Talk:Stephen Colbert (character)/Archive 1

Ted Hitler?
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not exactly sure how I'm supposed to do this, but the article mentions Stephen being born as "Ted Hitler". That was a joke (obviously) and was stated in an episode of The Daily Show before the actual "Stephen Colbert" character came into full view, and I don't think it should be included as "official" in the article. Not all statements that Stephen Colbert made on The Daily Show represent his character on The Colbert Report. I don't want to change anything without approval though. Fnovd 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think a slight modification should be in order. Considering Cobert as a fictional character, it's difficult to take all of the information he's given on himself over the past years and try to tie it together in full "continuity." A lot of jokes are sort of a one-time mention that he wouldn't necessarily refer to again and just fit the moment. Otherwise, we should mention his "closet, spandex, rainbow" parties from his college days (anyone see that one?). User:Caleson 29, July 2006


 * Why not add it to the notes section, citing that it was mentioned on the Daily Show, and is not confirmed as being part of the Report's canon? --Cosmic Larva 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned in someway that he has hinted that his Grandfather is Adolf Hitler, and that it's possible that his real name is Ted Hitler

Merging from The Colbert Report recurring elements
I tagged the section Fictional biography of Stephen Colbert to be merged into Stephen Colbert (character). --waffle iron talk 20:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC) He is also a character that has been on several shows as a guest.
 * I agree. He is not a "character" on The Colbert Report." There's just no point to have two seperate articles.
 * Disagree. He is most definitely a character and main characters from popular TV shows get their own entry. Tim 16:41, August 3, 2006
 * Agree. I misunderstood the question. All that information belongs here.--Gdo01 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree, ironically, it's the fact that places actually book him as his "character" or assume that he is his character, the two items need to be separate. Even the for the White House Press dinner they made that error -- taking the character outside the realm of just the show itself.
 * I agree. The Stephen Colbert Character on this page is the exact same as the host of the Colbert Report.
 * I mostly agree too -- but can we treat this like a subarticle of The Colbert Report and leave a bit of information on the character in the main article in summary style? That makes the most sense to me. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because the character he plays on TV has the same name as his actual real life name does not mean Colbert and Colbert are not two different things. I agree with the comment stating that Stephen Colbert plays the character of "Stephan Colbert" on the Colbert Report and that this article should remain seperate from his actually real life information. Wiki always has a page for characters of TV shows, if you don't believe me search Bart Simpson or crusty the clown, and what Colbert does on his show is play a character. Ikaveman 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree with merger. The character and the real man don't even pronounce their names in the same way. The character insists on the affected Frenchified Col-BEAR. The character is Don Novello's superpatriot idiot Lazlo Toth come to life, in real-time. I should hope that this personna is not that of the real man, any more than the real Jack Benny was a miser with a vault in the basement. S  B Harris 20:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The "character" of Stephen Colbert is associated with the Colbert Report. It's like including the biography of Captain Picard in the entry for Patrick Stewart. Just as a hypothetical, what if he started a new show called Stephen Colbert's Prayer Hour where he played a slimy preacher for half an hour and made a whole new fake backstory for himself there too? Ninti 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree per reasons above. User:Blackjack48
 * Wait, are we discussing, whether Stephen Colbert's article and Stephen Colbert (character)'s article be merged or his character's bio from the recurring elements and Stephen Colbert(character)be merged? If it's the second I agree, if it's the first I disagree.--TheBooRadley 03:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree...people are being ridiculous. He doesn't play himself on his show, but instead plays a character. Therefore he does indeed have 2 personas.
 * This character deserves his own article because is very popular and is definitly not the real Colbert.
 * Please read the bottom. The issue is not giving the character its own article. The issue is putting all of the character's info on this page instead of on the recurring elements page. Stop propogating the misunderstanding.Gdo01 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of you are misunderstanding the proposal. The proposal is to take out the fictional Colbert stuff from the The Colbert Report recurring elements article and put it in this article. This has nothing to do with the real Stephen Colbert article. The tag above clearly states he wants to remove the fictional biography off the reccurring page and into the Colbert character page. So we either need a revote or people have to change their vote. I'll start a revote.
 * Agree. Colbert's character deserves to be taken out of the Colbert Report article and put into the fictional character article. To properly use the analogy of Patrick Stewart that was misused above: You would not put info on Captain Picard on the Star Trek: The Next Generation article, you would put it on the Captain Picard page. Gdo01 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Gdo01's Captain Picard analogy. Schi 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. as it's silly to have these articles separated. - DiegoTehMexican 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.  Agreed, though, I must say, many of you don't seem to know how to read. <_< Therum 17:50, 27 August 2006
 * Agree --DavidShankBone 21:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree Throw 02:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. All information about Stephen-the-character should be on Stephen-the-character's page, which the main Report page should link to.  Sailorptah 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - I just realized how long that article actually was, and you know those recurring elements are just going to keep coming. (The Lake Effect 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Disagree- the character exists outside of the Colbert Report- It was originally on The Daily Show, and Strangers with Candy. Making these the same makes it look as if the character is limited to this one show. Also, the character is a constant, not a recurring element.
 * You are also misunderstanding the proposal. It is asking to take the stuff out of the recurring info page and put it here where it belongs not the opposite. Gdo01 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification -- this character DID originate on the Daily Show, but was NOT on Strangers with Candy. Colbert played a character called Chuck Noblet, who is nothing like the Stephen Colbert character from The Daily Show/Colbert Report.AaronL 05:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - The section definitely should be merged with this article. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 21:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -It doesn't make sense to have a Fictional biography of Stephen Colbert on the recurring elements page, I mean, it's praticaly the whole show, not an "element" of it. --PerryPlanet 06:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, it seems kind of redundant to have the same information in two seperate places. Umbralcorax 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, Per umbralcorax.--DreamsAreMadeOf 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Psst, this was resolved last year. The Colbert Report Recurring Elements page no longer exists. ;) Shoemoney2night 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Modification to Protected Page
The following sentence from the Biography section contains an error: "It's text parodies poorly written science fiction novels." The word "It's" should not contain an apostrophe. User:ShadowHalo 00:42, 01 Aug 2006
 * Done. —Ruud 13:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Show
On the same show as the elephant incident (the tripling of elephant population) Stephen claimed to have changed some article to make his opinion of Oregon have always being Idaho's Portugal... I'm only curious, did this change really occur? DoomsDay349 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be regarding this segment --SBrickey 8/1/06 @ 1:18pm


 * Did it really occur? Judge for yourself.  -- Cyde↔Weys  17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that about sums it up, I see. Did you know that that account was blocked for matching his name? He probably doesn't care though lol, he probably created it as a one time account lol. DoomsDay349 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please google "mrsickofitman" It is all you need to know .Ps get ann coulter in and let steven Jr chow on what is left of the tendons.That or feed her .But she spread lies and war .Yes it pays. Sad huh ? Peace !!!! Mr.sickofitman

Citation needed?

 * This was all a reference to Bill O'Reilly's claim to have been "in combat."

I quickly googled this passage and did not find and clicked on the Bill O'Reilly wiki page and ctrl f'd "combat" and did not find. would like to read more on this if it is true. Lenn0r 03:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay found a source if anyone wants to cite it, i dont know the tags to use http://www.nndb.com/people/434/000022368/ Lenn0r 03:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth
All the dates on the age of Stephen are different. How could the "Character" be born in 1979 when Stephen himself was born in either 1964 or 1966 according to the wiki... some fact checking is in order. Btw: The Word bullet tonight (Aug 8 2006) said Colbert would have been 27 at the time of the Gulf War implying May 13, 1964.
 * No, it meant that he is 27 now. On the show, on the word segment it said it. Just look at his face. Does he look like he's 42 to you? - 74.237.158.41 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Word segment bullet point did not say anything directly about Stephen's age. I took it to perhaps imply that he was 27 during the Gulf War. But I sure wouldn't take anything the bullet point says as a reliable source. –RHolton ≡ –
 * He cannot be that young if he was in an 80s band. And the age they gave for him during the Gulf War is exactly the same as the real Colbert would have been.Gdo01 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean up the article
I think this article could be cleaned up a bit, more subsections. Otherwise it is a large page of text. I'll see what I can do to start tomorrow.

Great President or Greatest President
How come there is no reference to this in the article?
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. There is now.

Stephen Colbert Bridge?
Shouldn't we include something about the Hungary bridge like on the Chuck Norris page? Chuck Norris -71.197.196.45 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go here:, scroll All the way to the bottom, and vote either 'Stephen Colbert Bridge' or 'United States Bridge'. --71.197.196.45 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Update! Stephen is winning! By a long shot! Look at this:
 * Stephen Colbert híd	5670941	[27%]
 * Zrínyi híd	2034953	[10%]
 * Pató Pál - híd	1805076	[9%]
 * Bethlen Gábor - híd	1701629	[8%]
 * Hunyadi Mátyás - híd	1450819	[7%]
 * Perl-Script híd	1369596	[7%]
 * Mészáros híd	1037103	[5%]
 * Batthyány Lajos híd	884967	[4%]
 * Szent Korona - híd	724845	[4%]
 * Bocskai István - híd	712404	[3%]

-Platypus Man | Talk 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, you forgot Chuck Norris who is still way out in front.Gdo01 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Stephen totally destroyed Chuck Norris, once Stephen got to 150,000 he had already passed Chuck Norris in Round 1, and has a sizeable lead in round 2. http://www.m0hid.gov.hu/toplista < Round 2 vote tally http://www.m0hid.gov.hu/elsofordulo <-- Round 1, Stephen wins with 17 million votes, while Chuck Norris had 3 hundred-thousand

Stephen won in both round 1 and round 2 however the bridge name will not be the Stephen Colbert Híd but the Megyeri Bridge or Megyeri Híd--Riraito 07:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake bio
A lot of facts in this bio aren't currently in this article. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A large problem is we may not be able to trust Stephen Colbert's truthiness, since that is his website. Then again, the majority of statements we know about him are from his own mouth. I think we need a detective to investigate the REAL Stephen Colbert and tell us the facts. He can't support a single thing he has said! This article should make note that all we know is what he has told us as supposedly truth, and what he has posted on the website as truth (if that's even his site!). I happen to think he is a Brazilian spy. Tyciol 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Look, if the official website of a character says a fact is a fact, it's a fact. --  Zanimum 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No Soledad O'Brien?
How can this article not mention Colbert's obsession with Soledad O'Brien? Morgan695 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Primetime Emmys appearance
Is this an "in-character appearance," or just a momentary lapse from the "real Stephen?" (The Lake Effect 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

That would be Stephen-the-character. Note Jon playing straight man (see double act) while Stephen goes on attack. (Stephen-the-real-person has appeared on Letterman and CNN. The difference is easy to see.)  Sailorptah 20:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian critic?
Stephen was added to Category:Wikipedia critics by someone. While I'm sure this could be true, it sounds like him, can we make mention of it and supporting evidence (a quote preferred) in the article, so the category makes sense and doesn't confuse people, like me? Tyciol 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikiality. But no, that's not a valid category. It's a self-reference. --  Zanimum 18:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian?
On the September 19 episode (#148), in the Threatdown, when he discussed Toby Keith (threat #4) in connection with Willie Nelson's arrest, he claimed to be a libertarian. "Now, I'm no fan of the loco-weed, but I'm a Libertarian. What you do on your bus is your own business. So let this be a warning to Merle Haggard. Toby Keith is out there and he is a squealer." OTOH, some of the positions he's taken (e.g. on wiretapping) don't seem to fit the libertarian philosophy.--Goldfndr 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm.

Several times on the earlier shows he's claimed that he is not a Republican but an Independant who is often mistaken for a Republican however he has never claimed he is a libertarian--Riraito 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Change intro
Semi-fictional over fictional is more accurate.--Lamrock 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why semi-fictional? The real Stephen Colbert is nothing like this guy. Gdo01 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of character
One major oversight I see in this article is that it fails to mention that the Stephen Colbert character originated as a correspondent on The Daily Show. I think this should be worked into the article for sure. AaronL 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Less work for Kevin Spacey
"It appears that in the fictional reality of the Colbert Report, Kevin Spacey performs the acting roles that the real Colbert has done, such as Chuck Noblet in Strangers With Candy."

However in his recent interview with director Nora Ephron, they discussed in length about his role in Bewitched. Does this mean that the Stephen Colbert character does indeed perform some of the real Colbert's roles, or is this a continuity error? - The Lake Effect 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably a continuity error. Its hard to maintain a fictional account of what "actually" happened and it was probably just a one time joke. Gdo01 02:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

worth mentioning?
I don't know if it's information worth adding, but I noticed there was no reference to the fact that he pronounces the word report "repore," much like the way the character's last name is pronounced. meh. 71.115.1.133 09:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism?
Currently, where the article talks about Colbert telling users to vandalize Wikipedia, the word vandalize is a link to the elephant talk page. Is there a reason this is the case? I imagine it should go to something about Wiki vandalism. Oren0 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Stephen Colbert" as an "author"
In this section, it is claimed that the Tek Janson 'novel' is probably a reference to Those Who Trespass by Bill O'Reilly. A footnote is included, which leads to this page, is included as evidence. Going to that page, I see no mention of Tek Janson or Those Who Trespass. O'reilly is mentioned, but the reference is about inspiration for Colbert's character, not his character's fictional books. I'm going to delete the claim that Tek Janson is inspired by Those Who Trespass until better evidence can be found. I remember hearing that Colbert is a fan of genre fiction, so it seems more likely to me that he's simply poking fun at his own tastes in fiction. GutterMonkey 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

uuuummmm. ..
How exactly do we know that all of the "fictional elements" are really fictional? While he may be a "self described democrat," he may not be the complete opposite of his character--while many things he says are obvious exagerations and parodies of the media, perhaps he does believe in some things he says, to an extent. . .perhaps the real Colbert is open minded and, while describing himself as a democrat, is fairly moderate. I haven't seen anything to prove or disprove this theory, just as I haven't seen anything to prove or disprove all of the "fictional elements." For example, maybe Colbert does have a fear of bears. I know that he did work for a newspaper, the Richmond-Times Dispatch, as well as a local television station in North Carolina before being discovered. . .he then takes those experiences, exagerates them, and incorporates them into his show--what better material than real life?

I believe that there are very serious issues with this article, and it needs to be edited quite a bit--any unsourced information or assumptions do not belong--you can't assume that a character is 100% fictional based on the mere fact that he is a "self described democrat." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.26 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Still no response?
 * To say something is fictional is not to say that it is completely fabricated. The Report differs from other shows like the Daily Show or the O'Reilly Factor in that Colbert is explicitly portrayaing a fictional character, with a history and beliefs that differ from the actual Colbert. To be fictional does not in any way mean it may not be based on, or incorporate reality, which seems to be your stance. In short, we can describe the elements as fictional since they are presented as fiction. --TM 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A fictional character does not necessarily possess only fictional elements. Anything unsourced portrayed as a "fictional element" needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.241.135 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually, the real Colbert did not work for the Richmond-Times Dispatch or a local television station in North Carolina. That's all Colbert-Report mythmaking. The real Colbert was never a reporter, but studied improv at Second City, which was probably changed because it wouldn't make sense for Colbert-the-pundit to be coming from a comedian's background.
 * In any case, since Colbert has repeatedly described his Report character as a character, I don't see any reason not to treat him the same way we would any other fictional character. The "fictional elements" header might well be changed to avoid unnecessary implication -- it is possible that the real Colbert has a goldfish named Anthrax, I guess -- but having a "similarities to the real Stephen Colbert" section seems fair, since a few of them are easy to document. -- Bailey(talk) 12:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So there should be no comparison with Colbert's real life stint as a correspondent for Good Morning America? - The Lake Effect 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. Colbert filmed a grand total of two short segments for Good Morning America, and they were comedy segments, not really straight "reporting"... but feel free to mention if you think it's relevant. By the way, I wrote the section of text you just linked me to. :) -- Bailey(talk) 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Stephen's Name
"Using his real name (with a slightly altered pronunciation with silent t) and keeping his appearance unaltered" - this is incorrect. Although Stephen occasionally jokes that his character is Colbert (with the silent t pronunciation) and he's ColberT (with the hard t), he has stated numerous times that he pronounces his own name with a silent t and has done so since he was in college. 220.237.33.194 09:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They have a bit more on his name on the non-character Colbert page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A.
Shouldn't the full name Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. be worked in somewhere? &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Doctor Stephen T. Colbert is, from what I believe to be the factual truth, from the real Stephen Colbert's life, not the character. Or maybe that's my overactive imagination thinking too much. -G
 * I believe that the title is applied to both the real and the show Colbert. Neither of them can prescribe medication. - The Lake Effect 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And, technically, one isn't supposed to use both "Dr." and the initials of your degree, so I tend to attribute it more to the character than the actual person. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unmentionables?
So it has become obvious that Colbert has had a great effect on the history of this website, counting elephants, reality and commodities, wikilobbying, etc. However, since editing has been disabled and due to mass warnings and bans, it is...daunting to even mention these things. So is the phenomenon, in fact, unmentionable? The whole (wikilobbying and wikiality especially) reminds me of a quote about the history of yesterday being written by those with the best nerve gas of today. If anyone knows the proper quote and/or the source, I would greatly appreciate a correction. Maskless (edit-add sig) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maskless (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

EditProtected
In the fourth paragraph of "Views" starting from "name things after him and to" edit the remaining to read: "edit Wikipedia in the spirit of Truthiness according to his dictates." The current use of "vandalize" is POV and subjective.
 * That's a tricky one, and I personally don't feel I should accept or reject this particular request without some discussion. Whether or not it's vandalism in terms of Wikipedia policy seems to be moot, since discussing it in that sense would be a pretty dirty self-reference. So, we should head on over to a more common definition of vandalism (on Wikipedia, on Wikitionary) -- the easiest example being, "If Colbert asked people to spray paint 'Reality is commodity' on walls all over the city of Chicago, would that be 'vandalism'?" Luna Santin 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unprotected the page, hopefully vandalism isn't going to be too much of an issue, anymore. Luna Santin 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

period
The intro should have a period at the end.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Luna Santin 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a page which simply lists Colbert's requests to vandalize Wikipedia?
Sure, these can be picked out of the various episodes along with the other clearly specious things he says. But the problem here is that he shades into being annoying. So this goes both ways. Just create a new page (I volunteer to start) with a bullet list (with absolute factual honesty and cites provided) the dates and times Stephen has asked Wikipedia to be messed with. If a new one goes down on the list each time he does it, I guarantee that will serve as our gentle "wag of the finger", and the negative feedback will start to work its gentle magic. Once or twice is funny, a bit like Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book!. But a good joke is not repeated too often, and a list of times it's BEEN repeated starts to stale it pretty well. Colbert will get the message. Yeah, at first it was funny and it was topical and it had a point. But it's been done. Done to death. S B Harris 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Prepare to have Colbert and his fans destroy your little wag of the finger. /b/ for life 12.207.127.76 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100% certain Colbert himself wouldn't care, and it's impossible to silence literally millions of fans, although that would likely reduce it, at least a little. I'm all for it. Zombieninja101

I'm 101% certain that not only would Colbert care, he would revel in it and eventually use it as a comedy device on his show. Go for it! - The Lake Effect 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too much like both a self-reference and a soapbox, to me. Easy enough to have it backfire, in addition to provoking fans and Colbert himself (see WP:DENY). Luna Santin 03:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with everyone else here -- Luna's very valid self-reference/soapbox concerns aside, responding to this in any way would be asking for trouble. You've probably already noticed this, but The Colbert Report thrives on real world interaction -- anytime they get any shred of acknowledgement from the world outside their studio, they latch onto it and try to provoke the outside party further -- witness the Hungarian bridge campaign, the Spirit-Generals news stories, Colbert's grudge against the AP over 'truthiness', etc. In interviews, Colbert has talked about this as an element of parodying O'Reilly, and has admitted that he really wants to start a feud with someone, because it would suit the character to have a declared enemy to crusade against based on some imaginary slight. Let's try to avoid being that enemy. With luck, Colbert will eventually move on. -- Bailey(talk) 11:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. It was my suggestion, but perhaps you're right and this is yet another case where wisdom lies in doing nothing. Colbert. Iran. North Korea. In retrospect, Iraq... S  B Harris 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Sigh. I'm with you in wishing there was something we could do, though... -- Bailey(talk) 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Colbert's name
I removed the line from the intro stating that Colbert the character pronounces his name differently than Colbert-the-actor. Just so ya'll know, that's actually untrue. Both Colberts use the pronunciation with the silent T. This is mentioned in this article and this one, as well as being the evidenced in several out-of-character TV and radio interviews (such as the 60 minutes interview, and the three interviews with NPR). He also goes by Col-BARE in the Strangers with Candy DVD commentary, which was recorded long before The Colbert Report was ever dreamed of. Col-BARE is absolutely and certainly the correct way to pronounce the actor's name, as confirmed by many outside sources, with none that I know of contradicting this, so let's try to avoid repeating the common misbelief that Colbert is the character only. -- Bailey(talk) 01:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Similarities to the real Colbert"
This section states that the fictional Colbert is married and has three kids. Where did this come from? I've never heard him reference this fact, and it seems out of line with his obsessions over Soledad O'Brian, his ex-girlfriend Charlene, and his "son" Stephen Jr. -Captain Crawdad 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of those things rule out being married. The only concrete thing I remember is when Colbert was kissed by Jane Fonda, he said something along the lines of having to explain it to his wife. Gdo01 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The character did mention in one episode that he had fifteen children - "little Mary and Stephens 1 through 14". 11:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tek Jansen redirecting here?
Does anyone else think Tek Jansen should have its own page? --Chin Man2 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Created one... but here Oringe 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why refer to him as "the Colbert character"?
If this is an article about the fictional character Stephen Colbert, then the article does not need to use phrases like "the Colbert character." It should be understood that whenever Stephen Colbert is mentioned, it is the fictional Colbert that is referred to, unless explicitly mentioned otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turnerjer (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Because it's written from an out of universe perspective, if we don't differntiate the two we could be risking confusion. EnsRedShirt 11:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The confusion between writer/actor/TV star Stephen Colbert and fictional TV host Stephen Colbert can be addressed with cross-references and disambiguation pages. But within the article, I think the editorial voice should treat Stephen Colbert *exactly* as a fictional character, and ignore the coincidence of names between the two entries.

Turnerjer 11:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I agree. This is about the character: the article body should therefore not bother to disambiguate.--Dark Green 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed mergeto
I removed the tag, please see Stephen Colbert talk for discussion. Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why did someone delete my bit saying that O'Reilley said Colbert is always in character? the TRUTH 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

false consistency
This entire article is based on the false premise that colbert's statements are reliable sources about himself. There is no canon, though, or facts of the universe like in Star Wars, many of these were just one-off statements made as a joke. The gaps in between are filled by original research. Unless this article can become something other than a compilation of jokes, it belongs on Wikiality, not Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a site Wikiality or is it a clever joke on reality? While I normally don't believe in adding untruths to Wikipedia, because of Mr. Colbert's requests for fans to change the facts about various things here. I don't see why this Character entry can't be played with. I am sure Mr. Colbert, Character or person would appreciate it.

Then through the normal discussion that goes on the best additions would be kept. Even a Encyclopedia needs a sense of humour as long as readers are made aware. I don't advocate this for all fictional Characters but this kind of thing fits perfectly into Mr. Colbert's persona and sense of humour.

Homosexuality gag
It is implied on many occasions that the Stephen Colbert character is a homosexual, whose strict Christian upbringing and right-wing views are forcing him to repress his homosexual urges. As this is a big ongoing joke, not to mention a huge subconscious motivator for the character (I.E. internal psychological conflict is what makes a personality, at insofar as a good fictional personality goes, at least). But this dosn't seem to be mentioned at all, in the article.--Dark Green 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the episode with Jane Fonda clearly implied that he is not homosexual; if you haven't seen it, look it up. Flag-Waving American Patriot 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd argue that the Jane Fonda interview was very much out of character. 220.237.40.198 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up
I've flagged the article for clean-up. The character is fictional and the article needs to be re-written in-universe as such. Also, the "fictional elements" section needs to be expanded to demonstrate the differences between the actor and the character better. The data on the character's phobia of bears being inspired by a real nightmare would be a good example. Also, the views and personal life section repeat some information and both read like an indiscriminate collection of facts and character attributes. Also, some of the statements (his Google searches, werewolves) are not needed and unsourced, and other data would fit into the "Recurring Themes" part of The Colbert Report than here. The Clawed One 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colbert iPhone.jpg
Image:Colbert iPhone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
It's been an entire month, and little to no improvement has been made to the article since I tagged it. It really needs to be discussed if this article has any potential for clean-up. It needs more sources, to be written in an out-of-universe style as it is about a fictional character. Right now, the page reads like a list of random jokes made on the show and not like a biography of a person, real or fictional.

Unless someone can begin a serious clean-up effort soon, I think this article either needs to be redirected, or nominated for deletion. The Clawed One 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You should make those improvements if you feel strongly about it and forget trying to redirect without consensus because it will be reverted quickly simply because it is a list of random jokes. Sorry for the bad news. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So the article should be allowed to exist because it's a list of jokes? The Clawed One 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that people have an affection to the article because it's amusing which, in turn, makes them reluctant to delete it. That can be extended to say that every person who watches The Colbert Report's brain will be rewired through positive reinforcement (i.e. laughter) to protect Stephen Colbert and related articles. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. That's agreed. I love the Colbert Report, but I have to realize that just because I favor a article's subject doesn't mean it's a good one. If they realize it or not, people are taking the Report's side. People are willing to contribute to this page and that is great, it really is. They just aren't contributing in the right way. And while I would like to rewrite this page I sadly don't have the sources nor the time to do so. Right now there are users out there that could really increase that quality of this page and bring it up to a much higher quality. But for whatever reason, they aren't. The Clawed One 04:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No time and no sources are the same reasons that I don't edit the article right now and I noticed that when I edited the article once that I didn't bother to even think about adding references. Maybe I'll find time to make the necessary edits tomorrow, goodnight. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 04:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've deleted a lot of the jokes and random little shout-outs, cleaned up some of the references and expanded on the fictional elements section. There's still a lot that needs to be attended to, but it's a start. 15:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional elements/daily Kos
Under "fictional elements", the article says "He blogged as NotStephenColbert on Daily Kos.". Is it fictional that he has blogged on Daily Kos as NotStephenColbert? Bubba73 (talk), 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather (and I haven't seen the most recent episode yet), the real Colbert did make a post on Daily Kos here, in character, as "notstephencolbert". Whether that makes it relevant to the "fictional elements" section, I'm not quite sure. 220.237.40.198 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is true then it doesn't seem to me that it should be under "fictioal elements". Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Coal-Bear
Why was (Pronounced "Coal-Bear") removed from the beginning of the article? It accompanied the correct IPA pronunciation. An informal English as well as IPA pronunciation still appears in the Stephen Colbert article. 24.177.0.152 03:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

World of Warcraft
What is the correct spelling of the name of his World of Warcraft character? 71.89.8.194 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Double-you tee eff
This page reminds me of arguments about Spongebob Squarepants canon. Did anyone see that advertisement for Sarah Silverman's program where she talked about how people mistake her for Sarah Silverman the character etc etc? Or when Jeff Garlin said not to take anything on Wikipedia seriously because we write down every single word said on The Daily Show? They're making fun of Wikipedia! WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY MEAN??? ... oh, right, WP:BIAS. Forget I said anything. Nualran 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think there isn't justification for this article go read the responses to the article's two AFDs. If you think the only reason we have an article on the Colbert character is because of political bias then I'm not sure how to respond since I'm not sure if that's serious, but again, you'll find ample reasons to keep the article in the aforementioned discussions. First, since you do not discuss or propose a merge at all I'm removing that tag. Second, since apparently your only reasons for tagging the article with the unencyclopedic tag is "omg Wikipedia is being made fun of" (and by the way only one of your examples could be interpreted as a slight at Wikipedia so you're really reaching to make a point which is pretty weak) and crying bias I'm removing that tag as well. Just go read the archived AFDs and if you still have issue with the article, come back and properly propose an AFD or a merge. --TM 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's because I did read the past discussion and was shocked. But okay then, I'm formally requesting/suggesting a merge. Nualran 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't see why you think this should be merged. Could you please explain your reasoning more clearly without resorting to CAPSLOCK, references adverts that non-americans won't have seen, and linking to tedious definition pages of wikiprojects? mattbuck 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Right now, I'm failing to see why this article deserves to be merged.  "Stephen Colbert" is as much a character as any you'll find on TV.  Yes, his history isn't rigidly adhered to - this is acknowledged in the article - but his personality is distinct and significant, because it's the filter through which everything on the Report and his other in-character performances are viewed.  As for the bias claim, well, the character and the show may have their own bias (not that they've ever made any pretense of being otherwise), but how does that make this article biased? I'm sorry, I'm really not understanding your argument.  Shoemoney2night 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it's been a month. Does anybody have some coherent argument in favour of merging this article? Shoemoney2night 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the template for now because of that. If someone wants to have a real discussion about a merger, feel free to start one. But currently it looks like there is no actual demand. --SoWhy Talk 12:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently residing in Connecticut?
During tonight's show Colbert stated that his cell phone's land line goes "all the way back to Connecticut." Does this mean his character lives in Connecticut? It makes sense. A lot of New York conservatives live there for tax and political reasons. I might be wrong, and this is probably speculation and/or original research. Mac  OS X  04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen the episode, so couldn't say. However, a lot of the details about the character's personal life do tend to be adapted depending on the joke (in another episode he said he lived in an all-white gated community called Spurning Pines), so I'd take it with a grain of salt, personally. Shoemoney2night 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know which Colbert Report episode this refers to?
"Colbert demanded one of his staff members subject him to simulated waterboarding, only to break down into pleas for mercy upon hearing a water bottle cap popped." --85.92.166.251 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * November 13, '06. :) Shoemoney2night 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion
I deleted "and less on concrete facts.", referring to Bill O'Reilly's show, from the "Non-fictional Elements" paragraph. The sentence now reads : "Parodying personality-driven political pundit programs such as Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, The Colbert Report is largely centered on the personal views of its host."

I'm not defending O'Reilly, but the statement "less on concrete facts" does not contribute to the sentence(and even seems awkward) and is a statement of derogatory opinion, thereby reducing the professionalism of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboondocksaint (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call, while it's an opinion I'm certain many of us agree with, that phrase was pretty POV. --Jaysweet 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Middle Name
When filling out the forms for the South Carolina primary on the 10/17 episode, Colbert claimed his middle name to be "Tiberius." I'm reluctant to put this in the opening for the article, as he's certainly much better known without it, but this information should be included somewhere. Ideas? Slurms MacKenzie 05:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I would question whether it rates a mention. If it is included, however, I would point out that Stephen has also used his real middle name (Tyrone) on several occasions while in character. Shoemoney2night 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just got a message from BlastOButter42 saying that it shouldn't be in there (I will admit, I wasn't logged in at the time), saying, "the one you made to Stephen Colbert (character), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed." I stand by my assertation that the character's middle name is Tiberius (for the time being at least), and as such am reinserting it in the character name.  If anyone has a problem with that, that's fine, but he openly stated it on the show, while in character.  This shouldn't be a huge issue.Shrekums 06:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First of all, I'd question whether what may or may not be a one-time joke rates a mention in the page intro, but more importantly, Stephen has made conflicting statements while in character regarding his middle name - on more than one occasion he has stated it to be Tyrone.  I have moved the middle name information to the fictional bio section. Shoemoney2night 06:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but can we at least agree on the T? Also, should there be any reference to the fact that he is Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A.?  I would not mention it in the real-life Colbert, but the character is oftentimes fond of calling himself that.Shrekums 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, there was never any contention over the "T". He is introduced as "Stephen T. Colbert" in his bio and there is a sentence there outlining the conflicting claims with regard to his middle name.  I don't think there's any point in using "Stephen T. Colbert" in the page intro seeing as the character is most commonly known and referred to as "Stephen Colbert".  There's already a reference to his honourary degree and his use of the title in the non-fictional elements section. Shoemoney2night 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy dogpoo, I'm tired of this edit war. I guess we'll take it out because even though every other single article talking about a person or character on Wikipedia starts off by mentioning the middle name, I guess it can't be done here.  What should be a fun little piece of work for people to do on here is now tedious, so congratulations.Shrekums 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to spoil anybody's fun. Look, I've explained my reasoning; if everybody else disagrees with me, I'd go with them. Shoemoney2night 01:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert for President
I've added a section for it. 132.205.99.122 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC) HELLO PRESIDENT COLBERT U.LL BE ONE OF OUR GREATEST PRESIDENTS & IT BE AN HONOR VOTING FOR YOU HOW ABOUT PHIL DONAHUE AS YOUR RUNNING MATE >> OR A GUEST IN YOUR SHOW ? THANK GOD FOR SMART AMERICANS LIKE YOU & GOD SPEED & BEST OF LUCKS MICHAEL BENJAMIN 3053006961 RESPECTFULL REGARDS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.239.72 (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Allusions to Limbaugh Influences
I removed a sentence stating that Colbert's prescription pill addiction is obviously an allusion to Rush Limbaugh's addiction. Chances are it is correct, but Colbert has not mentioned it as such, and it therefore qualifies as mere speculation that this is the influence.Shrekums 22:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think I've heard him make the comparison in an NPR interview, I might try and hunt it down. Shoemoney2night 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I Am America (And So Can You!)
Given the great deal of his personality and life given in the book, perhaps we should create a new section here for aspects of the character told in the book but not on the show. The Clawed One 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I started listening to the audiobook, but it lacked the punch of the studio version. I need to get a real copy. Damn imports. mattbuck 08:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colbertoreilly.jpg
Image:Colbertoreilly.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Character vs person
Isn't the real Stephen Colbert running for President, not the character Stephen Colbert? If so, we need not mention Stephen Colbert's presidential bid in an article about Stephen Colbert (the character). This would be like talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger's governorship in an article about the terminator. Sancho 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that the character Stephen Colbert is running, and not the comedian. All of his "campaigning" thus far has been in character and, out of character, he's stated that it's a joke. Shoemoney2night 00:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't enter a campaign as a character though... when you register, you have to use your own name. Just because in this case the real person wants to act unreal during their campaign, this doesn't mean that the real person isn't running. Sancho 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If he gets on the ballot, there won't be (character) in brackets like this article. The Clawed One 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the question was whether or not Stephen's presidential bid warranted a mention in this article. As he's running in character and the campaign seems to be an important milestone for Stephen-the-character, I guess I'm saying, it's not really something that can be left out. Shoemoney2night 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Manifestations - Wigfield
I've been working on the development and inspirations section a bit and this occurred to me the other day, but I wasn't sure how noteworthy it was: In an NPR interview in 2003, discussing the book Wigfield (which he co-wrote with Amy Sedaris and Paul Dinello), Stephen compared the lead character, self-aggrandising journalist Russell Hokes (whose voice he also provided in the audiobook and a number of live performances), to that of his Daily Show character, only "more extreme, more self-involved". Worth mentioning, or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemoney2night (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete this Page!
Isee no reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. This should not belong in here and it is essentially just what the comedian acts like on stage. Does that matter at all?!?!?!?!?! The only reason it is still here because of the manipulation Colbert and his fanatics do to ensure wiki articles concerning COlbert are in the worst shape ever. - Bigvinu 11-5-07 —Preceding comment was added at 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The existance of his fanatics is enough for this page. There are also pages of Spongebob, God, Captain America, and other fictional characters. There is no reason that there should not be a page on this character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Special Performances
What constitutes a special performance? Are we talking about events at which Stephen Colbert the character has made an appearance, or Stephen Colbert the performer? I'm asking mainly because three of the four special performances listed were either partially (FSU and Knox College) or entirely (Harvard) out-of-character, whereas other in-character appearances that come to mind (Night of Too Many Stars, 2006 and 2007 Emmys, O'Reilly interview, Meet the Press) aren't mentioned. Shoemoney2night 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this is an article about Stephen the character as opposed to Stephen the actor, I've deleted the OOC appearances and added a more complete list of IC appearances. I'm wondering, though, if maybe "special performance" isn't the best way of describing them.  Tell me if I'm being pedantic, but it seems to me Stephen Colbert is the performer, not Stephen Colbert (character).  Perhaps something like "Other appearances" would be a better fit? Shoemoney2night 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cameos in other media
The character's made at least a couple of cameos in other media - for instance, in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #15, in which he briefly appeared to put Peter Parker on notice for being a bleeding-heart liberal. Is this kind of thing worth mentioning or is it too trivial, do you think? Shoemoney2night 00:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro Para:

 * Stephen Colbert (pronounced /koʊlˈbɛər/) is a fictional character created and portrayed by political satirist Stephen Colbert

Bob Jones is a character played by Bob Jones. - this wording needs some clarity. The entire first paragraph goes by and there is no explaination of how the two relate. I am changing the intro around a little to make clear who and what this article is describing. TheHYPO (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Article is well written, in clear and understandable language. However, could use some proof-reading to avoid in-universe wording in certain places.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Questionable use of sources, some should be removed, moved to External links section, or replaced. Examples include: Original research - overuse of citing episodes themselves, citing Ebay.com site directly as opposed to use of a secondary source,
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Removed direct eBay links and some primary source references; added more secondary sources.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough, though there are some subsection which are way too small and should be merged with other subsections: Other manifestations, Colbert as an interviewer, to name two.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Merged the former and I Am America into a single Books subsection. Merged the latter into The Colbert Report.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be neutrally worded.
 * 5. Article stability? Article is stable, though there is some anon-ip edit concerns as well as vandalism that editors should be mindful of going forward. Talk page discussion appears civil, last AfD closed as Keep over a month ago.
 * 6. Images?: Too many fair-use images (6) are used, when free-use images could be obtained instead. Of the fair use images used, some have good fair use rationales, others could be more detailed.  Some are in violation because they do not clearly spell out why the images are fair-use in this article, as opposed to other Colbert-related articles.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Removed some fair-use images; updated the fair use rationales of those remaining. I've been looking for some appropriate free-use images, but so far can only find photos of Colbert out of character, which seem inappropriate for this article. I'm open to ideas, though.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to message me on my talk page if/when the above issues have been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the review. I'm in the process of addressing these issues now. Shoemoney2night (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Passed

 * Thanks for doing so well addressing the points I had raised, above. I will now pass this article as a WP:GA, and make the necessary talk page adjustments and listings.  Great work!  Cirt (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Investment adviser, Gorlock

 * This source could be used to add stuff to the article. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Gorlock bit was hilarious, but as a one-off joke I don't know how relevant it is. A lot of details about the character's history and personal affairs tend to be made up on the fly or changed around for the purpose of a punchline or a lead-in to discussion of a current issue - in this case, the stock market plunge.  Since the show's all about what the character cares about, Stephen has to have some kind of personal interest in the issue for it to be brought up, hence Gorlock. Shoemoney2night (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Gorlock bit was hilarious, but as a one-off joke I don't know how relevant it is. A lot of details about the character's history and personal affairs tend to be made up on the fly or changed around for the purpose of a punchline or a lead-in to discussion of a current issue - in this case, the stock market plunge.  Since the show's all about what the character cares about, Stephen has to have some kind of personal interest in the issue for it to be brought up, hence Gorlock. Shoemoney2night (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Feud with Conan
I don't think this particularly warrants its own subsection. It's only one of a number of "feuds" he's had with various well-known figures (the Decemberists, Barry Manilow, Willie Nelson, Richard Branson, Sean Penn - the list goes on), and is not especially significant either to the character or in comparison to all these other face-offs. On the other hand, perhaps some more general mention of his numerous celebrity "feuds" could be useful - it certainly speaks to his large ego. Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, this one was a lot bigger than the other ones I've seen. It spanned a few weeks and three shows... that's pretty big. (ApJ (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Agreed, a three-show crossover involving one of the Republican runners. That's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it again, but we need citation for the "confrontation" on all three shows last night. (ApJ (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Maybe in terms of the show it's important, but not in terms of the character. And if we're talking about bigger... The Green Screen Challenge lasted for months.  The feud with the Decemberists lasted for weeks and culminated in a massive shred-off with Chris Funk, Robert Schneider, Peter Frampton, Rick Nielsen and Henry Kissinger.  Stephen spent at least a week hawking the Richard Branson "train wreck". Barry Manilow continues to be brought up on the show.  At least three episodes featured attacks on Willie Nelson's ice cream flavour, leading up to the ice cream-off with Richard Holbrooke.


 * As far as this "feud" goes - and I say this, by the way, as a fangirl who positively squealed while watching it - this was essentially three talk show hosts in a very nasty situation, forced back on their shows without their writers, seeing and leaping on a storyline to help each other out and, as Jon put it, "waste time on all three of our shows". That's what this is about.


 * It is not an important stage in the character's life. This is in the biography, apparently on par with "Colbert '08" - a presidential campaign that received significant media attention and had obvious implications for the character - as a notable stage. That's ridiculous.  The fact is, the only reason this is here is because it's important to fandom.  Three of our favourite hosts get into a fake brawl, we get excited.  But in terms of the character, it is no different from any of his other celebrity feuds.


 * The only thing I believe this could be potentially used for is as an example of Stephen's tendency to get into these feuds, which is a result of the character's self-centeredness. He makes every story about him.  There's nothing too big that can't somehow be related back to him, and nothing too small in his life (ie. his wrist) that he doesn't consider news.  And he takes everything personally.  As such, he gets himself into these big feuds, which the comedian compares to Bill O'Reilly's culture wars.


 * If the discussion of the Conan feud belongs anywhere at all, it's in The Colbert Report, not here. Shoemoney2night (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It should at the very least be mentioned, as should his other feuds with celebrities. (ApJ (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Which is why I'm suggesting bringing up his celebrity feuds in relation to the character's tendency to personalise everything. There are several interviews in which Stephen discusses this, I'm trying to track them down so I can add something to the article.  In the mean time, for all the reasons listed above I don't think the Conan feud warrants a mention in the character's bio.  Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information and the references are there, so it is free to be integrated into the article, if its going to be. (ApJ (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Characteristics
I think some mention ought to be made of the fact that he steps out of character during his interviews. The quoted assertion that he improvises during the interviews may support this as well. While a fundamental aspect of the character is that of being an-idiot-who-doesn't-know-it, his ability to debate with a polemical command of ideas and philosophy creates an inherent contradiction which the guest cannot overcome without s/he, too, breaking out of character ie debating a character who exists beyond the bounds of the constructed comic persona. --P00r (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

homosexuality
I would edit this myself, but it might cause controversy.

Steven Colbert (character) claims to be straight on the show, but drops obvious hints about being a closeted homosexual. I specificly remember him mentioning his love of saunas and recurring dream of eating bananas.

Spambi75 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This, in my opinion, is not controversial as far as the character goes - his past (and current) homosexual experiences are a running theme on the show. Just off the top of my head:


 * The Word "Superegomaniac" (Stephen: "I'm not against gay marriage because I'm secretly afraid I'm gay" Bullet: "Secretly Knows He's Gay")
 * Deep-throating the banana on The Daily Show
 * Recurring dreams of said banana, as you mention (don't recall the sauna thing)
 * "Baby carrots are trying to turn me gay"
 * Pizza + Colbert = gay porn. First on The Daily Show in "Popping a Big Tent" then on The Colbert Report in "Fresh Hot Slice", and also on the DVD extras for Indecision 2004 (shares a slice with Jon Stewart)
 * His "hypothetical" gay porn work as Tyrone Hunnibi (to finance his "hypothetical" meth addiction) - and more pizza
 * Saying that he did not "blow [Bill O'Reilly] right away", but went for dinner first
 * There's plenty of material but I'm not much good at writing actual article content - anyone up to the task? Rissa (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aagh, I fail at links. Rissa (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I started writing this up myself, but it occurred to me that all of these references are directly from the show. While it's pretty obvious to all of us that character!Stephen is gay, shouldn't we have a secondary source stating as much before we put it in the article?  Otherwise it's just WP:OR, isn't it? Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! As of April 23, 2008, Colbert has asked Rain to a dance-off, a cuddle-off or a spoon-off. Pretty freakin' gay. No idea how to do those after-thingies right so, user: waladil, 9:55 PM 23 April 2008. Hope it's good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.247.190 (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To sign your username, just type four tildes (~) in a row. :) Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannibalism
Seriously guys, don't delete this. He really said it on April 22, 2008. PLEASE STOP DELETING IT!!! Just watch the show that night. Thanks for NOT deleting it- it's a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.247.190 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a really funny bit and a great farewell to Eric Drysdale, but I don't think that it warrants a mention in the character's biography. I've said this before, but the problem with writing about the character "Stephen Colbert" is that the show's writers don't stick to a particularly rigid history.  A lot of it's made up on the fly or inserted purely for a lead-in to discussion of current affairs or the sake of a great joke (as is the case with this one).  The character has also implied that he robbed Abraham Lincoln's grave and I think murdered Gwyneth Paltrow at one point.


 * I'm hesitant about inserting references to one-off jokes like the cannibalism thing into the article, mainly because originally the article was at least 50% funny references from the show. Which is great for a chuckle, but not so much for an encyclopaedia article.  I don't know how other people feel, but my position has always been that in order to warrant an inclusion in the bio, a joke has to be fairly significant and well-established canon (eg. Stephen's pre-TDS career, which is discussed in the book and supported by some segments on the show), or a very notable recurring joke (eg. His relationship with Jon, which is regularly joked about on the show and relates to his dynamic with Jon during the toss and other interactions). Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-notable, will never ever recur. Leave it out. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rain
Since Colbert's had this feud with Rain now for a year straight and considering it will probably continue into the next Time online poll... I think it's worth mentioning in the article. It's something he frequently mentions on the show these days.66.229.89.202 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

surely the fact that...
his father was a turd miner and his grandfather was a goat-ball-licker should be mentioned in his biography?  Serendi pod ous  07:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an hilarious segment, but it was also a one-off joke with little bearing on the character. I don't think it's relevant. Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Half the stuff in this biography are one-off jokes. That, for instance, his family was so devout that they sent him to an exorcism day-camp does help define the character more specifically than he was in The Daily Show days, but it wasn't brought up any more often, and I argue that the turd miner/goat-ball licker is a much more famous segment since it came out of the 2004 DNC and has been on the Indecision 2004 DVD for a few years. I'm gonna add it if no one really minds. -- 24.226.109.134 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That, to me, is an argument for deleting the exorcism day camp line, not for including the goat ball licker reference. The turd miner/goat ball licker thing was a joke specifically based on politicians' tendency to exaggerate their humble, working class origins as opposed to any real comment on the character's history. (I could be wrong, but in I Am America (And So Can You!) I think it's implied that he had a fairly comfortable middle class upbringing.) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many C's
Sorry guys, I had to take them back and give them to more needy wikipedia artcles. Hope this isn't a problem ;3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.12.1.51 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

spider
Someone ought to mention the spider that was just named after him on August 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin glasses - reliability of sources
Look, it's obvious that his new glasses are a response to Sarah Palin, I'm totally not refuting that. But I do question how reliable the account of an audience member as cited on a fan blog (as much as I love and admire NFZ) is for an encyclopaedia article. Definitely the Colbert Nation forum post is not a proper source and shouldn't be cited as such.

It's going to get picked up by somebody in the media sooner or later - probably sooner - or he'll make reference to it himself on the show; when that happens we will have something substantial to cite and to warrant the inclusion of the glasses reference. But at the moment, I don't think we have sufficient objective sources to justify the paragraph. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemoney2night is right. Please review WP:V and WP:Reliable. Fan blogs and forum posts typically fail both and are not acceptable as references.  Wait till a reliable source publishes something about it and then it can be added. Dp76764 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that you are totally missing the point that the blogs and forum posts ARE THEMSELVES the act here and not references, as with an ordinary news item. But clearly you are too clueless to "get" this. CheesemonkeyFrenchperson (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, you're totally unreferenced then and it's all original research. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Dp76764 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read and learn about performative utterance so that you can participate effectively. Verifiability was and is the standard I am using. CheesemonkeyFrenchperson (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an article, not a policy. And attacking other users is not a very good way to participate here. Dp76764 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Facebook
He's one of the 3 i bet I can find a million... groups on facebook with more than a million members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.29.162 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)