists it on the main FA page; GimmeBot updates the articlehistory and colours the closed debate a soothing blue; and some other user, working after all the others, adds the star. It's a complex process. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's featured as Geuiwogbil says and shows. I'm pretty surprised that there isn't a better article for one of the most influential persons during the classic age. I believe featured articles for such "high-profile" subjects should reach standards far above articles on e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Vrba if they're going to be considered FA. It should be so good that one would see the Britannica article as toilet paper in comparision. Compare this article about a baseball player, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Meusel and the Stephen Colbert article... This should be considered a featured article candidate if we get some stabilization when it comes to the constant editing(which, in a way, is necessary for living people).--84.217.152.245 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"presidential run for 2008"

Wouldn't that be under the wiki article "Stephen Colbert, the character" and not him himself... because it is somthing that his character is doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.205.124 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point it is unclear exactly who is running. Although I think it would be unlikely that if the name appears on the ballot, that could be taken as a character. We can't elect Donald Duck to be president. Illinois2011 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to Unlock the Page

This censorship is practically unbearable. --G G Plopper 03:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. And labeling even full protection "censorship" is inaccurate hyperbole. --ElKevbo 03:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This page was unlocked for mer hours before it was succesfully out back on. Jack The Pumpkin King 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Colbert/Archive_4&oldid=1085540386"