Talk:Better Know a District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Districts Remaining[edit]

Do we really need the "Districts Remaining" column in the chart? It seems unnecessary. 69.177.233.83 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Since nobody has commented on it, I'm removing it. 69.177.176.154 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has commented on it, I'm removing it. 69.177.176.154 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title[edit]

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. I think it should be corrected to 'Better Know A District' to reflect the title used in the show or maybe changed to 'Better know a district'. What do other people think? If it's corrected sooner rather than later there will probably be less broken links to fix from anyone else referencing this article. Al001 13:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. Margana 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. Al001 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California's 50th[edit]

Now, If I remember correctly, Colbert addressed this issue after someone incorrectly published the detail that the 50th was dead to him. It wasn't because of the congressman himself, but the PEOPLE of that district who had betrayed the congressman. Unfortunately I'm not 100% confident about this detail, but I'm almost sure it's true. If anyone could substantiate it... that would help. :P ScottNak 05:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so? Is the Wikipedia entry not correct? DB Durham NC 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the entry! It clearly states its because of the congressman accepting money. ScottNak 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The source [1] (the second one ??) that should lead to a New York Times article on Jim Moran commenting on his interview experience, appears not to exist.

KS-2[edit]

The map showing the districts that have been covered is incorrect. According to the list, Colbert covered Nebraska's 2nd, but on the map, Kansas' 2nd is highlighted.--Mr T 14:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

District of Columbia?[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there are 435 voting members of the House of Representatives, and the non-voting District of Columbia member was profiled on Better Know A District, wouldn't that make it a 435-part series again (excluding California's 50th but not Texas' 22nd)? He has been calling it a 434 part series since the "Exclusive Fake Interview" with Tom Delay, and he called the DC interview part 28 of the 434 part series. --Jmhill87 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you'll have to take that up with Dr. Colbert and not Wikipedia...

Better Know History of the Name of Better Know A...[edit]

There's clearly some vital tidbit missing from my pool of eclectic knowledge. The "Better Know A ____" name appears to be reffing something, but what? Was there an original "Better Know A ...", and if so, what was it -- a mnemonic a la Roy G Biv? A book series? A kids' TV show? A Google search doesn't help, as the results are heavily polluted by the Colbert meme; no particularly telling results in Amazon, IMDB, or my local library's online card catalog.

So, like, what's with the name? If there's an answer, it should probably go in the article, unless it turns out I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't know this. --NapoliRoma 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years; how time flies. In the intervening years, I've come to the conclusion that the name is merely a Colbertistic grammar-mangling of the concept of knowing a district better. You may all stand down now; I have know better known the name.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better Know a Challenger[edit]

I won't speculate if certain representatives are now afraid to accept an appearance in BKAD. (Okay, maybe I just did right there.) However, it seems clear that with Paul Aronsohn's appearance tonight, this is now a recurring segment. It shouldn't be moved to the list with the other spinofffs, as it uses the same big board as BKAD. (The segment essentially starts and ends as BKAD, and remember - it's Better Know a DISTRICT, not a representative.) The Lake Effect 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Vacant Interview[edit]

Wasn't someone interviewed for the 14th installment? I distinctly remember Colbert asking the guest "so you're not the gay governor?" I believe it was Richard Codey - The Lake Effect 20:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC) It seems some Daily Show footage got mixed up in my head. Silly me. - The Lake Effect 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection[edit]

I think that if BKAD is searched that Better Know A District should come up because it's a way to save time and I don't know how to redirect webpages

2006 election results[edit]

In all of the districts featured so far, all but three have kept their incumbent or incumbent party. Two were Tom DeLay and Mark Foley's respective districts, and the other was NY-19, which was won by Better Know a Challenger participant John Hall.

(Feel free to edit the above into the article if you feel it's relevant--I just thought it was interesting and didn't want any wikinazis yelling at me for including it) --Nathew 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As Colbert himself is proud of (from the Indecision 2006 coverage), ALL of the INTERVIEWED incumbent representatives (that were running for re-election) were re-elected. We're not counting Tom DeLay's "context-flexible" footage or Mark Foley's "text message." Perhaps if the other challengers had joined Colbert in a duet, like with John Hall, they would have all won. - The Lake Effect 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Better Know a District[edit]

During Stephen Colbert's non-character interview with NPR in late 2005, he explained that this segment was created because politicians feared being interviewed. A producer suggested House reps and the segment was born. This is a poor explanation but should be included in someway about why this segment got started. --Jdeviant 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a transcript, summary or third-party coverage of this interview? That would make a good source for some additional information. Fagstein 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning by Season or Congress[edit]

Recently, an edit was made that changed the sections from seasons to individual Congresses. I have reverted this edit for now to discuss this first. My concern with this edit is that as it was set up, the large block of Representatives that Colbert met at Harvard who were Representatives-elect to the 110th Congress were listed under the 109th Congress. Also, if the switch is made from season to Congress, the year would have to be included on the installment date, since two years run together under the 109th Congress. Valadius 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul[edit]

This interview was a regular one. The "who'll speak to me" part was simply a joke. I'm removing it. --Jedravent (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the map[edit]

The map shows Texas's 14th District (represented by Ron Paul) as having been part of the series. It seems to have been added in the latest revision. I assume that this is a mistake on the map and not an omission in the list. Can anyone confirm? - Imlepid (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson?[edit]

The "comparing three Jeffersons" is listed under both BKAFounder and PKAPresident. Did the same concept air once under each title, or is someone mistaken as to which title the bit was done under? TheHYPO (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season?[edit]

TV seasons are rarely coincidental with calendar years, and Colbert always mentions and celebrates his October anniversary. Is there a foundation for breaking the segments into "seasons" of calendar years? TheHYPO (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is a page[edit]

Horrifies me. Looking at the AfD I know it's here to stay, but again, horrifying. Completely unencyclopedic. -CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Get over it. This is actually perfectly encyclopedic, in that it gathers many different segments into a cohesive history (or tries to). Shocking Blue (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine[edit]

This article omits the most famous "Better Know a District" that I remember (it made the news in our local paper): the one where a Congressman who had no opposition at all in the general election "admitted" that he used cocaine (or something equally damning). Anyone able to add that one? Shocking Blue (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to Robert Wexler's appearance, which is in fact in the article. Wexler said in that interview that prostitutes and cocaine were "fun things to do". Given that this was, after all, in the context of a comedic segment, there's no real reason to make any more of a deal about it in the article. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Better Know a District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Better Know a District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Better_Know_a_District&oldid=1206275015"