User talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy/The Colbert Report recurring elements

Promotion to longer write-ups?

Of the "others that have appeared a few times," do we agree that the following deserve actual write-ups in the article? :

"Stephen Colbert's Balls - For Kidz!"

"The Craziest F#?king Thing I've Ever Heard"

"Stephen's Sound Advice"

"Exclusive Fake Interviews"

"Stephen Makes it Simple"

"Road to World War III"

Some of those have appeared a LOT of times, and others have appeared at least on a regular basis. I'd definitely nominate "Craziest," "Sound Advice," and "Road to WWIII" at the very least. - Darkhawk

New York Times in recurring elements?

One of the recurring elements of the Colbert Report is that he constantly knocks down the New York Times. Maybe this can be added to the recurring elements portion.

Merge this page with The Colbert Report page?

Is there a reason to have this page seperate from the official The Colbert Report wikipedia page?

-- Mac OS X 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to organize info about the show that doesn't come up every episode, but is still useful in understanding the humor. Merging this with the other article would yield an article that is unweildly large. --waffle iron 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would at least assume that the list of segments should be put on the main page. --Mac OS X 05:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because there are too many segments. -Silence 14:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Didn't work out the first time around. Nobi 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things that can be removed

There are a number of things mentioned in this article that are redundant or incorrect that I think can be removed:

The quotes section should not contain the "truthy" intros, because they are covered in the episode guide.
A number of segments listed have not appeared and sound like they may have been initial ideas that were rejected. For example, "Stephen debates 21-year-old self" sounds like what is now "formidable opponent." There has also been no "kindergarten sobriety test" or "species that are screwing up America."
Some items are not running gags (yet). I doubt "what number is Stephen thinking of?" is coming back any time soon.

Any opinions? Frozenpork 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "What number?" is not a running gag, so it doesn't belong under running gags. Those segments that never aired don't belong either. 67.39.23.154 06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a number of times that links to Colbert related sites have been removed. Some of them I remember but can not find now. I would ask the community to be very cautious in deleting links. Although you may know your own tastes and preferences quite well, you can't all speak for all of us. Please introduce discussion in advance of deleting links in the future so you can at least get a second opinion before you steal information and content out from people like me. There have been several really great Colbert blogs that I think were listed here and other sites too. Please be considerate.

Merge Stephen Colbert's Hiphopketball a Jazzebration?

See Talk:Stephen Colbert's Hiphopketball a Jazzebration. - Reaverdrop 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert's Hiphopketball a Jazzebration. Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Another Day?

There was a recurring segment that (used to) run at the end of some of the episodes which I believed was called "Tomorrow's Another Day". It was a parody of the many American morning shows and the somewhat vacuous subjects that they would cover. I was wondering if someone who remembers the segment could add it under one of the sections... though, it seems that they've since dropped it. Firehawk12 13:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually called "Yet Another Day" - Frozenpork 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellania

I don't think "miscellania" is really a good way to narrow a topic for an article. Any other ideas? Tuf-Kat 07:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "The Colbert Report recurring features"? - Reaverdrop 08:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "gags" instead of features? Things like Scorn and the Tek Jansen book aren't really "features", I think. Tuf-Kat 16:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Colbert Report recurring elements? "Gags" wouldn't encompass the "recurring segments", and we'd keep a similar level of vagueness without being quite so meaningless as "miscellania". On the other hand, we could try an article split, like having two articles: The Colbert Report recurring segments and The Colbert Report running gags. The current article's getting a bit long, and this would give us more room to give details on the segments of The Colbert Report, and to add the inevitably large amount of information that will be put here in the future. -Silence 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Recurring elements" would be fine. Splitting as you describe would be a bad idea, I think -- "running gags" vs "recurring segments" is kind of a pedantic distinction. Tuf-Kat 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine by me. -Silence 21:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page this is redirecting from, "The Colbert Report miscellania" is erroneously named since it should be "miscellanea". I don't know squat about how to fix that though.

On Notice / Dead to Me list

I remember looking at the list not even a couple of days ago and notice that the crossed out names had been removed. I believe that it should return to that way so that way we could see who was once on the 'On Notice' or 'Dead to Me' lists in the past.

They're already discussed right below the list. Including them in a crossed-out list might mislead readers into thinking that the actual "Dead To Me" list has a bunch of crossed-out entries for things that used to be on the list, when in fact they're simply removed. -Silence 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "On Notice" and "Dead to Me" lists need to be seperated, and each have 4 or so columns. For example, the "On Notice" chart would have an "On Notice" column, a "Currently on Notice" column (with something to indicate it's still active), a "Date Added" Column and a "Date Removed" column. Same for the "Dead to Me" That way it'll be easy to see what's been on the list, when it was on the list, when it was removed, and what is currently still on the list. This list will get very large, and discussing each item, move, and former item, could become very confusing. With both dates it will be easy to see what replaced what and when.

I thought about this more, maybe something like this (and possibly all active and not active entries should stay grouped for a cleaner look):

"On Notice"	Active	Date Added	Date Removed	Replaced By
E Street Band	No	Since inception	January 9, 2006	Michael Adams
Grizzly bears	Yes	Since inception
Black hole at the center of the galaxy	Yes	November 8, 2005
Michael Adams	Yes	January 9, 2006

I think it should be something like this, or a seperate "Formerly On Notice" and "Formerly Dead To Me" lists. Let me know what you all think. - Darin

I just added Stephen's brother Ed. On the Feb. 22 episode, Stephen quickly and glibly said, "Ed, you're on notice.", after Colbert learned that he could not show footage of the press conferences of two Olympics Men's Skaters despite the fact that this "brother Ed" represents the USOC. I don't know if he is real or if his name will eventually be placed on the board.Swatson1978 23:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Leave it up there until the next time he brings out the boards to see whether it's really on there - Frozenpork 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ed was not on the 'On Notice' board, after all. Should we remove it? Swatson1978 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is (possibly) incomplete and I unorganized. The names appear to be randomly sorted.Dav2008 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the lists to reflect the current colbertnation.com lists/ordering. I didn't have an exact date for Israeli Newspapers, so I just called it Unknown. If anyone knows, please help me out. Also, the listing for California's 50th gives the date it was downgraded from Never Existed To Me. Maybe we should have a way to list both the original addition and the downgrade date. Agent Conundrum 04:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made two boards for the current items. I was working of the Mort Zuckerman episode (July 12, 2006) for the most current list. Any idea when "Israeli Newspapers" was added. The table slightly blocked the list, so my list may be inaccurate. I am thinking that separate list/table as a standalone article would be appropriate to include all of the items formally placed or which have appeared on the lists. Any thoughts? --Assawyer 06:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jon Stewart have been added to the board? I'll agree that the paragraph on the incident is warranted, but on colbertnation.com and The Colbert Report, he hasn't been officially added. Agent Conundrum 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he was only mentioned as being "On Notice," then the answer would be he should be removed. However, if he was actually placed on the board then his name should remain. I have not seen the episode in full, so until then I will rely on others. However, it sounds like he was merely told he was "on notice" which is quite different than being formally placed "On Notice." --Assawyer 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assawyer, you have missed one of the most dramatic and beautiful moments in television history. Ok, maybe not, but it was still great. Their current ongoing feud is quite hilarious.

Confusing Statement

In the Quotations section it says: " "A typical East-coast, Ivy League-educated response." (Stated when Colbert was talking to Conan O'Brien right after he was shot.)" What does it mean by saying that Conan O'Brien was shot? I can't find any reference to O'Brien being shot with a firearm. Is this an awkward and amiguous reference to some camera shot?

No, it's a reference to a brief, staged joke-interview between O'Brien and Colbert where Colbert so frustrated O'Brien with his responses that O'Brien took out a firearm and shot Colbert in the chest (at which time Colbert, rapidly losing blood, resumed his rant, condemning O'Brien's attempt to murder him with the quotation mentioned above). I do agree that it's incredibly (almost ridiculously) poorly-worded and obscure, to the extent that would only be useful to the people who don't need it: those who have already seen the clip. -Silence 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified! Maybe a screenshot might help?

For anyone interested (currently) there's a (QuickTime) clip of the skit at http://www.devilducky.com/media/41013/ (approximately halfway through). Al001 11:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLT

should BLTs be added to the list? He's mentioned it about 5 times.

Changes to running gags

Here's a suggestion for running gags: Because the list keeps getting longer, it might be easier to divide them up into categories like recurring characters (Bobby, Charlene, Lieber, etc.), recurring themes (balls, hatred towards bears, love of BLT's, etc.), and recurring opinions (wiretapping, war on Christmas, Oregon, etc.). Any opinions? - Frozenpork 18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filliam H. Muffman

I laughed so hard, I nearly cracked a rib when I heard this portmanteau. However, this hardly warrants its own page on Wikipedia. Merge it! Swatson1978 02:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge it. I'm confused about which one is which.--Macrowiz 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC) lol! "subliminazi cropaganda"--Macrowiz 04:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Nobi 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the original routine using this name had me laughing so hard I thought I was going to die. This routine will go down as classic, for sure. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal/Moving of Quotations

I guess the quotes were fitting when the article was called The Colbert Report miscellania, but now that it's called recurring elements, these have been removed. Wikiquote already has a quotelist for wikiquote:The Colbert Report, so I merged non-duplicate quotes there. Nobi 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert, not Stephen

I'd just like to remind editors that when we refer to the host of this show, we should (almost) always use his last name, Colbert, not his first name. The only exceptions would be segment titles or other cases where the use of his first name is significant. In the course of normal text, though, please use Colbert. - dcljr (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring gags addition?

Should tube socks be added to the recurring gags? Stephen mentions them repeatedly. --Poochy 05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alan, Stephen's "black friend", should be added. Everytime Stephen wants to show his affinity for black people, he says, "Jim, put up that picture of me and Alan!" And a picture appears of a smiling Stephen next to a grim-faced black man. -- Jessica

Think Oregon should be Hawaii's Portugal-not Idaho's, Idaho is east of Oregon, and Oregon is east of Hawaii-- and of course, Portugal is east of the US. rlg

Stephen has repeatedly used a picture of Tucker Carlson looking particularly stupid. But I can't find a source for this picture, except on some random blog: http://leena.thejaffers.com/image/tc2.jpg

I'd like to find the source and confirm it's Carlson before adding it.

Altough I can only remember Stephen using it once (sometime during week 13), it definately is Tucker Carlson. I found another picture (larger this time) on the cbs news site: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/entertainment/main575637_popup0_1.shtml. Maybe it would help if you give the days on which he used it. Stefan Jansen 22:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately I don't see anything in the fair use provisions that would let us use an AP photo. The first appearance was on 10/20/05 in The Word. It was also used in one of last week's episodes. --Pkdawson 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another: 12/01/05, also during The Word. --128.205.218.25 12:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the one from last week was on 03/29/06, during The Word as well. Stefan Jansen 12:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout adding Stephens flag: Flagworth?

Better Know a District

When did he do DC? It isn't on the episode list. -arctic gnome 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He never did D.C. I double checked on the Comedy Central website. [1] Coyote42 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did D.C. on Thursday, July 27th. (one of the most hilarious interviews ever!!!!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.16.79.126 (talk • contribs) .

Better Know a Founder

It looks like this was a one-time parody of the "Better Know a District" segment. Someone should merge information about this incident into the "Better Know a District" section, as it doesn't seem to warrant its own.--Josh 03:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged...I'm not too happy with my writing, however, so if someone could clean it up a bit, that'd be great. --Marco Passarani 23:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section split proposed

This is only going to get longer and longer. Better Know a District redirects to the main article, and it should redirect to a new split off article instead. —Markles 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite long—or noteworthy—enough yet. Keep an eye on it for now, and see if it continues to expand with noteworthy information (not with lists of trivia and arbitrary selections). Although I agree with you that we should be open to the possibility of creating daughter articles in the future, we should be very careful in what pages we choose to make; otherwise I worry that it will just be deleted again eventually. Even relatively noteworthy and significant TV-show bits like This Week in God have come under repeated fire for being a "mere recurring sketch", so I recommend crafting a solid, well-referenced, clearly noteworthy and expansive section on this page before we attempt a split. -Silence 12:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't prove anything of itself, but the Washington Post just ran a four-page sampler of transcripts from Better Know A District [2] - Reaverdrop 07:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting pretty long - it probably will need to be split eventually. Mr_Beale.

Indeed, that's why I went ahead and split it. Cburnett 04:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got the title wrong: it's Better Know A District. See: http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bkad6li.png (small caps, uppercase 'A'). 'Better Know a District' follows neither existing naming conventions nor is it accurate. Please allow more time for discussion before you decide to act next time. Al001 13:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that Game Show He Uses

A running gag that's not mentioned here is that Asian game show where all the girls have meat on their forheads and a lizard comes toward them and they scream. If someone knows anything about what that game show is, I think it should be added here. Mr_Beale

I agree that it should be added. The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/w/Morning-Musume---Lizard-Contest?v=SfNAZ51s_EU&search=morning%20musume

Fox news = Fucks news?

Is it just me, or does every time he say Fox news, he says it real fast to sound like Fucks news? I makes sense since its a fairly right wing news channel, which Colbert mocks all the time.

No, that's stupid and doesn't even make sense. -209.174.140.100 03:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Steven Colbert is too much of a professional. Peter Grey 03:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Fox's adverts still do this (as I haven't watched their network in years), but many of their advertisements throughout the 80s & 90s would always pronounce "FOXNEWS" very swiftly in this manner -- as if it was one word. At the time, I'd imagine this was done to bolster name recognition & a create an audible "brand" for the somewhat fledgling network.

In any case, Colbert is simply mocking them by continuing to pronounce "FOXNEWS" as they did in these early ads. killer ninjas 19:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Komodo Dragon?

So I know this is probably kind of silly, but in this part

Japanese TV segment: Often times, during a segment focusing on Japan, Colbert highlights the art and culture of Japan by playing a video clip from Japanese television, of a group of young women - actually the J-pop group Morning Musume - peeking through small round holes into a tank, into which a Komodo dragon is released. The video clip itself is available on iFilm: [2] and is an example of the often bizarre eccentricities of modern Japanese television and culture, at least to foreign viewers.

it says that the lizard is a Komodo Dragon, but I think it might actually be it's smaller relative, the Nile monitor. (Yah, I'm a nerd.)--DCAnderson 03:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Bear?

Under this section, it says

"There may or may not be a connection to Colbert's belief that bears are a threat to the country."

It seems kind of clear to me that there is. Anyone disagree/agree? Should this be removed, and replaced with something like "Remember, Colbert is afraid of bears"? Retinarow 20:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!

Once again Wikipedia amazes with awesomely relevant, incredibly detailed articles such as this one about topics that other encyclopedias are afraid to touch! It's about time that serious reference works provide information about such critical topics, with 4 articles on Stephen Colbert! I say, to hell with Britannica with its "facts" about the "real world"! ---Qwertyuiop1 05:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty lengthy and detailed article. Does it qualify to become a good article or a featured article? --Cumbiagermen 09:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's really nice to have someone go completley ballistic over a freaking article. If you would like, Qwerty, find some scholarly work to devote a mass of articles to. I'm sorry that pop culture seems to get you into fits. The thing about Wikipedia is that it encompasses everything, and to be honest, there are plenty of encyclopedias that deal in pop culture exclusively. Coyote42 10:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"-stapo" and "-anistas"

I think this article should make reference to his frequent use of words that are a portmanteau of a group of people he dislikes and the Gestapo (and occasionally, the Sandanistas). For example, I remember he once used the word "femstapo". I'm not a good writer, so I don't know if I personally could do that, but I think it should definitely be mentioned here somehow.

That, like much of the show, is a direct parody of conservative cable news personalities who say things like Feminazis. Probably not worth pointing out specific words.--72.73.25.176 00:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert's Obsession with House

Colbert has mentioned House at least 3 times, possibly more. Should House be added to the reccurring characters or themes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.229.94 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 May 2006

Not for now; they've only been mentioned briefly a few times. But if he continues, sure. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copy of "The Wørd" in german fake news program "Freitag Nacht News"

I dunno if it is of any significance especially towards american viewers, but a german fake news program called "Freitag Nacht News", that focuses more on cheap humor than witty satire, blatantly copied the "The Wørd"-segment naming it "My Opinion". It's using the exact same layout with just small differences, e.g just europe being displayed at the bottom instead of the whole globe panning from right to left, and the "Colbert Report" graphic in the background being replaced with the initials of the show's host HG (for Henry Gründler). The segment is done exactly like Colbert's with the difference of not really being as funny as the original.

Here's a link... www.rtl.de/comedy/fnn/freitagnachtnews.php -- Zanimum 15:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert the character

I propose that we split the fictional biography from the page into Stephen Colbert (character) or similar title. Obviously the character is the more well known face of Colbert. I don't think it is fair to penalize him because the character and the comedian share the same name. --waffle iron ^talk 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you bring this up. Yesterday when Colbert was accepting his honorary doctorate from Knox College he talked about being a character and a real person. He then proceeded to speak both as the character and then as the real Stephen Colbert. I'm not sure that two separate articles is the best way to handle this, though, as the bulk of Colbert's career is the character. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting it into two separate articles would be potentially confusing, and would constantly run the risk of either duplicating information or displaying conflicting information btw the articles. I'm not sure if splitting the information is necessarily a good idea. . . but if it's gonna be done, having separate topics beneath a single article would be less trouble and have more clarity.

-killer ninjas 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most interesting thing that could be done with this (regardless of whether we create a page for the character or not) is a list of noteworthy and interesting differences between the person Stephen Colbert and the character. This would help us clarify what, exactly, a page about the character would entail (that wouldn't be redundant with a page about the person), and would also be very interesting in general, and would probably unearth important details about Colbert himself and make more clear which aspects of his life are fictionalized for his show. -Silence 12:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Gravitas-Off to the recurring themes?

Should the Gravitas-Off with Stone Phillips be concidered a recurring theme? Colbert's only done it twice, but Stone Phillips has only be interviewed twice, and Colbert said, "I'll get you next time." Also, this is my first thing I've written on Wikipedia so I apologise if I haven't done something right. J Arn

Explanation of the "Ø" in WØRD?

Has there been any reason given for the Norwegian/Danish Ø character used in The Word? Is it an international no symbol? Or is it a mathemetic empty set? Navstar 06:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple - its pronounciation is nearly or exactly like the american pronounciation of "o" in "word" - he could have used the german "ö" which shares the same likelyness in its pronounciation. So I guess it's just an intelligent joke so the dash can be used for the dashing noise applied to the visual effect.

I think it is used because of the similarity to the "NO" symbol of a circle bifurcated by a line.--72.73.25.176 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Nitpick

"...Harmin toilet paper (a parody of the Charmin brand)"

I'm not sure if `a parody` is accurate, because I remember noticing that it was actually Charmin, with the `C` marked out in blue ink. Colbert also said `no free rides` or something to the same effect that implied to me that the company had gifted the package in hopes of a plug. --Phaedrus420 05:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho's Portugal

All I wanna say is, damn that was fast. An edit corresponding to Colbert's fake one was online within thirty seconds. ~ CZeke 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we erase what he said about Oregon being like Canada or Mexico like he asked on the show?--Veemonkamiya 03:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so -- Colbert's interest in Wikipedia is likely to be a one-episode deal. No reason to play along when he's probably done playing. (I've merged my comment section with yours, as they had the same title and subject.) ~ CZeke 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that shoudl happen. Maybe if this was uncyclopedia...

Check out the time of this edit. I don't know when they tape the show, but that's before it aired. --Kapow 03:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It would be somewhat amusing if I reverted Colbert's edit. I just assumed that User:Stephencolbert was a vandal. --ElKevbo 04:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the article should include that a user named User:Stephencolbert edited the article to say "Oregon is Idaho's Portugal" withing a short amount of time of that episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.150.102 (talk • contribs) 23:33, July 31, 2006

Not really. We've no verifiable evidence that it was a significant or noteable event. It sure looks suspicious (if that's the right word) but right now there is no conclusive evidence that User:Stephencolbert is Colbert or a member of his staff. Opinions and further discussion? --ElKevbo 04:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious innit? those two edits were made exactly four hours before the show even aired... 71.253.142.109 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like pretty good circumstantial evidence that someone in the know made the edits. But there is no evidence that it's Colbert. It could be anyone on their staff, one of their family members, an audience member (when do they tape?), etc. --ElKevbo 05:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most nighttime talk shows are taped in the early afternoon. -Matt 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Word has been on since the show began, but the article called out several Wiki-specific references. This is navel-gazing and does not belong in the article. Just because a celebrity mentions the project does not make it notable. JDoorj a m Talk 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's the guy that the article's about. Shouldn't he have some say on what we put on the article about him?--Veemonkamiya 09:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention the edit itself in the article? That seems to be notable. There have been some media accounts of it elsewhere. [3] Attic Owl 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best part, obviously? I was the one who added "Oregon" to the list of recurring elements in the first place...ha. - Kudzu1 17:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very amused at how wishy-washy the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is about what we're supposed to do in this situation. I'm tempted to edit the page to add, "If the living person is a comedian and they criticize Wikipedia on television, they're probably just doing it to get a laugh and their request shouldn't be acted upon."--M @r ē ino 06:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business casual misspelled

The last edit before the page was protected was to insert "Business casual" into the "On Notice", "Dead to Me" and "Never Existed to Me" subsection. If this is going to be protected for a lengthy period of time, can a sysop or admin correct this misspelling? Thanks! --ElKevbo 04:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Done it myself now that it's only semi-protected. --ElKevbo 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balls for Kidz

Should we include a section about Colbert's segment ~~"Balls for Kidz,"~~ "Stephen Colbert's Balls - For Kidz," and if so, where should in the article should the section be included? Thanks --Wscc05 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert's edit

Is this his edit : 23:35, 31 July 2006 Stephencolbert (Talk | contribs) (→Recurring topics)

That was featured on the show? 71.29.200.39

Wikipedia as a Recurring Element

I'm not suggesting we do this right now, but I do have a question. How many times does an element have to recur before it can be considered a "recurring element" on this page? I ask because of the reference to Wikipedia again last night (8/2/06) and the fact that he again made an outrageous claim which was based on what he claimed to have read in Wikipedia. (And on the "latchkey kids" page, much like this page, there was a mysterious edit hours before the show even aired.) It looks like this could become a running gag on the show. However, I am well aware of the chaos that can happen when editors jump the gun on this kind of thing, especially in regards to Colbert and "The Colbert Report". I am simply curious as to what the general consensus was about the criteria for adding this bit. Nofactzone 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At some point this may indeed be a recurring element, judging from the way things are going. I would think it would have to be the subject of multiple scripted segments on the show to qualify -- the latchkey thing last night apparently came up when his guest mentioned it, which would seem to fall short of being an "element" of the show. However, it might not be too early to amend the Stephen Colbert (character) article to include the fact that the fictional Colbert seems to distrust certain traditional print sources (the New York Times, Britannica, books in general) but "loves" Wikipedia because of his interpretation of the anyone-can-edit mentality. That might be fair -- I'm not sure. -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "guest" could have been an undercover Colbert staff member and the whole segment could have been staged. Otherwise, why would Colbert have taken 3 minutes out of his show to talk to someone in the audience? Charles Schaefer 05:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to his interview with feminist author Linda Hirshman; she was the one who brought up "latchkey kids" and Wikipedia. Has there been another reference to us since then? -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 10:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I count three times the show has explicitly mentioned Wikipedia: the two this past week, and then during another "Word" when he said he read Freud's biography on Wikipedia. I think it may be time to consider listing Wikipedia as a recurring element. JDoorj a m Talk 20:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if three time makes a "recurring element," and I'm always hesitant to mention Wikipedia anywhere outside the Jimbo Wales and Siegenthaler articles, but there's a case to be made here. It's even discussed in outside sources [4], which is more than can be said for a lot of this article. -- SCZenz 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What the heck is up with this resistance to listing his gripes against Wikipedia? Truthiness gets a huge article and it was mentioned little more on the show than Wikipedia. Wikiality hasn't generated *as* big of a buzz as truthiness, but it certainly has generated a sizable buzz *outside* of Wikipedia. Yet people here are afraid to even mention it at all. Just list it already! -- Rei 23:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"this resistance to listing his gripes against Wikipedia" <-- can you explain what gripes against Wikipedia you are talking about? --JWSchmidt 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Wikiality" thing -- that anyone can create truth if they list it on wikipedia and enough people believe it. Google "Wikiality" (which got no hits when he first mentioned it) and you'll get an idea of the scale of this thing. It's been mentioned on multiple Colbert Report episodes. -- Rei 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Colbert is a comedian, Rei. It's humor, not a campaign against Wikipedia. The question is, do we really list everything that Colbert does in The Word? This one seems pretty minor, and it's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't about Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 04:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that some observers have said things such as, "It was Colbert's jibe at the online encyclopedia". However, Colbert was making a point about how the Bush administration created the "reality" of WMD in Iraq in order to start a war. Colbert just happened to use Wikipedia as a pop-culture analogy that his audience understands. --JWSchmidt 04:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War III Eternal Flame

Should we add it? It is an eternal flame, so it should be a recurring segment.

Huh? Has it appeared on more than one episode?–RHolton ≡– 10:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as an element of his Special Report "War: What It's Good For", aired on 8/3. I imagine if he mentions it often it should be added into a Recurring Element. Also, since that episode didn't have a whole lot of memorable moments, the description section of the Special Report seems like a good a place as any to mention the Eternal Flame. Plus the Ambassador to Palau was already mentioned in the episode summary, so I figured putting the flame in the Special Report summary would be acceptable. Nofactzone 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made a slight modification to the original entry for this as I realized after my original posting that the description section was more of a Transition to desk section. But his transition was a simple walk over there number like he does most nights, so I tweaked it a little. Nofactzone 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of On Notice/Dead to Me?

While I preferred the previous style of displaying the "on notice" and "dead to me" boards that has been used for the past year, I strenously object to the deletion of the "On Notice"/"Dead to Me" section entirely. The section has been in the article for many months, and any objections related to the very relevant editing by User:Assawyer should be dealt with without deletion of the entire section. Calwatch 08:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formidable Opponent

The text states:

"Formidable Opponent" is a segment that features Colbert debating himself using a digitally created mirror image and chroma key technology to change the color of his tie.

I doubt this is how the effect is achived. One would think that they merely intersperse a pre-recorded Colbert with the "live" Colbert. Anyone have any info to support the articles assertation?--72.73.25.176 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any formal documentation about how this process happens, but I do know that I have read an account from a person who attended the show who say this about how this recurring segment occurs: "During the first commercial break Stephen changed from a red tie to a light blue tie and he walked over to the green screen. ... They then did the Formidable Opponent segment in front of the green screen. Stephen's new tie changed colors with the different backgrounds. They also mirrored his image between the backgrounds. That's how that worked." (http://community.livejournal.com/colbert_report/363906.html#cutid1) Now, I know that a blog entry does not count for documentation, but there is no reason why this person would have been making this up. Also, if you watch the sketch very closely, you can see the mirroring and see that his face has an identical expression between the end of one view and the beginning of another. Nofactzone 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watch his hands, too. The end of one hand flourish blends into the start of the next. The image is merely flipped.--Ryan! 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a huge discussion about this in the 1st archive of the Colbert Report Talk Page. I believe the concensus was that it was a flipped green screen. We already know there's one in the stuido.J Arn 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the hands flipped things. In some from earlier this year, he started to laugh, and you could see both versions of him trying to hold it in. If someone were to record the segment and themselves edit and flip one of the two Colberts throughout the segment, you'd see Colbert was doing one long continuous take, and that the colour just changed. -- Viewdrix 17:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge on Stephen Colbert’s Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure to this article

Right now, Wikipedia a short stub for Stephen Colbert’s Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure which seems as though it would be better merged here. In fact, most of it already is here. There's not a whole lot of verifiable information about Tek Jansen speficially, certainly not enough to fill out a whole article, and the Tek Jansen book is a recurring element of the Colbert Report, so this seems like the right place for it. -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. –RHolton ≡– 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. In fact you could probably just make it a redirect and be done with it. --waffle iron ^talk 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I integrated the announcement about the comic book version that's going to be published by [[Oni Press]. When you redirect, please change all the other redirects by using Special:Whatlinkshere/Stephen Colbert’s Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure. --waffle iron ^talk 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible idea. The graphic novel will be released as its own series and novel as well is going to be released (and already has an extensive amount online across various sites). Tek Jansen should have had its own page months ago but didn't, and its always redirected to pages where any mention of Tek Jansen was perpetually deleted. If it can't remain alive on other Colbert pages, at least let it have its own page. It's an extensive body of work at this point spanning a half-dozen companies and the culmination of easily 20 writers. What, are we concerned that Wikipedia is getting too broad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.162.88 (talk • contribs) 08:53, August 8, 2006

If you can provide evidence from a Reliable Source that the novel is going to be released --or than anything other than the few passages read on the show have even been written -- that would make a big difference. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and right now, everything in the Tek Jansen article is already here anyway. If you want to add an article on the comic book -- preferrably once it's been released -- that seems fair, but the comic has a separate title, so it would need to moved. -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should have its own page. As was stated, the website has a number of chapters written, and the fact that it is going to be published as a comic book series (I can't verify whether the novel will be released) adds to it being established as something that deserves its own page. So I say don't merge it. --Twilightsojourn 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is clearly not worthy of an article now; whether it will be in the future or not is a matter of unencyclopedic speculation, and should not be guessed at until that happens. Restore redirect until there's enough noteworthy information that a distinct article would be more than just a stub (or a trivia-dump). Also, see Talk:Stephen_Colbert#Tek_Jansen and remember that Wikipedia information must be based on reputable second-hand sources. -Silence 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that it is going to be published as a graphic novel (at the least), and that this has been verified, shows that this is not a "crystal ball" page. I mean, we're entering a grey area with the creation of the page, but I don't think it's as "clearly not worthy of an article" as you put it. After all, there is going to be something published, in addition to all of the material that is already available online. --Twilightsojourn 04:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... All of which can easily be mentioned on Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report and Recurring elements, without us needing to make a tiny, redundant stub to shunt readers off to and waste their time with such minimal info. Although I'll certainly agree that there's a much stronger case to be made for a separate article now than there was before the news of the new comic (though, as mentioned above, that comic series has a very different name from "Alpha Squad 7"; we need to clarify what the page is to be about before we can even start working on it), when we already have so many parent articles it's not necessary to start a whole new article immediately; just use a subsection of this article for all Tek Jansen information, and only create a daughter article when there's so much noteworthy information overall for it to be necessary. The Mergist/Daughter Article philosophy is a good one: it is more convenient for our readers to have information unified when there isn't too much of it and when the topics are clearly extremely closely-linked, and it is more convenient to have the information divided on separate pages when the noteworthy information is extremely disparate or when there's a lot of it. With that in mind, I'm not saying a split is a bad idea in the long run: merely that it's premature here, where it will likely just cultivate redundancies, inconsistencies, speculation, and trivia by being segregated from the rest of the "Colbert Report recurring elements" before it's a full-fledged article and before we have any verified information about the actual comic series. -Silence 07:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I guess. I think one of the things that is giving me pause is the fact that this article is so long already, and with that in mind, perhaps this should get its own page, as it seems that it is starting to really establish itself. But you make some good points, and maybe we should wait a little longer to decide whether or not it should get its own page -- and if we do, how it will be organized. --Twilightsojourn 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At the very least, we should wait until we've decided on what name to use. Tek Jansen, the overall fictional "franchise"? Stephen Colbert's Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure, the original fictional work the comic is based on? Tek Jansen & Alpha Squad 7, the actual comic that prompted much of the rationale for creating the new article? We should decide on what the article will really be about before we go about rushing to make it. -Silence 09:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just silly, it's a bad idea. I've had a half-dozen discussions on the matter lost because of page moves and changes, but Tek Jansen needs its own page. There's a book, a forthcoming Graphic Novel, it's been on the show a good half-dozen times and there are literally thousands of fans (check www.tekjansen.com forums with search for "Tek", www.oscla.com and www.tekjansen for citation.) Poor decision, very frustrating. GBH 1:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a slight clarification to information in the above discussion. There is no OSCLA.com site, although the domain is currently registered. There is an OSCLA fan forum at oscla.phpbbnow.com. However, I'm not sure why you used that site as citation except to show the amount of Stephen Colbert fans in an online forum. Obviously Stephen Colbert has fans as the Neilson ratings for his show will attest to, that fact is not in dispute, but the membership levels of online forums does not have a direct correlation with Tek Jansen or TekJansen.com. The only references to anything about Tek Jansen in the OSCLA forum are references to the sketches on the show, not to the writings on TekJansen.com. There are no affiliations, either formal or informal, with OSCLA and TekJansen.com. - Nofactzone 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been investigating the novel at the tekjansen.com site, with a view to confirming (for my own mind at least) as to whether the "novel" that is carried in the private members forums (and for which a fee is charged to access) is indeed the same "novel" purportedly written by Stephen Colbert. My concern is that subscribers may be subscribing to an elaborate piece of fan fiction, based on the two sample chapters published on pages held at the Colbert Nation site. Since this is the internet, it is fair to say that nothing can be taken at face value. Tekjansen.com have repeatedly requested inclusion on the Recurring Elements pages, and from what I hear have occasionally succeeded only to have their edit reverted. I am aware there is a whole discussion of this elsewhere so I won't go into it again. My conclusions currently are that if the site is legit and the novel is indeed Stephen Colbert's then Tekjansen.com need to make it crystal clear that it is Stephen's. Their site could then be reclassified as the official Tek Jansen - The Novel site; if however, Tekjansen.com continue to imply that it is Stephen Colbert's but cannot, or will not, provide proof in the form of an endorsement or an acknowledgement from the author, then their site is just another fan site and the rules on linking ordinary fan sites would apply. On a related point, I believe some reference to the Colbert Nation message board needs to be made: this is the body virtual of the Colbert Nation and it is very powerful -- when Stephen says Colbert Nation go to this site and post about whatever, then a whole army of members then go and do this. Heinz.com got colberized tonight (and yes that is my word, along with colberism... see The Urban Dictionary).Kerojack, Argenta 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of some time this week there's a new front page on TekJansen.com that has live video ads for Comedy Central. Like exclusive ads I never seen anywhere else so I don't know how distant they can be from project if this is the case. How close does the connection need to be? Comedy Central hasn't confirmed the Oni Press comic book, but that's taken as fact even though there hasn't been so much as an ad or drawing of the work. I think it's a silly argument and I understand reservations, but the fact that Tek_Jansen links on WP create a circular series or redirects never landing anywhere with relevant info means we need to get real about this link or find some other way and place to list it. It's a big site with what sure seems like a lot-a-lot of work. I still think this legacy of exclusion has more to do with the Wikiality disaster than any basis in fact. What did Comedy Central say when they were contactd? I've heard all about moderation and mediation but never heard anything about it after that. We should really resore the link. GBH 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Called Out Board

I really think this is a one-off, and should be removed. Instead there should be a new section entitled the internets which is a regular segment, usually on Mondays, where Stephen makes some specific reference to the worldwide web and mentions a site or two, said sites promptly collapsing when the Colbert Nation colberize the site. He mentions the internet at least once a week, usually Monday, and also on other days. Considering the colbertnation.com site got hacked this afternoon, it is conceivable that it would be reported upon in the show tonight.Kerojack, Argenta 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When have internet-related topics come up, other than the Wikipedia incident? That seems like a much more tenuous proposal for a "recurring segment"...you might as well have "President Bush" or "Politics" as recurring segments. As for the Called Out Board remaining, (a) we have no way of knowing if it'll be a one-off, (b) I'm including it as part of the larger reucurring element of the Boards, in general, which deserve to be fleshed-out with all permutations of the Boards, and most importantly, (c) we already include a number of elements that have only appeared once, such as "Better Know a President" and "Meet an Ally". abraham 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect the internet is a popular segment that involves Stephen getting his laptop out and he has doen this twice in the last two weeks in addition to mentioning the bridge, the heinz site, the saginaw site, etc. I really think the calling out board was aone off, and the internet items are going to appear at least weekly, or regularly enough for them to be considered a recurring segment, probably more often than formidable opponent of stephen's good advice. Kerojack, Argenta 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is more on the internet idea than on the Called Out board, given that the latter has actually been given a title on the show, and is part of an existing recurring element (the boards), while the former is, at best, a pair of events that are loosely connected by the fact that they involve Stephen's laptop and him talking about internet-related topics. So far, we have no sections on this page devoted to untitled motifs on the show, and it could be a weird precedent to set. I would advise you to wait it out and see if the laptop segment happens a couple more times, and then you could get away with making a section devoted to Stephen's laptop and its uses...that's more concrete than "Stephen talking about the internet," and would include the same information that you have been referencing. Cool? abraham 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad

Just for my personal interest, could we collect all the misprounciations of Ahmadinejad's name here? So far, I have

Amala OllyOllyoxenfreeninijadeeahd
Ahmadnenejimichaelmoorijad
Ahmedininizsazsagabor-ijad
Mahmoud AhmedininddiP.Diddyjad
Ahmedinejed Clampet-e-jad
Ahbinnininijad

Gwynplaine 04:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction???

Notice that on the section describing the Big Brass Balls, they are described as "golden". Isn't "brassy" just as good of an adjective?

That was probably a contradiction Colbert made himself, though I can't be sure. -- Viewdrix 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring = More than once, right?

So what are "Better Know a President" and "Meet an Ally" doing on this page if they've only happened once? Technically, until he does them again (assuming he ever does), they're not really "recurring elements", are they? --Lurlock 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that they stay, given that even though they're not "Recurring" in and of themselves, they're part of a recurring phenomenon, which is Stephen doing "Better Know a District" spin-offs. So, maybe we should re-group them under a heading of "Spin-Offs" in the "BKaD" section? abraham 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Link to article on Michael Adams (chess grandmaster)

A friend noticed recently that, when she clicked on my name (Michael Adams) on the Colbert "On Notice Board" she ended up at the article about the chess grand master, Michael Adams. Wrong Michael Adams, and very misleading about the contents of the "On Notice Board." I was put on notice last January for questioning Colbert's ownership of the word "truthiness" -- I'm a linguist, not a chess master! 68.58.31.174 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not the chess player. I think it's safe to say you're not the test pilot or the basketball pro. Are you the "Canadian writer and researcher" or do we not have a Wikipedia article about you? --ElKevbo 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major revert?

It seems that at 18:49, 26 August 2006 a user at 148.78.249.33 edited a previous version of the page and reverted a whole bunch of changes. There are so many changes (that match previous versions of the page) that there is no way the editor made all of the changes intentionally. A couple of notable changes are reverting the list of recurring segments to a paragraph instead of a list, and the on notice/dead to me being reverted to the old table style. There are several things missing from the page that should probably be re-added. Differences between revision in question and the preceding revision --Jmhill87 18:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a complete revert. The few good edits done after this huge edit do not outweigh the damage done by that one edit.Gdo01 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. If anyone disagrees post here.Gdo01 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Band

there is also a band called dead to me, on fat wreck chords.

Green-screen Challenge?

The now-concluded series of CGI clips created by viewers and featuring Stephen Colbert could be mentioned at the very least in section 1.11, if not in its own section.

Needs a ton of work

This article is full of unsourced original research and speculation (everything colbert "seems" to be), and I doubt sources other than the show itself can be found for 90% of what's in the article, and even many of those things would count as excessively in-depth plot summary. It reminds me of the sort of excessive cataloging that occured for YTMND and Homestar runner before we banished such research to their own wikis. Now that Stephen Colbert has [wikiality.com], I think we can transwiki most of this over to there and get all the original research out of wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All we need to do is to clean it up and rewrite parts of it. Deletion, in my opinion, is going a bit overboard. dposse 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get to work

I probably won't be able to work on this until December, but anyway, I'll add references when I have the time. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report Special Reports

I propose we merge this section into the article List of The Colbert Report episodes to turn it into a more functional list. - The Lake Effect 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]