Talk:Stephen Colbert (character)/Archive 2

Portrait
How relevant is the "Portrait" section to Stephen Colbert the character? The section appears to be dealing with the set and content of the show much more generally and doesn't really discuss the character at all. Perhaps this information should be merged into The Colbert Report instead? As I see it, the portrait - and Colbert's attempts to have it recognised as a national treasure - is only relevant to the character himself in that it's an example of his egotistical nature. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and deleted the aforementioned section. I had a quick look at The Colbert Report first and information on the portrait is already included there anyway. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood
Why was the reference to his knighthood deleted? It's a fact that it happened -- watch tonight's show. If you think it was put in the wrong place, please feel free to move it around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.155.240 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Colbert was knighted by Queen Noor of Jordan on his 2009-04-07 show. The end credits list Colbert as: Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A. pbryan (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Colbert is a LOTR fan it might be a funny side-note that the sword used to knight him is a remake of Narsil, Aragorn's sword, as used in Peter Jackson's film version of "The Return of the King" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.226.17 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem
I've removed the following. Will someone block Stephen Colbert? :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Under Stephen's Desk

Stephen Colbert also has a vast array of items that he keeps in the seemingly limitless space under his C-shaped anchor desk. Much like Oscar the Grouch's famous pet elephant living with him in a trash can, many of the items under Colbert's desk would not seem to be able to fit under normal circumstances. Items include a gas mask, a 12 gauge shotgun (fully loaded), his lovable pistol Sweetness, a disc sander, a pitchfork, the skull of Abraham Lincoln, his Jew-phone, various books and newspapers, and one can only assume, a ton of cocaine and painkillers. Stephen's desk also houses several facilities that apparently all converge near or around his feet. These locations include a fully functional Starbucks along with a hipster barista, and a Guantanamo Bay-like detention center. In this vast prison Stephen keeps various political prisoners and/or people who are dead to him. They've included a young Greek student Stephen mistakenly believed to be a Muslim terrorist, and several Jews from the era of the Old Testament. He has since released these prisoners.

I've also, sadly, removed the following gem. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Struggles With Addiction

Stephen Colbert the character has had many struggles with drug addiction. In his college days his nickname was "High Snow Lord of the Blow Lands" and he would often engage in cocaine snorting contests for charity. Though seemingly reformed, the demon of addiction reared it's ugly head again when Stephen fell on the set and fractured his wrist. After obtaining illegal painkillers, Stephen began a long public battle with the drugs, often eating handfuls or even grinding them up and rubbing them in his tear ducts. Ever the survivor, Colbert was able to beat the addiction cold-turkey when his cast was removed and the joke had run its course.

A small note about the first one.. Colbert actually has 2 Starbucks under his desk. The one on the left was closed down, however. o.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.55.6 (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality
There should be something about the character's sexuality in the article. His blatant homophobia and at the same time very badly hidden sexual attraction to men is a very common reacurring joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.180.14 (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, find a source discussing it. DP 76764  (Talk) 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stelephant
As a result of Articles for deletion/Stelephant Colbert, the contents of this old revision needs a brief mention in this article.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy, Take it Down!!
Seems to be a recurring meme in his show. Perhaps add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.39.143 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's trivia unless you can find a reliable source talking about it. DP 76764  (Talk) 18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To DP's comment in this thread and the one above- the TV show itself is a source. you dont have to find another RS discussing it. Ridiculous.Camelbinky (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means a reliable source to establish the catch phrases notability. Right now there's nothing to suggest that it's anything but what Stephen says when he want's Jimmy to remove the overlay. It may be common but it's not particularly noteworthy...yet. Padillah (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Also, using the show itself as a source wouldn't be adequate for this as it would constitute original research to make the declaration that this is indeed a catch phrase (unless it is actually stated so on the show, which it hasn't).  Thus an outside source would be needed (currently).  DP 76764  (Talk) 17:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Stephen
I just deleted this section from the article. I tried to fix it, but I couldn't. There were grammar and punctuation problems, and no sources. Also, I think that such a section belongs on the show page, not here. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Section deletion unwarranted because section can be improved, is unsourced currently due to pentagon directives on publication. Yes, this should be included on the show page, but included here as well as there. Outback the koala (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I could not disagree more. The entire section appears to have been written by Colbert's staff, pretending that the "operation" is some real military campaign.  The incident amounts to nothing more than a skit on Colbert's show, and it has no other significance than that.  If it merits a mention here at all, it should not be longer than one sentence.  Additionally, the section still contains careless syntax errors.  Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "It’s the first time in the history of the U.S.O. that a full-length non-news show has been filmed, edited and broadcast from a combat zone."  I'd call that noteworthy and significantly more than a 'skit'.  DP 76764  (Talk) 15:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it is more than a skit. However, the main problems I have with the section are: 1) It is written as if it is a real event, not an element of a comedy show, 2) It is too long and full of trivia, and 3) It belongs on the show page, not here.  If you insist on keeping the section, can you at least make it read like an encyclopedia entry for a comedy show known for its own self-promotion?Jarhed (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This was filmed in Baghdad, Iraq in association with the USO and the United States Military and featured many prominent persons such as; Barrack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, George Bush(SR.), George Bush(JR.), and many more. This tour, unlike Colbert's show, was a bonofide USO tour, similar to those of Bob Hope... I will admit work on spelling a syntax must be done, However Section should and will remain in place. Outback the koala (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Koala, I just happened across this section, and I really could not care less about it. However, I believe that it is a very poor section, in that it ascribes more importance to the event than it should have, is full of trivia, and it doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry. If you can rewrite it to fix these issues, please do. Otherwise, I think the section should be deleted. When editors disagree on such issues, it is easy to get help from other editors. Please see if you can fix the problems, and I will take a look when you are done. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As an example of what I am talking about, "Operation Iraqi Stephen" is terminology from the TV show and nowhere else. There is no mention of Colbert on the USO web site, and as this article makes clear, it is not a USO tour at all. The Colbert show is paying for the film crew, and the most notable part of the performance is the broadcast on Colbert's own TV show. Surely the difference between the hype on a TV show and the actual notability of the event is obvious.Jarhed (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't support this being in the character article at all. This is something that the show did. The section itself even talks about the shows episodes and not the character. This belongs in the Show article. Padillah (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's a brief mention of it in the Colbert Report article (which links back here).  Why not move the material there with maybe a brief sentence about it here?  DP 76764  (Talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. What might be best in this situation is to create a new page to discuss this event, there is certainly no shortage of sources to draw from. Could this not be a much better solution to the issue? In that event all related articles could link to this new page with a brief explanation remaining. Outback the koala (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened to NASA?
What happened to the big stink that was made to get the space station module named after him? They eventually named a tredmill after an bacronym of his name C.O.L.B.E.R.T. Do we just not mention this? Padillah (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's Request
On the October 7, 2009 episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert has requested fans add his name to the Conservative Bible Project by making him a biblical figure. IE "Stephen Colbert parted the Red Sea." I tried logging on to conservapedia.com as soon as he made this request, but conservapedia's server has been down. I'm assuming it has been overloaded due to Stephens request. (pfrankie)


 * If you are able to find a reliable source talking about this, then it might be included on the Cultural impact of The Colbert Report page. Also please sign when you use the talk page please. Outback the koala (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Character's Age
As per 71.233.44.84's edit, and undoing of my reverting of his edit, that Stephen Colbert (character)'s age is actually 545 years old. As the edit states;

(changing age in info box) "age = 560 "=

(and then adding this bit under Fictional biography)

"After interviewing physicist Brian Cox on Oct 29, 2009 about the nature of time, Colbert summoned his future self to the present and was subsequently replaced by 'Future Stephen.' Having returned from 500 years in the future where 'Future Stephen' continued to host his show and was "still young and very popular," Colbert is now the oldest living human on earth at 560 years old."

I don't think this is a recurring element on the show so I don't believe it qualifies for inclusion on this page. What are the opinions of other editors? Outback the koala (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a recurring theme yet (and unlikely to be so, I wager). Definitely shouldn't be included until it is established to be more than a 1-shot joke.  DP 76764  (Talk) 03:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The River Colbert (Mississippi)
Although Stephen Colbert's character likes to have things named after himself, I've never heard him mention the fact that the Mississippi River was previously the River Colbert. That's the name La Salle gave it in 1682 when he claimed all the land drained by the Mississippi for France. La Salle named the territory the French version of Louisiana (in honor of the king) and the river the Colbert (in honor of the French finance minister). Anyone can verify this name in a few seconds. I couldn't find how to send Stephen an email, or I would have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.224.65 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Character?!?!!?
How can he be treated like a classically written fictional character? It's a PERSONA, no different than any other comedic talk show host who yaks it up for the cameras and then goes home a normal person. Same with musicians, some of them act all crazy onstage, and then are shy and reserved in real life. Do we have an article for Sasha Fierce (character) to help people understand her as Beyoncé's alter ego? No, no we do not. Do we have separate articles for Stefani Germanotta and Lady Gaga? No, we don't. Tony Clifton, on the other hand, was indeed a character, and should be treated like one. But Stephen Colbert's bit is just that. An act. Not really a separate, fictional character worthy of its own article. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So the fact that it's been firmly established that the character espouses beliefs that are completely contradictory to the actors belifs has nothing to do with it? The comparison to Lady Gaga is invalid. It's not like Lady Gaga speaks out against the health care bill but Stefani Germanotta supports it. This isn't a case of "letting one's hair down", the show's character claims a belief system that is almost diametrically opposite of what the person portraying them does. To be honest I think Tony Clifton and Andy Kaufman have much closer belief systems than the Actor and character of Stephen Colbert. So, yes, this really is an article that is needed. Padillah (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. Didn't see this til now. Sorry. Outback the Koala (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article contains a number of references to the fact that the comedian and the persona sometimes run together. You could put a statement to that effect in the lead-in. -Mattmatt1987 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay
Why doesn't the page mention the many assertions that "Stephen" (the persona, not Stephen himself) is a closeted homosexual? There are many references to his supposed sexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.148.166 (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, find one then. DP 76764  (Talk) 03:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Congressional testimony
Why is there no mention of his Friday appearance at congress to testify on the conditions of migrant farm workers? Sarujo (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There will be. It's still pretty recent.  Should be plenty of sources discussing it though.  DP 76764  (Talk) 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll say there is. But what will seal the deal, is he discussing it on the Report tonight. Sarujo (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore
I was just reading this article, and as a Brit who knew next-to-nothing about Stephen Colbert, this sentence from "The Colbert Report" section gave me pause for thought: "It was not until September 2011 that Al Gore mentioned that 'Stephen Colbert' is merely a character, a move that shocked Stephen Colbert." This is the first time that Al Gore is mentioned, and it made me think "why is Al Gore relevant here?" Does Al Gore have a past history of commentating on Stephen Colbert, or what's going on here? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was during an episode of The Colbert Report. Gore was being interviewed and called Colbert a character, hence the line. Tiller54 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remove...
this paragraph: ''As the show has progressed, the character has increasingly moved into less political situations, such as a green screen challenge and a "Meta-Free-Phor-All" metaphor contest with Sean Penn in which his pundit models would not necessarily engage. "I've found that at the base of it is still that character from The Daily Show who is a well-intentioned, poorly informed high status idiot, that I can apply to other issues," Colbert says.[9]''

The ref does not provide this information and it does not seem to me to be correct. Reading it I tend to think, "whud he say?" - it's old and perhaps made sense at one time but no longer does...  Any suggestions, objections, etc.? Gandydancer (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No objections - copy removed. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Trivial suffixes and prefixes
An anon editor with a dynamic IP keeps re-adding the trivial joke suffixes and prefixes to the fictional Stephen Colbert's name. In line with with WP:WAF, Wikipedia ought to present the character to the reader in a simplistic and matter-of-fact manner which does not treat the fictional Colbert as a real person. I would like to get some consensus about keeping the lead name to simply "Stephen Colbert." If someone can find a source which points out the notability of the joke wherein he appends countless letters and titles to his name, then by all means Wikipedia should cover it, but even so I hesitate to think it would belong in the lead section of the article.Zythe (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/416829/july-23-2012/interview-no-show--mike-tyson That clip.  And it's also present in the show credits.  You probably don't even watch his show.


 * Rude person. The point is, you require a source to establish its notability as its inclusion implicitly treats the character as if it was a person rather than a device for satire.Zythe (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And I gave you a source in the form of that video clip which you probably didn't even bother to watch. Thank you for proving my point about not watching his show.  And also thank you for the laugh you gave me at your comment about my rudeness.  Yeah, I guess being blunt and having an opinion that differs from yours makes me rude.  Really, do you even watch his show?  I'm going assume from your refusal to answer my question that you don't watch his show and, therefore, are hardly qualified to be making changes to this article.  Elitist douchebags like you that edit articles without any prior knowledge of the content are the problem with wikipedia.


 * It is not a third party source which establishes its notability. You keep misinterpreting me. And I watch Colbert Report, sometimes, although I tend to watch more of The Daily Show. I'm not an elitist douchebag, merely someone struggling to explain to you that articles are meant to be written in a particular style.Zythe (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well you obviously haven't watched enough of it to understand the significance of all those prefixes and suffixes added to Stephen's name. Maybe if you took some time out to google and do some research, you'd see how he got all those titles.  And while you're at it, do yourself a favor and educate yourself on what satire is.


 * I'm going to stop giving you the benefit of the doubt of assuming you're not an idiot, since you have repeatedly assumed I am one. I'm perfectly aware of the joke, and of how the satire functions. However, this would not justify including anything but the WP:COMMONNAME in the Lead. The joke titles etcetera are simply trivial unless an independent and reliable third party source produces commentary which can be used to explain their function in the article. This is just how Wikipedia works. How many times does this need explaining?Zythe (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well judging from some of the scathing comments on your talk page, I'm not the only one that assumes you're an idiot, let alone an elitist douchebag. How you got bestowed that rhodium editor star is beyond me.
 * NOTE: On an issue unrelated to the subject being discussed - continued personal attacks will result in blocks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, then block the guy who just insulted me on my talk page. I'm no idiot, and I'm not even an elitist, I'm just forthright when I'm correct.Zythe (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexism claims.
"This comes in contradiction of his at times sexist behavior, for instance, calling only on men during an open discussion with his audience on women's issues."

This was a clear play on congress inviting only men to discuss the issue of abortion as seen here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/20-week-abortion-bill_n_3385122.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.115.75 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Rev "
Since his character's titles, ironically, have previously been completely legit, for this to be true with regard "the Rev." would mean he has sent away for a mail-order certificate or, which would be more true to form, had been awarded this designation by some miniscule denomination. (Or, maybe not? since the "real" Colbert is a practicing Catholic....) --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He just called himself that last night to emulate Dr. King, right? In that case it should be taken out. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * His March to Keep Fear Alive prominently features the "The Rev." honorific. However, if he drops its use post rally, then I suppose that comparable to a one-off. So, let's wait and see.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've ever seen him call himself Reverend. Should it be removed? Tiller54 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in the closing credits, so it's part of the character name now. For the record, the full character name and its five titles as of March 14th 2012, broken down by portion, is (1) Sir (knighted by Queen Noor) (2) Rev. (self-gloss as far as we know) (3) Dr. (honorary doctorate of fine film from Knox College) Stephen T (4) Mos Def (title conferred to him by Dante Smith, who no longer uses it) Colbert, (5) D.F.A. (see Dr.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatJT (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Colbert used that long name just as a comedy. Unless he substantiates his long name as his character's then this should be changed. -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 05:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rev. Sir Dr. Stephen T. Mos Def  Colbert DFA Heavy Weight Champion of the World✱✱ featuring Flo Rida . There is no doubt that it is for comedy. However, once you get receive a title, you do not need to use all of the titles all the time, you can pick and choose the ones you want to use, at that time. See, this Cheating Death bits, he only bills himself as Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA. However, on this last episode (October 23rd, 2013 ) we see that he fills out his governmental form for the ACA he fills it out with Heavy Weight Champion of the World featuring Flo Rida. That is name, with all of his titles, is how it should be billed. Optionally, instead of placing it at the heading of the page, why not put in the infobox under Titles or in it's own section? I ask this as there is a fight to put it on the header. We should compromise and place it in the infobox or it's own section, where we can add the titles, as well as the references to when they are added.Cdcrawford (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems like an acceptable compromise. I think having the full name in the article lead is a bit much, but would not object to placing it in the infobox (sourced, of course).  --Chris (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a section would be best as some of these titles are a little foolish and the placement of them in his name is crucial to the comedy (see Stephen T. Mos Def Colbert). Would a section be an acceptable compromise? ~Cdcrawford (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added the Title and Styling section. Please feel free to edit it.Chris (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --Chris (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Article protection request
Could an admin please protect this page? It has been subjected to vandalism by continuously changing Colbert's name on the lead paragraph. Thanks -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 08:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014
Request to edit the titles and stylings of Stephen Colbert as he has proclaimed himself as the first lady of France.

Chris (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

non-fictional elements citation needed
can be used to cite non-fictional elements: http://www.amazon.com/America-And-Should-You-Care/dp/1500959243 --Mildreddd (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

use for " Later, when she was nominated to run against Mark Sanford and the MSNBC show Morning Joe declared their support for Sanford and mentioned Colbert, he defended his sister's campaign.": http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/colbert-takes-morning-joe-sister-campaign-article-1.1307599 --Mildreddd (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

for lorraine: https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/12/19/colbert-exits-with-singalong-and-sleigh-ride/wlYCftwhQIrpfA5hriu0NO/story.html --Mildreddd (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stephen Colbert (character). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090916005555/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3512173 to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3512173

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like you to question me; And we go from there..?
Mr. Stephen Colbert; I am Who i say i am, My name is Emmanuel and i belive you are like my self{God) WE have friends in big places.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C204:690:A59C:5498:447F:B43A (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stephen Colbert (character). 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080919104155/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003657754 to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003657754

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)