Talk:The Colbert Report/Archive 5

Scientology
Notable? Colbert states that his financial advisor is an alien named "Gorlock", who was recommended to him by Tom Cruise and made his portfolio "thetan-free"; if you know anything about what's going on with Scientology it's pretty obvious. Would it be more appropriate on a Scientology-related article? Episode here  Esper rant 03:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind. The List of The Colbert Report characters is probably enough.  Esper rant 03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

linear timeline
A linear timeline of the show would be good, so that significant happenings can be added in brief, without searching through the other sections (with an internal link to the meatier bits). 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The ColberT ReporT
Writer's strike - ColberT returns... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien/Jon Stewart
Considering how far this three-way feud has gone tonight, I think a small section about it should be added to the Recurring Themes. The Clawed One (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (ApJ (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * It's not recurring and is not even a theme, including it would be purposeless.— Noetic  Sage  05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true, it's a notable event in the history of the show. (ApJ (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Agreed, considering its spanned several episode and three seperate comedy shows now. The Clawed One (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added until after it's over, however (which appears to be tonight on Late Night). (ApJ (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Additionally, it should not be added without reliable sources.— Noetic  Sage  06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For example...? (ApJ (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * For example, a newspaper or something referencing that this information is even notable. At least every paragraph in an article should have a reference.— Noetic  Sage  06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So... we wait, then? (ApJ (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

If its references we need...



There's more, just Google "Conan Colbert", but I don't have the time right now to post them all. But they are there. The Clawed One (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Conan feud is a much smaller thing than everybody is making it out to be. People have argued that it is notable in terms of the history of the show: I disagree.  Consider some of the other events on the show that could be considered notable: The Pundit Swap, in which Stephen appeared on Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly's show before interviewing O'Reilly on the Report under a "Mission Accomplished" banner.  The Green Screen Challenge, which lasted for months and culminated in a lightsaber duel with George Lucas.  The Decemberists feud and the all-star Guitarmageddon.  All of them were significantly bigger and were given much greater attention of the show.  Furthermore, Stephen's character regularly engages in feuds with celebrities; it speaks to his character's personality and his tendency to make everything about him.  The comedians themselves acknowledged that the Conan feud was just an excuse to "waste time" during the strike.


 * I said when this was inserted into Stephen Colbert (character) that if this belonged anywhere it was here - personally, I don't think it even warrants a mention here. What was at best a three or four episode-spanning joke is essentially being given equal significance here to that of months-long recurring themes like Stephen's broken wrist and the green screen challenge, which I think is kind of ridiculous.  But there are two things that I think really need to be addressed here, if nothing else: First of all, the placement.  The feud is discussed under Cultural Impact, despite having had no significant impact on popular culture.  Unless there's evidence of such an impact, it needs to be moved.  Secondly, the length.  At four paragraphs, it's longer (and by implication is given more importance) than "Relation to The O'Reilly Factor" (One of the key influences on the show), "Greenscreen challenges" (which, as previously mentioned, spanned months and featured several celebrity clashes), "Hungarian bridge campaign" and a number of other key elements.  Come on.  It's essentially a blow-by-blow recount of the feud, for no other reason that I can see than that fans get excited when their favourite hosts crossover with other shows.


 * Let's be realistic. This feud is of little to know importance in terms of the show's history and is in essence no different from any of the other numerous feuds the character has engaged in.  Why are we treating it as though it's the first time Stephen's ever gotten into a brawl with somebody? Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete the Conan Feud section
I've already argued my reasons above, but in short, it bears no relevance whatsoever to the show's cultural impact (which is the section it's been placed in), is ridiculously long, carries no long-term implications for the show and, while exciting for fandom as a whole, is ultimately unimportant in the history of the show, particularly when compared to other notable events. Shoemoney2night (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs HUGE reductions, but there should be some mention of it - maybe integrate into a section on the writers; strike. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A section on how the show was affected by the strike might be worthwhile, but even in that case I don't think the feud warrants more than a few sentences - a short paragraph at the very outside. It's not that big.  Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. Though where does the ColberT reporT bit come from? I know that it was pronounced that way on the Jan 7th intro, but I don't remember it being mentioned as that again for the rest of the strike. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was a little unsure about that bit, too. I incorporated it along with the other stuff that was in the lead, but I don't recall it being mentioned again after that first episode back, either.  I think, again, it may be more of a fandom thing. Shoemoney2night (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Colbert Bump"
I think this deserves some mention as it relates directly to the show and has been researched.

University of California at San Diego political science professor James Folwer has written a tongue-in-cheek but legitimately researched article for Political Science & Politics that looks at donations to politicians before and after an appearance on Colbert's show. And he says his research shows that Democratic candidates who went on the air with Colbert saw a (get ready now ...) 44 percent increase in their donations.

The Colbert "Bump" and Democratic Fundraising The Colbert Bump in Democratic Fundraising AStudent (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This might also be of interest: Measuring the Colbert Bump -MalkavianX (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If Colbert Bump is going to redirect here, it should at least mention it. --98.23.134.139 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See Also: Rick Mercer Report.
Should the Rick Mercer Report be listed in the "See also" section? (and vice versa). These two shows are not connected except by genre, and neither page makes any other direct reference to the other. It seems like it's just there for advertising.

I think it's fine if it is. The Mercer Report is basically Canada's Colbert Report (and interestingly enough, the Daily Show is basically America's "This Hour Has 22 Minutes", a show that has been around since 1993, and which the Mercer Report was spun off from). 142.68.145.195 (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues
"Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks on Air America Radio, is attempting to sue Colbert for allegedly stealing one of his jokes. On September 7, 2007, he made a joke comparing Republicans to Klingons. On September 11, 2007, Colbert presented "The Wørd", where he compared Republican Rudolph Giuliani to a Klingon.[69]"

You can sue people over JOKES in the US now? You guys really are fucked. Completely. Do you patent them at the patent office?

God, I'm gonna pirate twice as hard now just for the hell of it. Thank god for ISP's that don't comply with foreign requests.

213.141.89.53 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the cited article, there's no mention of legal action - if you google around, it looks like an attempt by Cenk Uygur to start a fake feud. Zipzipzip (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As a regular viewer of the Young Turks, I can tell you with 100% certainty that he is not in a legal battle with Stephen Colbert. When he made the claim that he'd sue Colbert, it was almost entirely in jest. --Elshizzo (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert's death
Should Colbert's line "He will be sorely missed." be counted as "non-satirical journalism"? (On the June 16th show). Although there was some humor in the whole story, the ending *was* real. 76.122.216.18 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The section is about other people using Colbert has a serious source (such as the Wexler interview), not Colbert himself being serious. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mentions
Deleting all reference to Wikipedia in this article as it seems more like a self-serving story for Wikipedians. If there was mention of all "Words" then this article would be unreadable, infact I'm sure the only people that care about this issue are Wikipedians, and not the general public for whom this is about. If someone were to look up the colbert report in years to come they would think that this was an important part of his program which it is not, it was only important to wikipedians, therefore I am deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.184.124 (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think mentioning Colbert's...um...playful attacks at wikipedia a very important aspect of the show. First of all, he himself got blocked from editing wikipedia because of that hilarious vandalism to the elephant article.  Secondly, whenever he so much cites wikipedia as a source of one of his punchlines, fans tend to flock to make the article correlate to said joke (for the most recent example, see this). Finally, wikipedia mentions are a recurring phenomena of The Colbert Report, since the Colbert claims it's his favorite webisite, as per wikiality. I think I'll restore that info for now. Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think it's just too long. It's undeniable that he mentions WP often, but I don't think we need to mention every instance in great detail. --TM 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the record it has never been verified that Colbert edited WP, see User talk:Stephencolbert. --TM 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bit preposterous that wikipedia section of the article is far longer than other sections such as "Better Know a District". If we are to go with the logic presented by some (cinemaniac) that just because wikipedia mentions are a recurring phenomena on the show than shouldn't there be just as long a section on people such as Congresswoman Holmes-Norton?  Or maybe even a long section on every re-occuring theme such as Stephen Jr., Steagle, etc.  It just seems very self-serving of some to think that the wikipedia mentions should be that long and intensely detailed, as I said before I think it gives the wrong impression that Wikipedia and its mentions are a key part of his show, they are not!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.184.124 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said Wikipedia was actually a "key part of this show"; I simply stated that wikipedia mentions are a (more-or-less) recurring phenomenon, as you have also correctly stated. The reason that section is really there, after all, is because of the Colbert character's impact on wikipedia as a whole (as I previously noted, almost everytime Colbert cites wikipedia as a source for one of his jokes, fans tend to immediately edit said article to correlate to what Stephen said &mdash; which is, you have to admit, very funny, indeed).  The reason why wikipedia is Colbert's favorite website is actually very fundamental to his character's character &mdash; the fact that you can edit something to say what you want it to say, regardless of facts, is sort of the core of Colbert's truthiness policy, and attacks the very basics of wikipedia itself. And that is, once again, very funny, indeed. :) I never said that I really wanted the wikipedia section of this article to be so long and detailed as it is; I simply restored the info because your reason given &mdash; at least, at the time &mdash; didn't seem adequate enough, so deleting all references to wikipedia in the article looked like a hasty decision -- to me.  Now I don't mind that section being trimmed down, as it does look rather excessive as of this writing; and if you feel like it shouldn't be so long ... hey, go ahead and edit it down to a more reasonable length.  After all, this is wikipedia! :)  Your awareness of the show's history makes me suspect that you are a loyal viewer of the program; and so, as a fan speaking to another fan: If you thought I was being self-serving, I apologize; that wasn't my intent at all.  I simply thought it somewhat retrograde deleting a whole section of an article that revealed a fundamental characteristic of the show's host.  And, to hold up my point of the deal, I think I'll trim that section down. :) Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs  •  critique) 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno; I just can't seem to find what to snip out of that section. Perhaps someone not so close to the subject can take a whack at it?
 * And just for the record, 71.233.184.124, there is, in fact, an article devoted to recurring themes of The Colbert Report, and it can be found here. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be deleted. It's not really a very significant part of the show. The person who brought this issue up to begin with is absolutely right. Belasted (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a satirical irony in the fact that truthiness has its very own entry on Wikipedia, while wikiality does not and is actually mentioned only under the main Colbert Report article and not even under its own heading. That makes it sadly, embarrasingly, and ironically apparent that the term is being deliberately downplayed, because wikipedians don't like Colbert's implication that they create entries according to whatever they like rather than based on the facts. By its very inception, the term carries with it a relevant and recurring criticism of Wikipedia. That the term is subsequently virtually outlawed to the point of not having its own entry (unlike Truthiness) or even its own heading is quite revealing. This is only reinforced by the fact that we cannot even discuss it, because at least some of us cannot edit the talk-page for wikiality - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiality#Wikiality.com Apocryphan (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Truthiness
Should not be mentioned as both the prominent phenomenon it was and an "example" of a "neologism" on the show. It's neither a neologism at all nor an example of the any number of neologisms that frequent the opening graphics and The Word, such as "freem," "eneagled," and "megamerican."--Hawkian (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Guests?

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

'''Wikipedia is not a forum. As such, this discussion thread is now closed. nat.utoronto''' 01:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or has he like never had a conservative guest on his show? That might be a worthy comment to add to the article, seeing as although he plays a conservative on the show, you never see a REAL conservative on it.PokeHomsar (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes he has, like Bill O'Reilly for starters. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about David Brooks, Dan Senor Bruce Bartlett (Bush critic, but certainly a conservative), Mike Huckabee and Angela Buchanan and Richard Land. Those were just the ones I could think of.  The majority of his guest spots are actors and celebrities, but he has conservatives on quite often.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Monica Crowley, Peggy Noonan, and nine of the districts from Better Know a District had Republican representatives. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, don't feed the troll. This is not a forum.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Reception
I had put this in ''While Colbert's audience tends to lean young and republican, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart tends to lean young and democratic. '' and someone deleted it, why? Grant23 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo, lol
I few days ago I added "Rock On!" to the list of words (somebody PLEASE make sure it's not bad), and I put the date wrong. Where I live (New Brunswick, Canada), Colbert Report airs at 12:30AM, so you can understand why I'd get it wrong. I checked the date on my computer, and it told me it was the 17th, lol. Thanks whoever fixed it. 142.166.251.110 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Tuesday thru Friday Schedule?
Colbert Report is currently on a break, and will return on Tuesday 26-Aug-2008. According to http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_schedule/index.jhtml?seriesId=11608&forever=please the show will air new episodes Tuesday-Friday for the 2 weeks after that, instead of the usual Monday-Thursday. The Daily Show shows the same schedule of new episodes http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_schedule/index.jhtml?seriesId=11608&forever=please Anyone see a confirmation of this new schedule anywhere? Is this going to be the usual schedule? 67.182.245.200 (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is they're doing it for TDS's coverage of the conventions - because the show tapes in the early evening so they'd probably have to work a day behind with their field pieces, ie. the bit filmed on Monday would air Tuesday, and so on. If that's the case it probably wouldn't become the norm. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro Messages?
How about mentioning his notable intro messages, like Multi Grain or "President Bush have a hot dog with me"? Duuude007 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are they not trivia?139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned; see this. &mdash; Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 16:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

on the show, colbert's character is only PRETENDING to be a republican/conservative, right?
And the audience is in on the colbert character PRETENDING to be a republican/bush and mccain supporter, etc. it's like wink-wink nudge-nudge? Only some (but not all) guests seem to take what he says at face value...

am I right? should this be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.170 (talk) 05:13, October 11, 2008
 * It's all satirical, yeah. All the guests on the show are aware he's playing a character - according to Colbert he generally tells guests that he's playing an idiot and asks them to disabuse him of his ignorance. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe there's an article on Colbert the character somehwhere and all the silliness he gets up to -as- the character. Cuz he didn't -really- get addicted to painkillers after his wrist accident. Lots42 (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

flagaphile
I think it's time we stopped listing all of the opening sequence's final words. There's too many.

"Originally, the last word was grippy, but it has changed to megamerican, Lincolnish, superstantial, freem, eneagled, flagaphile, good, gutly, warrior-poet, President Bush have a hotdog with me, Self-Evident (for the week of April 14, 2008, in honor of the show's broadcast from Philadelphia, returning to President Bush have a hotdog with me afterwards), Rock On! (only for the July 16, 2008 episode, in honor of Rush's first televised performance in more than thirty years), Multi-grain, vote, and Factose Intolerant (as of November 5, 2008)."

HUGE sentence. Let's just take a select few along with the most recent, and give this whole final word thing a rest. Flagaphile's my favourite, so I vote that's one of the ones we keep. Is that thing about Rush true? I'm no regular to these parts, but I'm used to seeing superscripted numbers after statements like those. 207.179.180.36 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality.com
Please see Talk:Wikiality CapnZapp (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel
there are rumours that Dr. Steel (www.DoctorSteel.com) and colbert are good friends, true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.70.169 (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Cornhole
why did Wikipedia spoil our fun and ban the creation of a page called "Robert Cornhole"? we could've had it seen on TV! can someone whose an admin let us please remake the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Permafry42 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a joke site. –- kungming·  2  00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what i mean. What if you made a note on this page or on it's own page that Robert Cornhole is a person Colbert used as a representation of how easy it is to make up a fake historic name,(in fact, after I'm done writing this, i will write an example on or near the bottom of this page. If you get rid of it, please give a good reason here.) Permafry42 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Space station node naming
I know some eager editor has been waiting to add a paragraph or two about Colbert's ongoing efforts to have NASA name Node 3 after him instead of "Serenity" or "Xenu". Well, the Associated Press just served up the reliable source coverage you've been waiting for. Enjoy. - Dravecky (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Recurring character: P.K. Winsome
I noticed that Mr. Winsome is missing from the "recurring characters" portion of the entry. He has appeared on the Report twice, to my knowledge. Is this not enough to warrant his inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.112.23 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's in List of The Colbert Report characters.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Persian Gulf special
Is this actually something he's going to do, or is it just a joke? The Clawed One (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably legit, but what does this question have to do with this article? Talk Pages are not a place for forum discussions.  DP 76764  (Talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it would be something of note if he does do it. The Clawed One (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as enough sources cover it, absolutely. DP 76764  (Talk) 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

,,. Three (AFAIK) reliable third-party sources have reported it. Should we add it? I'm not sure where this would go in the article. The Clawed One (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's plenty to add this in =) I'd say put it in the 'Cultural Impact' section under its own section.  DP 76764  (Talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added, though the section may need some editing. The Clawed One (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a tie-in regarding the DonorsChoose armed forces challenge? It's been pretty heavily promoted on the show in conjunction with his Persial Gulf Special (Where in the World and When in Time is Stephen Colbert going to the Persian Gulf?) Then again, it's already on Colbert Nation, and the front page of Donors Choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.58.234 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentions like that should be well sourced if added. DP 76764  (Talk) 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiBurn
Colbert burned us. This is probably his best Wikipedia clip yet. He may actually be the only member of the media who actually understands how Wikipedia works. It may be worth adjusting the Wikipedia section of this article to explain how Colbert manages to promote and critique Wikipedia in a non-hysterical fashion whilst remaining... hysterical. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was a great bit (he named names, lol). Question would be: won't we need some decent sourcing to avoid WP:OR on this?  DP 76764  (Talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't watch the vid, what does he say? The Clawed One (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Length
I removed the "Too Long" template. The reason given (may cause old browsers to freeze) is no longer accepted as a limit on article length, per WP:LENGTH ("< 40 KB Length alone [of readable prose] does not justify division"). And after the culture section was split off, this is now within that limit. ThanksYobMod 08:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Premiere ratings
I'm a little concerned about the ratings we have listed for the premiere episode. Currently, it is listed as 11.3 million. From the best I can see, an IP vandal had been playing with the numbers, changing it from the original 1.13 million to 11.3 million and then later even claiming 113 billion. The original sources (source and web archive) are dead and I'm having a bit of trouble tracking down a really good full article, but the best hit I've gotten is this link to the Philadelphia Inquirer saying 1.13 million. I realize that I may very easily being missing something here, so I wanted to see before I changed it and included this ref. Cheers! Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to double post, but I went back and looked through the history (kind of difficult due to a copy-paste move), but the number that was originally inserted was 1.13 (diff) with this source later given. I believe these two sources are enough to show that it was 1.13 million, not 11.3, so I am going to change it and include the latter source. If I am confused or missing something, I do apologize, just let me know. Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode mentioned in AIUSA's blog
I have news that Amnesty International USA made a blog on The Colbert Report's episode that talks about the death penalty as shown here: Colbert: Death Penalty Deters Hunting Interns for Sport. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New Set Image
Should we consider getting one? This image is pretty nice, if needed we could resize it. The Clawed One (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Tek Jansen
How about Tek Jansen under recurring characters section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.146.130 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go to the main page linked, he is covered there. Feel free to add it in though, constructive contributions are welcomed. Outback the Koala (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peabody
"In April 2008, The Colbert Report received a George F. Peabody Award recognizing its excellence in news and entertainment. This award was last seen being 'smashed' by Colbert in anger because he had not won the Peabody Award once again." The Peabody is in fact shown again in the April 27, 2010 episode in the Stephen Hawking segment. (About 11:52 in) &int;eb²+1talk 22:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The On Notice/Dead to Me Boards?
The boards get a brief passing in one section, but aren't mentioned anywhere else. I feel like they should be included, as they're big fan favorites, but I don't see a place to shimmy them in. I also can't think of enough to write about them to have them be their own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.110.182 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Eating
Someone added a section (later reverted) about the fact that Colbert often eats on the show. While I agree at the outset that it is not obviously notable, I do wonder if anyone has noted it before thus making it notable. I mean, he does eat a surprising amount of stuff... -mattbuck (Talk) 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He does seem to eat a lot on his show. A quick Google News search didn't turn up any usable results though.  DP 76764  (Talk) 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

SCILF
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Colbert_Report&action=historysubmit&diff=373196765&oldid=373195945

Original research, possibly, but is irrefutable nonetheless.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also fairly trivial. $0.02 DP 76764  (Talk) 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To make it not original research, can i source it to an episode?--Iankap99 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be a primary source, which is not generally adequate; you need a reliable 3rd party source discussing it. Which is doubtful to find, as this was such a common, trivial bit of this show.  DP 76764  (Talk) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's absurd, not every sentence in the article is sourced.--Iankap99 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But most of the content is sourced. And two wrongs don't make a right. Please read WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT for more information regarding this issue and why such content is generally removed. Basically, the current state of a television show's opening sequence is of no encyclopedic value, nor will it be of any long-term or historical value in most cases (including this one). Please also understand that even if something can be sourced, that doesn't mean it's of any value to an article (WP:IINFO). Nor does a lack of citation within this or any other article justify further lack of citation (WP:V & WP:RS). If you need more information regarding editing policies, please see Tutorial for more information, or aimply ask other editors. DKqwerty (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Post script: see WP:HTRIV as well. DKqwerty (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Word or Wørd?
I say it should be 'Word' and not 'Wørd', for a couple of reasons.

First, although in the logo, the 'O' has a strike through it, this should not be interpreted as representing the character of the Norwegian 'ø'. It's still an 'o'. It's just a design decision. The "Nailed 'Em' logo depicts a nail through the 'D' but that doesn't mean it isn't still a 'D'.

Second, there are only two places where you will see 'The Wørd' with a Norwegian ø: in the logo on the show, and on Wikipedia. Almost everywhere else you look, it's simply spelled 'Word.' Including, and this is the real clincher, on the Colbert Nation website. (http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/The+Word). If Colbert's website spells it 'Word', then it's 'Word'!

70.71.21.114 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)J_Brisby


 * The website may say "Word", but the show says "Wørd". As far as I can tell, the show itself is a far more reliable source of what's on the show than the website about the show.  And it really doesn't matter that the character "ø" is Norwegian and not pronounced the same way as the short "o".  It's stylistic.  This is a television show, not a dictionary. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly. You make my point for me.  It's a stylistic 'o' and NOT a character 'ø'.  This is simply a case where Wikipedia has it wrong.  Don't be pedantic for pedantry's sake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.21.114 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's stylistic as in they chose it for a reason and therefore that's the title. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you're just being stubborn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.21.114 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's check out another example: Toys "R" Us.  Using that as a template, we should probably switch to "o" and make reference to the "ø" in the description.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems perfectly reasonable to me. 70.71.21.114 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)J_Brisby
 * Not to me. Let's not be pedantic.  They use the spelling on the air, that's what we should use.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NAME (since what applies to an article also applies to sections that could be an article), the spelling we should use is the more common one, not the stylistic one. The Toys "R" Us example shows this. Even official media like the website spell it "The Word" even if they could. I agree that Arichnad's suggestion is probably the best solution that within our guidelines and policies. Regards  So  Why  19:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, as long as we have a description about the ø, we should have standard english spelling otherwise. Outback the koala (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. WP:NAME says specifically that it applies for "article titles".  There is nothing in there to make me believe it should apply to a subject covered in the article going by a different title. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question though - with Toys R Us, how exactly would you make it a backwards R? I don't think that's a unicode character. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't know if there is a WP:MOS I can cite, but I'm know the general consensus is to use the proper spelling in these kinds of cases. Alien 3 and This Is Spinal Tap being two examples of this sort of consensus.  Both mention the alternate spelling in the lead.  I think we should go ahead and change it. --Leivick (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Straw person
Isn't this show one big strawman? Pretend to be your opponent and act as stupid/ignorant/blowhard-ish as possible? --Thedoorhinge (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly but this page is not a place to discuss this. Regards  So Why  19:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another "Colbert Report" episode mentioned in AIUSA's blog
Here's another episode of The Colbert Report mentioned in the blog of Amnesty International USA: Politics + Executions = Comedy Gold!--Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)