Talk:Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article was created as a split-off section from Stephen Colbert, where the section had grown to 58% of the total content of the entry on Colbert by five days after the WHCA dinner. - Reaverdrop 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I apologize for any edits that got lost when I re-copied the article from the Stephen Colbert page. The original article in the bio had changed significantly since the original proposal to split. I took what, from the comments, looked like the last snapshot, then copied it over here quickly, to avoid running into endless conflicts trying to post an article in flux.

The changes people made to the opening in the split article, those I had merged back into the original article, but then they got changed significantly again. So I just left it all in. Brian.fsm 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I put a merge to tag on the page. Most of this stuff can easily fit into the Colbert article. No need for a seperate article.--Jersey Devil 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article was split out from the bio when we got a Wikipedia warning that the existing Stephen Colbert bio had grown too long. Brian.fsm 17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this whole entry just redundant? Is there really a need for an entire page (and a overly long one at that) about this incident. As far as I can tell, Colbert's "skewering" performance wasn't all that different from other performances at the correspondents' dinners of years past. There seems to be two things at play here: Those who dislike the president are attempting to turn this incident into some sort of groundbreaking watershead moment full of populist uprising, and many others (conservatives) are using this as some sort of major show of disrespect and media bias. All indications are that none of these are the case. Colert was doing what he does, and to soft soap his 'roast' of the president would have been akin to creative compromise.

Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are neither pundits, journalists, nor do they sway public opinion. They perform political satire, which stands or falls based on two factors: If it is actually funny, and if it reinforces your political beliefs.

To attempt to turn a humorous political skewering at this dinner into a real, and newsworthy event, is inane. This is akin to those on message boards who merrily post the latest polls which show the president's popularity falling. These same people will stop posting these polls if Bush's numbers rise-thus the hypocisy and partisan slant at work.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a sounding board for your own political feelings, or a theraputic way to work out your anger. The incident does have it's place in the Colbert entry, but it hardly merits it's own seperate entry. It isn't as if this were the crossing of the Delaware, or the destruction of the Hindenberg!

5 years from now, few will even remember this "controversy".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yakofujimato (talk • contribs) .

The article is very well referenced. For the controversy around the event, we reference Time, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, Editor & Publisher, the CBC, and the New York Times. The article opens with a link to a TIME magazine writer who calls the event a "political-cultural touchstone issue of 2006.".

How many people remember Alan Ramsay Hawley? He has a Wikipedia article. Chith Vihar, a computer science building, has its own Wikipedia entry. Loweswater, a small lake, has a Wikipedia entry. Remember Tropical Storm Zeta (2005)? Five years from now, will people sit around the water cooler, saying "Wow, Zeta. Now that was a tropical storm! Remember how rowing crews were affected by heavy seas and strong adverse winds?"? Guess what -- it's got a Wikipedia article.

Oh, and the President George Bush Turnpike -- yes, a road -- has a Wikipedia article. Not to mention Freedom fries and the War on Terra [sic].

If you think Wikipedia should only cover major events like the "crossing of the Delaware, or the destruction of the Hindenberg"... try hitting the Random article link a couple times. There was an event -- Stephen Colbert's satirical "tribute" and the ensuing sensation & controversy it caused -- and this article covers it.-- Brian.fsm 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles: The 2005 Eurovision Song Contest, Dwight's Speech (the 17th episode of The Office), the 2006 NFL Draft, and the Soap Opera Digest Awards. -- Brian.fsm 19:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been 10 years and we're still talking about Don Imus's performance at the WHCAP dinner in '96. --kizzle 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I am now sorely tempted to put Chith Vihar up for deletion. --Lee Bailey 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel sadly responsible for this. All those lost students at SASTRA, looking for their computer science classes... -- Brian.fsm 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I was browsing through the Wikipedia:Featured articles section and found that Arrested Development is a featured article. Not only that, but according to the key, it’s been featured on the main page of Wikipedia.

What's even funnier, I think, is that the game series The Legend of Zelda has over 30 Wikipedia articles written about it, many quite long, three of which are featured articles. An article about one of the game’s characters has even been on the main page. -- Brian.fsm 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep... as I was saying over at another article's talk page when a similar complaint came up, "Whether a majority of people in the world think the issues described in this article are important or are even aware of them is quite beside the point. The majority of people in the world may never have heard of and don't consider Xenu, the Polish-Soviet War, 3D Monster Maze, or Bulbasaur particularly significant or important. However, not only does Wikipedia have articles on them, but they have become featured articles, some on Wikipedia's front page.

The fact is that this article meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and that's what matters." -- noosphere 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, notability is not determined by popular recognition. Wikiproject:Cephalopods would be in a lot of trouble otherwise. -Lee Bailey 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, while you could argue that despite not being popularly recognized certain topics are notable after all, it's hard to make an argument for the reverse: that something which is popularly recognized is not notable. Anyway, there are no Wikipedia policies on notability. It's pretty subjective, and what guidelines there are are relatively vague and sometimes contradictory (with some exceptions regarding web sites and biographies, of which this article is neither). WP:N says, "There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Search Engine Test." Using that we find that Google returns over 4 million hits for "colbert white house correspondents dinner", and there're numerous mentions of his appearance in all sorts of mainstream media publications. So I think you have your work cut out for you if you want to argue that his appearance was not notable. -- noosphere 04:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. That last remark wasn't specifically directed at this article. Just a general thought. --Lee Bailey 08:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blistering Comedy Tribute?

At this point, I'm not even sure where the "blistering comedy tribute" quote comes from, what with all the edits back and forth, but can we stop inserting in as a clause of general sentences? I'm not trying to remove it altogether -- I do think it's a good quote which makes sense in the context of discussing the media reaction. I just don't think it's neutral enough for use a general descriptor, even with quote marks around it. --Lee Bailey 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Find an appropriate quote from one of the main sources that didn't ignore him the first time. --kizzle 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the source of the quote: Brian.fsm 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A blistering comedy "tribute" to President Bush by Comedy Central’s faux talk-show host Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondent Dinner Saturday night left George and Laura Bush unsmiling at its close.

— Editor and Publisher

Thank you. Lee Bailey 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to: "2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner"

Just moving the discussion to the proper talk page, since it was still being discussed at "Stephen Colbert".

I'm still thinking that might be the proper name for this. Granted, the article lacks coverage of the rest of the event currently, but it certainly wouldn't be difficult to to add. I'd certainly be interested in writing/editing such material. --Lee Bailey 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... this is confusing. This page now says the discussion continues on that page, and that page says the discussion continues on this page. Which is it? -- noosphere 21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be here. Sorry if I worded that in a confusing way; I just wanted to make obvious where the conversation started. --Lee Bailey 21:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. If the discussion is going to be here, could you, for the sake of clarity, just restate exactly what it is that you're proposing? Thanks. -- noosphere 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What's being proposed is moving this article to "2006 White House Correspondant's Association Dinner". No "Colbert at the..." in the name. It would still be linked to from the appropriate section on Stephen Colbert's page. Additional information would be added covering aspects other than Stephen Colbert's speech in order to fit the title. Lee Bailey 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. My own view on this is that a "2006 White House Correspondant's Association Dinner" article should exist. However, I think this article should remain where it is.

If the information in this article were moved to the "2006 White House Correspondant's Association Dinner" I'm afraid all the detail regarding Colbert's appearance and the subsequent reaction to it will be unwanted. However, I view this information as being improtant. And the best way to guarantee that it remains is to leave it in an article where it's appropriate, namely this one. -- noosphere 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the best way to protect the information present in this article is to make sure it remains here, but I'm not sure if that really should be the goal. At the heart of most merge arguments is the question of whether the material is important enough to warrant and fill out its own article. But as it stands, the topic of this article is rather loosely defined. In theory, it's about Colbert's speech; in practice it seems to be using the point to discuss to failures of the mainstream press, which to me is problematic. I certainly don't think it would hurt if this article was trimmed down a little as the result of a move. Lee Bailey 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think those are two seperate issues. If you think some of the material in this article isn't relevant, then you can make that argument without renaming the page. However, if the only way to show that the material you object to is not relevant is to rename the page then perhaps it's relevant after all. -- noosphere 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take me the wrong way. I'm not trying to rename the page to make a point. I only bring up renaming because other three other editors at the "Stephen Colbert" page suggested that this page be renamed, and I thought it would be helpful to have the discussion in the right place. Lee Bailey 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked the talk page, and you sort of overplay the situation. Jersey Devil, whose sole contribution was to add a merge tag to the article, said, "How about a rename..." and jaco♫plane, who helped clean up the video links, said "seems like a good idea to me." They didn't really make an extensive case for the rename. Like or not, Lee, you're the one carrying the water on this one. Brian.fsm 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the contributors who helped build this article (many of whom probably don't know this discussion is even going on) had a clear idea of what this article was about -- Stephen Colbert's speech and its impact. It is not a "loosely defined" topic. I do like the job you've been doing, Lee, to trim the article and remove some of the redundancy. But please check the history, both on this page and the Stephen Colbert page. A lot of people helped build an article about "Stephen Colbert's speech and its impact". I myself spent a lot of time tracking down different statistics and points of view for the article, as well as keeping video links up to date, helping with the split, and keeping the darn thing organized.

It's somewhat frustrating for you to come along and to propose purging a lot of the work that was done by others because it does not fit your point of view of what the article should be about. You said, "I agree that the best way to protect the information present in this article is to make sure it remains here, but I'm not sure if that really should be the goal." So, you want to take a meat cleaver to the article?

When this article was part of the Stephen Colbert bio page, you said on the talk page, "I hate to edit out large amounts of material written by other people, but..." This seems to be a recurring theme. Above, you referred to "the question of whether the material is important enough to warrant and fill out its own article." You obviously think a lot of the stuff in here is crud. I really don't get why. In my mind, this article is close to done, and I'm pretty satisfied with it. Brian.fsm 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lee, if you don't like this article, you should write the one that you like and then propose deleting this one. It's somewhat dishonest to rename this article just so it can be "trimmed down a little" by you. In your words, "it seems to be using the point to discuss to failures of the mainstream press, which to me is problematic." So you want to gut the article. Great. If the article is unbalanced, add balance. Instead of adding balance, it seems you are more keen on removing any information that doesn't agree with your point of view. Brian.fsm 02:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian, first of all: I wasn't the one to propose moving this article, I just moved the discussion over to the right place. So far (by which I mean, in the last 24 hours) no one else supporting the move has clarified their views. I don't think that makes it fair to claim I've disingenuously started a campaign to rename this article just so I can remove material. Similarly, while I appreciate that it can frustrating to see someone else proposing significant changes to your work, such is the painfully collaborative nature of Wikipedia. The degree to which I or JerseyDevil or jacoplane or anyone else has worked on this article is irrelevant. There is no ownership of articles in Wikipedia.

As for this being an almost-finished article that I want to take a meat cleaver to, we have a difference of opinion. I do appreciate that a lot of work went into gathering references for this article, but as it stands now, the entire media section is essentially a lengthy list of editorial quotes pitted against one another. If there's another article in "good" or "featured" status that has this format, please point me to it -- that would solve a lot of issues for me. --Lee Bailey 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualm with work changing. I lost much work as the article changed, and things were cleaned up or better material was found. However, I do disagree with changing the title of the article so that you can remove viewpoints that you disagree with. This article is about "Stephen Colbert's speech & its impact." Title should stay.

As for all the quotes -- how do you cover a debate in the media without quoting the media? Is your proposal that we should not cover the debate?

You should write a new article that reflects what you think this article should look like. Right now, we're debating a straw man. Maybe I'll see your revisions and like them. Brian.fsm 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian, you're right. It is getting somewhat pointless to argue this. Please, try not to sum up this disagreement as me "changing the title of the article so that I can remove viewpoints I disagree with". I'm willing to give up the naming point if it has no other advocates. I brought it up because I believed the idea had wider support. Virtually all discussions of merging a smaller article with a larger one inherently involve some discussion of relevence and potential loss of content. Please try to assume good faith.

It is not my proposal that we not cover the debate. It is not my proposal that we not use quotes either. I criticized the article for consisting entirely of quotes; there's a difference. I'm sorry if it sounded like sarcasm when I asked for you to point me to another article using a similar format -- one of the pitfalls of carrying out a debate online. I meant that sincerely. In any case, I'm going to avoid talking about this article in general terms from now on. I'm not going to "go off and start my own article" -- that's not a very Wikipedian solution -- but will discuss individual edits and not speak in sweeping terms. The majority of my edits have been accepted, anyway, so arguing about it seems pretty futile.--Lee Bailey 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

citation style

Bare urls are poor citation style. Could someone have a look at converting these to proper citations? See {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. Circeus 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations of a blackout"

I think we should work on improving this section. The section now seems to wholly go along with the blogosphere's assumption of a blackout. I'm sure most people in the media would find that idea absurd. These dinners are social events that most only people in Washington care about. They usually don't get much press anyway. Furthermore, Colbert didn't take nearly as many jabs at the media as at President Bush, and in general the attendees seemed to find these lines humorous. It's doubtful his remarks would prompt a conspiracy, as some have been quick to say. My point is, I'm sure the media isn't trying to cover up some remarks made by a comedian at a Washington social event, and this article shouldn't reflect a baseless accusation. --Fadedhour 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the section? How does the Washington Post, a Columbia professor cited in an MTV online article, AOL News, or Slate count as the "blogosphere"? --kizzle 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read it. I meant that bloggers were the first ones to come up with this theory and run with it. --Fadedhour 03:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadedhour, if it wasn't a blackout then how do you explain that the Washington Post and NYT did not even mention Colbert, who was the headliner for the event? The pro-Bush commentators are whining that Colbert was incredibly offensive. So why wasn't this great offence to the President on the front page of every paper the very next day?

Noosphere: As to why the Washington Post didn't mention Colbert--their article was obviously written before any speeches from the dinner began. The article didn't mention Bush's act, either--just a few basic details celebrity encounters. The Times article was a feature on Steve Bridges, and didn't mention anything else about the dinner. I believe that the media in general didn't see a big story there, or they would have run something on Colbert. They are trying to sell papers, anyway. Since Colbert was more harsh than usual in his roast, some outside observers seemed to have perceived the lack of stories on Colbert as a blackout. I think most of those inside the room that night might have taken Colbert's performance as a humorous routine involving a roast of the president, which happens nearly every year at that dinner.

On the contrary, the whole point is that the mainstream media did mention Bush's act but not Colbert. Are you sure you've read as many articles on this as you claim you have? -- noosphere 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, of course I'm sure. That's why I said it. --Fadedhour 04:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadedhour -- take a closer look at the New York Times article. It's a pretty indepth piece focusing on the bit done by Bush & Bridges at the dinner.

So on Saturday night, in a duet of a stand-up routine at the annual press Bacchanalia, Mr. Bush seemed to have a less painful time than usual with Mr. Bridges as his sidekick and inner voice.

Mr. Bush, from the stage in the cavelike Washington Hilton ballroom: "As you know, I always look forward to these dinners."...

So did the laughter in the ballroom help Mr. Bush in his time of political trouble?

— New York Times

-- Brian.fsm 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, that article is a feature on Steve Bridges and his act, not a general article on the dinner. --Fadedhour 04:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So the NYT chose not to cover Colbert, despite him being the headliner and offending everyone in the room (according to pro-Bush commentators)... The Chicago Tribune, ABC, CNN, and two NBC shows also chose not to cover Colbert.[1] Yet they all covered Bush's act. Now, we can all speculate as to why that happened. But our opinions on the matter are not really relevant to this article. What is relevant are claims we can substantiate with proper citations. The lack of coverage can be substantiated, as can the media's speculations. So that's what should go in the article, not our own speculation either on it being or not being an actual "media blackout". -- noosphere 07:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little frustrated with people throwing out accusations of a blackout without keeping the context, history, or common sense in mind.

I'll be adding a bit to this page, so please, feel free to discuss these changes with me. I didn't come here to start a fight, so I hope we can keep this a friendly discussion. --Fadedhour 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of what you or I may think of the matter, the fact is that the lack of coverage by the mainstream press was reported in the media, so it deserves a place in the article. -- noosphere 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with krizzle and noosphere. I'm a little frustrated with people throwing out accusations of bias without carefully reading what's there. After all, it was Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin who headlined his article, "The Colbert Blackout".

The traditional media's first reaction to satirist Stephen Colbert's uncomfortably harsh mockery of President Bush and the press corps at Saturday night's White House Correspondents Association dinner was largely to ignore it.

— Dan Froomkin, Washington Post

Fadedhour -- that said, you can find your balance in these two articles: Ana Marie Cox of Time magazine: [2] and the WHCA dinner organizers in E&P: [3] Feel free to add content from these articles to the section. Brian.fsm 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian.fsm; those were the two articles that came to mind when I began work on this. And I have read nearly every article out there on this subject. As I said in my original comment, these dinners usually do not get much press (certainly never the front page), and I doubt the media are actively ignoring this as some sort of revenge against Colbert, as has been implied. I agree that these allegations deserve a place in the article--however, we must maintain a neutral point of view. --Fadedhour 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This article's reporting of what the media has to say on the subject is fully in keeping with WP:NPOV, imo. If there's a statement in the article that you believe runs contrary to policy, please quote it and the relevant part of the policy. -- noosphere 03:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is information missing that is necessary to keep this piece balanced. From the policy: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." --Fadedhour 05:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More relevant information = good.  :) -- noosphere 05:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More non-blog coverage of the lack of mainstream media coverage of Colbert: Chicago Sun-Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, Yahoo News, and probably a good deal more if you look hard enough. -- noosphere 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadedhour -- from the New York Times:

Others chided the so-called mainstream media, including The New York Times, which ignored Mr. Colbert's remarks while writing about the opening act, a self-deprecating bit Mr. Bush did with a Bush impersonator.

— New York Times

The New York Times said that "the so-called mainstream media, including The New York Times, which ignored Mr. Colbert's remarks..." Where's the controvery?

The mainstream media says that they ignored it because he bombed. I think the president of the WHCA has a quote in the E&P article that I gave you that says exactly that. The blogosphere thinks that they can't take a joke. And Media Matters points out that Imus got a lot of coverage when he bombed at the same dinner. But everyone agrees that Colbert was ignored. -- Brian.fsm 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Writer for the New York Times Syndication Service chimes in, at the CBC website:

The thing is, you likely won't have heard about it. The mainstream media ignored the keynote speech by Stephen Colbert, which made Bush look like a smashed toadstool and the American press look like the compost a mushroom grows in.

— Heather Mallick, CBC

-- Brian.fsm 04:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. (Although, of course, every media source did not ignore Colbert.) The question is whether the media didn't write about Colbert to keep his criticism of them out of the papers, etc., as some references in this section imply. That's why this section is titled "Allegations of a blackout"--was the lack of articles a scheme by the media to get back at Colbert? --Fadedhour 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AP covered him. They sort of buried him, though. But you could add that AP covered him (hate to slough off work, but I'm going to bed...). Personally, I don't think it was a scheme -- the Beltway crowd (many Dems included) just didn't know what to make of Colbert or how to cover him. I once saw a BBC reporter interviewing Blair and call him a liar to his face. The US media is much more light-weight. -- Brian.fsm 05:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you all think we should condense this section? It seems rather long and perhaps redundant. --Fadedhour 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that our current sections -- "Internet sensation", "Media reaction", and "Allegations of a Blackout" -- aren't doing it for us any more. We have a lot of information, but not the best organization. -- Brian.fsm 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - Reaverdrop 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Better organization, but I'm totally against condensing. We split this article off for a reason, now we have room to play and add detail if its significant and salient. --kizzle 07:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadedhour, if you don't believe that there was a blackout, are there any specific passages or conclusions on the Media Matters piece provided in the article that you think are incorrect? If so, why? --kizzle 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the facts listed in that piece, but I do think it fails to provide a full picture. "[M]any outlets entirely ignored the scathing routine delivered by the night's featured entertainer, Stephen Colbert" -- that is true, but not all news outlets did, as CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all played clips of Colbert in the days following days; the AP (in an early wrapup of the dinner) mentioned Colbert; a piece on the WHCA's official site mentions Colbert, etc. As I said earlier, the question seems to be of why most media outlets didn't report on Colbert. I don't believe there was some conspiracy, that the media wanted to keep Colbert out of the papers because he criticized them (or Bush). The section now provides a more nuanced and fuller picture of the allegations of a blackout, and I think this is an improvement. --Fadedhour 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken links in "Allegations of a Blackout" section

The links to the NYT, Reuters, and Chicago Tribune articles are broken. Does anyone have the links to those articles? -- noosphere 03:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Found them. I'll have them fixed in my next edit. -- Brian.fsm 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In use

I'm about to convert all the references in the article from plain links into {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc, so I've added the {{inuse}} tag so that major edit conflicts won't be a problem. I'll remove it the minute that I'm done. Thanks. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

All done. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive!  :) -- noosphere 04:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Jude. - Reaverdrop 04:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Brian.fsm 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) Thanks everybody else for not edit conflicting! It's easier to just do them in one big shot, then to try and space it out over a few days. Get it over with quickly, I guess. :) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 07:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it. I did 3 other articles yesterday, but couldn't build up the strenght to convert this one. Circeus 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Shearer

I pulled this quote because the sitation seems to go to a news article, which links to Shearer's blog at the Huffington Post -- but the quote doesn't seem to appear in his blog. I've gone through the guy's archives for every day since the dinner. It looks to be misattributed, which probably means it doesn't belong in this article.

Comedian Harry Shearer's response to Colbert's satirical performance was also positive. "That you can see that footage of Stephen everywhere has served to be sort of a wake-up call," said Shearer. "Wait a minute, we're still a country where it's OK to say these things about the president? Whew! That's a relief."

The article quotes him, so she must have talked to him. The link to The Huffington Post was just a tip of the hat. -- Brian.fsm 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it back in, then took it back out. It's a pretty weak quote... -- Brian.fsm 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More succinct title

I made a page titled "Stephen Colbert press dinner sensation" and put a redirect here for now. In favor or opposed to moving the article to the more succinct title? - Reaverdrop 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is more succinct. However, I'm in favor of precision over succinctness. With this proposal we seem to be getting brevity at the price of information. It's not just any press dinner, it's this particular one. Plus, "sensation" is POV. The current title is much more neutral-sounding, imo. -- noosphere 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We could take out the 2006, ie -- "Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner". I don't think he'll be invited back. -- Brian.fsm 06:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Yes, I suppose that would be specific enough, if we really want to shorten the title. But why do we want to do that again? I think I missed the actual reason for shortening it. Why not just leave the date in so that 10 years from now it'll be clear from the title alone when this happened? -- noosphere 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop might be looking for a way to defuse Lee Bailey's argument (above) that this article should become a general article about the 2006 WHCA dinner -- with, if I understand Lee correctly, less content (or no content?) about the impact of Colbert's speech, or at least the media reaction to it. I don't want to talk for Lee, that's just my impression of his proposal. -- Brian.fsm 06:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I am against repurposing this article to cover the dinner as a whole. But I don't see how shortening the title would prevent that. The article is about Colbert's appearance at the dinner and the aftermath, no matter if we include "2006" in the title or not. -- noosphere 07:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there should be "no content" about the impact of Colbert's speech. I do think the various positions could be summarized in a smaller amount of space without drastically reducing the content of the article. But I'm not debating that right now, I just hate to think it's assumed I want to remove the entire media section. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lee Bailey 15:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Status quo on the title works for me. -- Brian.fsm 19:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ana Marie Cox

That Time article by Ana Marie Cox is the biggest bullshit i've seen in a while, can I please add some qualifiers (such as the NY Times Washington Post and major news wires lie)??--kizzle 07:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You might try pulling out something else from her article. Like this: "This insistence on the hilarity of Colbert's routine has a bullying quality, implying that jokes which adhere to the correct ideology are hilarious and failure to find humor in the party line is a kind of thought crime." I thought she had a more original and more interesting argument here (not saying that I agree with her). -- Brian.fsm 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to counter that, I think Colbert was after more of a political statement than laughs. I doubt he had any illusions about Bush and his supporters finding any of his criticisms funny. They can obviously dish it out but not take it.

So I for one, do not insist everyone must find Colbert funny (though I personally did). But whether he was funny is not really the issue, despite Bush supporters wanting to reframe it as such. If Colbert was really after laughs and approval he could have played it safe, like Bridges.

Just compare the Cheney jokes both made. Bridges euphamistically talked about "the great white hunter", while Colbert graphically referred to getting shot in the face. Is that not funny? Is it in poor taste? Maybe. But here Colbert seems to be trying to shock the audience more than coax congenial chuckles. And naturally, Bush and his supporters don't like to be shocked, since they'd rather pretend Cheney's shooting, Bush not finding WMDs, torture, etc, are all just harmless fun and games. If it suddenly becomes a little too real for them, of course they're going to get upset and start whining about how not funny it is, as if that was the point. But it's not.

Not that I expect any of this to go in the article... but I just need to vent here a bit about the obvious BS the anti-Colbert propaganda machine is trying to spin. -- noosphere 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a good case, but my particular issue with the case is her dismissal of a blackout by saying that the NY Times Washington Post and major news wires carried the story...umm yeah, except they only happened to mention the night's featured performer FOUR DAYS LATER and only because of the outcry of a blackout by the blogosphere and other places. --kizzle 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

She's spinning like a top. -- noosphere 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Her quote:"(true, aside from coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the major wire services)". Okay, contrary to her assertion, NYT admits ignoring the story.. AP covered it, but not Reuters. The article I'm familiar with from the Washington Post is titled "The Colbert Blackout." Does anyone what Washington Post article that she's talking about?

This quote is not a central theme to her piece, it appears to be factually incorrect, and Kurtz covers the same angle better, so I think it would be okay to remove this particular quote and instead include something along the lines of her central theme -- that the liberals are bullying people into laughing. -- Brian.fsm 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I could not have said it better :) Can we please add the articles she's talking about and note when they were published, in addition to her citing a Washington Post article called "The Colbert Blackout" in order to bolster her claim that there was no blackout?--kizzle 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You think she might actually be referring to the Washington Post article titled "The Colbert Blackout" to argue that there was no blackout? Wow. That would be pretty funny. Someone should search around the Washington Post web site, first, to make sure there's not some other article that we don't know about. -- Brian.fsm 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reuters did cover Colbert. Their mention is on the second page of the article cited.

Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," wrapped up the evening delivering a routine as the bombastic pundit character of his satiric talk show.

No one was safe from his sarcastic barbs.

"Fox News gives you both sides of the story -- the president's side and the vice president's side," he said to muted laughs.

— Reuters

--Fadedhour 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I missed the link to page 2. -- Brian.fsm 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this is what I found:

This is the only article I found afterwards, posted on Sunday, but gives a one paragraph mention to Stephen Colbert:

Listen to Stephen Colbert, of "The Colbert Report," cracking wise about how he could be the new presidential press secretary, because, when it comes to the media, "I have nothing but contempt for those people." And then show a little video clip of what his first day as press secretary would be like. (Hint: not very successful.) The humor's supposed to be topical, and so we laughed when Colbert said, "If anyone needs anything from your tables, just speak slowly and clearly into your numbers and someone from the NSA will be there shortly." We're not sure if Valerie Plame laughed, though. Or Karl Rove.

There's also the Froomkin, a political discussion, and a Kurtz article posted on 5/1, which was the Monday following the incident. Are these in print versions as well? --kizzle 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Those three were just online. --Fadedhour 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, the MediaMatters piece is focusing upon TV coverage rather than print coverage. --kizzle 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I found in The Washington Post before Cox's article appeared on May 4: Lisa de Moraes' TV Column (May 2), Howard Kurtz's article "Punchline Politics" (May 2), or Richard Cohen's criticism (May 3). There was also a mention in The Reliable Source (the Post's gossip column) on May 1, but I don't think this really counts as it was so brief. --Fadedhour 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, but those don't count. We're talking about the first news cycle afterwards (Nov 30-May 1st), which is where most of the newspapers wrote their piece on the dinner but marginalized Colbert. After that, the pieces must be tempered that allegations of a blackout in combination with the sheer amount of downloads Colbert's video received affected the media's coverage and thus these articles were not of the media's own volition. --kizzle 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose Cox was just referring to the Post's main wrapup article, then, which appeared in the April 30 Post and did mention Colbert.

Also, most newspapers (as usual) didn't cover the dinner at all. Typically, this is an insider social event that practically no one outside Washington cares about, so I don't find that surprising. --Fadedhour 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be correct historically, but the quantitative figures concerning the sheer amount of times Colbert's performance was downloaded makes it extremely newsworthy in my mind along with the 50,000+ signatures on thankyoucolbert.org . If the Internet was in widespread use back when Imus performed, I doubt it would have received the same amount as Colbert's speech did. In my age group, 18-30, I really don't know anyone who hasn't seen it yet on some downloaded form, and I haven't seen the widespread dissemination of anything like that in a long time. --kizzle 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And thus, all the articles that have been coming out for days now. --Fadedhour 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Greenwald quote

I summarized Greenwald's quote before in order to avoid having such a length quotation, and now it's back again. I realize Greenwald's quote is persuasive and eloquent. I also think it has a good point. But Greenwald isn't talking about Colbert specifically. He's using Colbert as a jumping off point in order to have a larger discussion about the media. This piece is extremely op-ed, and seriously tilts the balance of this article. The point of Wikipedia is not to persuade the reader of one view or another, but that's clearly Greenwald's motive, so quoting large passages of what he has to say seems disingenuious. You'll find no similar long, eloquent passages in other controversial articles, despite all that's been said about them. Lee Bailey 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, shortening the reference is fine with me. --kizzle 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Italic text== Reaverdrop edits ==

First of all, I really don't like the "surprisingly critical" and "belated" response title, just seems a bit POV. Second, the 2.8 million times should be prefaced that the clip was split up into 3 chunks, meaning the amount of people who actually watched the whole thing is around 1/3 that amount, which is why I initially used just the part 1 downloads. --kizzle 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There were even more clips towards the end. I checked late in the week, and saw additional "Colbert/Bush" clips at YouTube had popped up, although I don't know how these split up the speech. -- Brian.fsm 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the max time limit on YouTube forces the 24 minute performance to be split up into at least 3 parts, thus saying total downloads was 2.8 is somewhere around 3 times the actual amout of people who downloaded it. --kizzle 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the current wording work for you? "the various clips of Colbert's speech had been viewed 2.7 million times in less than 48 hours." We could also say, "clips of various portions of Colbert's were viewed 2.7 million times in less than 48 hours." Brian.fsm 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, how about "The 3 video sections of the Colbert performance were downloaded a total of 2.7 million times on YouTube."? --kizzle 19:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There were only 3 at first, but by the end, I saw at least 5, and I don't know how the new ones split up the speech. How about, "The video of Colbert's performance was split into multiple parts on YouTube, and the various clips were downloaded a total of 2.7 million times." I realize there's a ton of ambiguity in the stat, but unfortunately the NYT stat , even if misleading, adheres to Wikipedia policy:

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability

We have a few other problems with verifiability that I'm hoping we find good references for. Brian.fsm 19:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Belated reactions surprisingly critical" is very POV. Lee Bailey 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lee, you know by changing "blackout" to "alleged blackout" without the quote marks you made the identical edit I had made prior that you reverted. --kizzle 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, sorry. I had an explanation in talk, but somehow I seem to have closed the window without posting. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

black·out (blăk'out')

n. 1) The concealment or extinguishment of lights that might be visible to enemy aircraft during an air raid. 2) Lack of illumination caused by an electrical power failure.

3)The sudden extinguishment of all stage lights in a theater to indicate the passage of time or to mark the end of an act or scene. 4) A short, comic vaudeville skit that ends with lights off. 5) A temporary loss of memory or consciousness.

6) A suppression, as of news, by censorship.

7) Restriction or prohibition of telecasting a sports event in order to ensure ticket sales.

It seems like by that definition, the blackout would be alleged. It's fact that the story was not widely reported. It's debatable that it was actually supressed by censorship. Didn't mean to act unilaterally on that one, I really thought I'd already posted. Lee Bailey 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I just don't know why you reverted my edit than did the identical edit yourself. --kizzle 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sheesh. I didn't realize that's what I did. I certainly didn't mean to revert that, then. Too many edits, too little sleep. Sorry. Lee Bailey 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all good :) --kizzle 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

C-span vs. YouTube

Does this really belong in the "blackout" section?

Videos of Colbert's performance were available from C-SPAN and various Internet sites, but C-SPAN (the copyright owner) eventually ordered the other sites to remove the videos. [1]

Is this considered part of the controversy? This didn't seem especially suspicious to me; a number of copyrighted videos have been pulled from youtube in the past. Lee Bailey 22:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly how it was in the section, but I think there was a line about video of Bush's routine--but not Colbert's--being available on some media sites (Fox and something else, I think). I then added the part about videos being available on C-SPAN and other sites. Someone else added the part about C-SPAN ordering its removal from other sites. So that's how that part came into existence.

It doesn't seem suspicious at all: videos have been pulled from YouTube before, and C-SPAN rebroadcasted the dinner several times on Sunday. --Fadedhour 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the line about Fox and CNN is still there: "Videos on the web sites of CNN and Fox News also had clips of the Presidential comic routine, but not footage of Colbert's satirical performance." I think the original information about C-SPAN (not the removal) is relevant if this sentence is staying in. --Fadedhour 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's avaiable on google video...savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

April 29 Editor & Publisher article

I've been thinking about a couple of interesting things from the April 29 Editor and Publisher article.

Asked by E&P after it was over if he thought he'd been too harsh, Colbert said, "Not at all." Was he trying to make a point politically or just get laughs? "Just for laughs," he said.

— Editor and Publisher

So, Colbert says he wasn't trying to make a political point, yet many of the reactions seem to indicate otherwise. (See ThankYouStephenColbert.org.) Do you think we need to add this somewhere, then? I was a little surprised to read this, but it is right from Colbert.

He later said the president told him "good job" when he walked off.

— Editor and Publisher

I watched the C-SPAN video at the point where Bush speaks briefly to Colbert at the end, and you can clearly hear Bush say, "Good job." I believe he also says, "Brilliant." I don't really know why he would say that, though. (The first paragraph from this article mentions a negative reaction from Bush.) The only reason I can come up with is that he was reacting to the Helen Thomas video they'd just shown.. but it seems odd that Bush would forget about the earlier stuff and say this. Anyway, I don't really know what to make of this, but I thought I'd bring it up. --Fadedhour 01:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was sarcasm? Although if Bush called Colbert "brilliant", I'd be surprised we didn't hear it from Colbert first. Seems like the sort of thing he'd love to bring up on the Report. Lee Bailey 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Bush was just being gracious. It would be pretty gauche for Bush too say "asshole" in front of all those cameras, even if he was thinking it. You can watch a video of Bush's reaction to the Helen Thomas video on some of the video links, and from about mid-point on, he doesn't seem to be particularly enjoying himself. -- Brian.fsm 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya what else was he going to say, "fuck you"? --kizzle 03:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know--nothing, maybe, or something less positive than "Good job, brilliant"? It looked like Laura Bush barely said anything to Colbert. --Fadedhour 03:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To me, "good job" seems like being gracious, and not out of the ordinary at all. "Brilliant", however, seems like it's going a bit far, maybe intentionally to be obnoxious. Then again, I could be reading too much into things. Lee Bailey 07:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

She probably didn't say anything because she got the jokes.  ;) -- noosphere 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This article makes Wikipedia's heart smile

I could not believe this article had so many references. I thought that when I came to this article, it would be filled with "NPOV" and "citation needed" remarks, but lo' and behold, full of references. No one can argue with that! I just wanted to commend you all on doing such a fantastic job and keep it up! ♠ SG →Talk 05:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :), that goes to Lee, Noosphere, Brian, and Fadedhour as well, it's been an unexpected pleasure dialoguing with you all here. gotta spread the wiki-love! --kizzle 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Any of you guys think this can pass for a featured article soon? Maybe we can set the record from creation to featured. --kizzle 09:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Right back at you, Kizzle. No idea about the featured article thing, though. --Lee Bailey 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to everyone. I think we have the best coverage out there on Colbert's speech. It's my dream that, all across the nation, thousands of high schoolers are copping our article for their "Current Events" homework assignments. -- Brian.fsm 01:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been my pleasure to work with you all on this article. And I agree--I think this article is rather impressive as it stands now. --Fadedhour 03:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Status

I am going to submit this page for featured status in 2 days, here are the criteria:

A featured article has the following attributes.

1. It exemplifies our very best work.
2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
   • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
   • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details;
   • (c) "factually accurate" includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). For articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged;
   • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
   • (e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars.
3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
   • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
   • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.

--kizzle 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the nicer things about applying for featured status is that even if an article fails review, you usually wind up with specific information about what's lacking -- particularly if the article is close to the mark. At the minimum, it'll be nice to have the automatic outside opinion. Besides, I'm a proponent of the idea that all editors should be working toward to goal of meeting featured criteria in the long run. That's my long-winded way of saying, give it a go. :) --Lee Bailey 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing sections

Is it okay to remove Talk sections that are dead? The following talk sections appear to have run out of stream:

• Blistering Comedy Tribute?
• Move to: "2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner"
• Broken links in "Allegations of a Blackout" section
• In use
• Harry Shearer
• More succinct title

I don't want to break Wiki etiquette, nor do I want to cut off discussions that might start up again. But trimming this page might make it more accessible. -- Brian.fsm 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's generally considered bad to remove comments from a talk page, even if it's one's own user talk. I don't know specifically where that's stated in policy, though, I've just heard it said. You might check into it. --Lee Bailey 08:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

SOP is to make it into a talk page archive, of which you can find plenty of examples to imitate. - Reaverdrop 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Times you've watched?

I've watched it at least 9 times, anyone else? --mboverload@ 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Admirable!

I'm not so sure that this article fits in with the 'raison d'ëtre' of Wikipedia, but it sure is admirable for its NPOV stance - it balances out through every subject exactly where it should with all-round coverage and quotes - and it is the article layout in part that makes this possible. More than a few put a lot of thought into this. Kudos!

Save the best for the Stephen Colbert article just in case it's deleted... THEPROMENADER 16:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

I definitely do NOT think this should be deleted. This is about an internet sensation and there's a LOT of info on it. Mr_Beale

Agree; the "internet sensation" phenomenon is well-documented. So verifiability isn't an issue. What exactly was the reason for suggesting its deletion? I'd vote to keep. Jim Butler 07:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jim. You can read the debate here. Primarilly, I believe the "delete" arguments were that an individual comic's performance is not encyclopedic and/or that this is more of a wikinews story than a wikipedia story. A handful of editors seem to have shared my original sentiment that this article might be better off moved/renamed/merged as well, which to me suggests that some of the opposition to this article could be based more on semantics then issues with the text itself. But I could be wrong. -- Lee Bailey 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

featured?

someone else want to re-nominate this for featured status? I'm not giving up, and I think we addressed all the criticism from both the previous attempt and the overwhelmingly denied deletion request. --kizzle 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a good idea to renominate it. But should we do it so soon after the last nomination? Also, are you asking for someone else to do the nomination or asking for opinions as to whether we should? -- noosphere 14:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Move

I propose moving it to 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Among other things, it will satisfy the deletionists, since the proposed title is much more notable than the present title. - Richardcavell 02:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I argued for this exact move earlier, but it met with objections, mainly due to the for potential loss of content that comes with a merge with to larger topic. I'd still support the move. At this point, I don't think too much would have to be lost in order to accomidate the move, and I think it would better fit with Wikipedian naming conventions. Anyone else have thoughts on the subject? -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Support This event simply isn't notable enough, in the grand scheme of things, to warrant its own article. I withdraw my support - the arguments presented below are convincing. --ElKevbo 17:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose Not notable enough? "colbert white house dinner" gets 2.5 million hits on google. Colbert's appearance has gotten dozens of articles in the mainstream press. As I was saying earlier, it's much more notable than Bulbasaur or 3D Monster Maze, both of which not only had their own articles devoted to them but made featured article. Same with a ton of other featured and sometimes front-page articles, like Xenu. If those really non-notable and unimportant subjects got an article devoted to them then certainly this national news-making event demands at least the same or greater focus. -- noosphere 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You have some good points. However, in the long political and historical view, I don't think this event is notable. This isn't something we're going to be talking about in a few years. I'd prefer to see this moved but my feelings certainly won't be crushed if it stays. As you aptly point out, many other much less important and notable topics have much larger articles in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 14:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether an event will remain in the fickle public consciousness after a few years is POV. And very few events documented in Wikipedia would meet that standard. Are we still (or have we ever) talked about the founding of The Druid Network that happened in 2003? Who's still talking about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping (which actually did make national news)? Or how about the Monkeyman superhero hoax? Dewey, the first cloned deer? Avenue Q, the musical? The foundation of the Nintendo NSider Forums? Or the death of Richard Crenna?

These are just a few choice picks out of the events listed as happening in 2003. I'm sure there are lots of other Wikipedia articles not listed there that, basically, no one has problems with, and no one will ever suggest deleting, but are virtually non-notable, especially in comparison to Colbert's appearance. And besides, as someone else pointed out, Wikipedia has WP:NPOV and WP:NOR but no three-year memory rule. Once notable, always notable. Wikipedia is not paper. -- noosphere 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be moved, deleted (also delete any backups in the wikipedia server room), re-arranged, re-directed, re-merged, re-re-merged, translated into farsi, or really anything than its current state, because god forbid it should stay up in its current, awful, uncited, POV, unreferenced, unnotable, original researched, pile of left-wing screed claiming a routine stand-up comedy performance that nobody will care about in X years is somehow encylopedic. --kizzle 18:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Reverend kizzle. -- noosphere 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting an article be renamed is not the same thing as suggesting an article has no merit. I don't think I've made any claims about the notability or non-notability of this article. I appreciate your frustration, but mischaracterizing the nature of the argument isn't going to get us anywhere. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 20:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke. Don't be so serious. --kizzle 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge of first two sections

I've been rather overly bold and merged the first two sections, getting rid of a lot of the quotes and trying to make more prose. I realize this is a huge change, so please modify/revert to your desire. RN 06:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I like :) --kizzle 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research vs. Citations

I really hate this dilemma. If we purely use quotations of people's opinions from the events, it's called a "regurgitation of newspaper/magazine reviews". If we try to summarize it in our own words, it will be considered original research. So how the f do we write about the dinner if we can't quote other sources and we can't come up with our own material? --kizzle 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

featured

Please take a moment to vote here if you think (or don't think) this article deserves featured status. --kizzle 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to everyone involved here

Not only is the article extremely well-done from an NPOV standard, I'm impressed by the level of civillity on this talk page. Most articles on political subjects have at least some fractiousness and name-calling (along with predictable claims of cabal activity) to be found on their talk page. The absence of this here speaks volumes about the professionalism of everyone involved. Great work.  :) Kasreyn 17:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) --kizzle 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We did it! The article got promoted by the "Featured Article Director" to the Featured articles page! Cheers to everyone for making this happen, especially to kizzle for keeping the ball rolling on this. -- Brian.fsm 19:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you Brian as well, along with RN for helping address the criticisms on the nomination page... this has probably been one of the most productive collaborations I've been a part of in the 1 1/2 years I've been here. I'm also doubly proud that this article went from nomination to delete to featured status within like 2 weeks, we had to have set a record on that one :) --kizzle 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This was definately hard-fought and an amazing collaboration - kodus to everyone!! RN 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've put the article on request to be shown on the main page... if anyone wants to edit the shortened version up there, feel free :) --kizzle 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Overlap with Truthiness

Since there is likely to be a significant overlap in interest, those who have been active here may also want to turn attention to truthiness, which is currently rated a "good article" and which a little more work should bring to the level of "featured". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm there. --kizzle 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job (Possible further changes)

This is a surprisingly nice, high-quality article. Overall, I'd say there are two major shortcomings to this article right now. The first is, there are a fair number of subtly POVed statements (such as calling Colbert's hosting job a "rare opportunity" to criticize the president) in the article, especially in the early going.

The second is, the actual contents of Colbert's speech are largely ignored in this article; the details of the video Colbert aired after his speech are barely communicated, and, although we should avoid excess quoting, it wouldn't hurt to put one or two more noteworthy quotes (like the Hindenberg joke) there. It's also quite unfortunate that this article doesn't mention the fact that a very large portion of the speech (especially the early speech) was lifted directly from jokes Colbert has made on The Colbert Report in the past, particularly from a specific monologue he made in the first episode of The Colbert Report. Colbert's own reactions to the hosting job and reactions also clearly belong in this article, and it seems to me that Stewart is being misquoted in the "Praise and criticism" section; I see no evidence that Stewart as "Responding to critics who felt Colbert went over the line with his performance" in the quotation noted there. Rather, in the context where Stewart said that, I think he was simply explaining why Colbert had given his speech "in-character" (and subtly digging at his buddy Colbert in the process). -Silence 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are an example that this article has pretty much reached the tipping point of concensus, as there are other editors who have vehemently opposed including a large amount of quotes. The amount currently on the page is a trim-down to only the most notable 2-3, and putting more might make it into a repository for quotations, which is why wikiquote exists. Second, I don't believe a "rare opportunity" is a POV statement at all, even if I was a hardcore Bush supporter and one of the 31%, I'd still think that the ability to joke about the president to his face almost never comes around. Finally, Stewart IMHO was responding to critics, as evidenced by his "For some reason they thought...", a sarcastic quip that pretty much implies a previous negative comment in order to make sense. --kizzle 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the question of it being a "rare opportunity to criticize the president" is shown to be a neutral, factual statement by the line I added right after that, with a reference to The Washington Post reporting on "A White House long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints..."

Furthermore, I did address Colbert's own reaction to it with the last line, "Arianna Huffington reported that Colbert told her he had "strenuously avoided reading anything about his appearance," and personally remained unaware of public reactions to it. Colbert's wife, Evelyn, said she was considering tracking down and saving references from publications and blogs so that Colbert could read something about the public reaction if he chose to at a later time.[65]" (Maybe someone can point her in the direction of this article...? :-))

At the same time, I think Silence has a valid point about the content of the appearance; we don't want this to become a depository of quotes, but at the same time, maybe the anti-quote party has been a little too vehement. The ratio of actual content from the speech to context of and reactions to the speech has become miniscule; it contains fewer quotes from Colbert than the typical, far shorter newspaper article that reported on the speech or its aftermath. The Hindenburg line is a great candidate for additionally characterizing the general content of the speech. And the current lack of description of the Colbert / Helen Thomas video, which took up somewhere around half of Colbert's performance, also should be remedied. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How about if we add like 2-3 more, but make sure to explain the context behind each one as we have been doing? Lets keep it at a max of 5-6 though. --kizzle 07:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried rewriting the intro and first section, to give a more comprehensive description of the speech itself (since that is, after all, what this article is essentially about). I added a few snippets and short quotations where necessary, but nothing major; I think it has a nice balance overall of summary-style mixed with quotations where necessary, though feel free to do further tweaking. Mostly I added descriptions (after rewatching the film a couple of times; I hadn't seen it since I caught its firt airing on CSPAN) of large parts of the speech that were previously ignored in the article, so as to give a better sense of the overall topics and flow of the monologue. Reviewing the film and the "improved transcript", two things came to my attention.
• First, the "improved transcript" is actually quite heavy with errors and misquotes, so I don't recommend using it if you can find a suitable alternative. I corrected all of these errors in the transcript when compiling my own version, so if you'd like me to put it up anywhere (would it be breaking any copyright policy to upload the transcript to one of my User subpages, to help us out with editing the article?), just say so.
• The second thing I noticed is that the overall monologue fits quite nicely into an informal, topical division based on the different things Colbert discussed. The first section, his "Introduction" (ending at "Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term."), makes various opening remarks and explains his core philosophy; the second, "Beliefs" (ending at "Most of all, I believe in this president."), lists various beliefs; the third, "Polls" (ending at "Think about it. I haven't."), discusses the president's approval ratings; the fourth, "Standing" (ending at "Events can change: this man's beliefs never will."), advocates standing by the president because he stands for, and on, things, because you know where he stands, etc. (this is the least cohesive of the sections, since it digresses onto a variety of topics midway through); the fifth, "Media" (ending at "If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!"), critiques the media for its negativity and defends the Bush administration from them; the sixth, "People" (ending at "OK. Dodged a bullet."), discusses various people in the audience and a wide variety of current-events topics; and the seventh, "Press secretary", introduces and runs Colbert's concluding clip. Just something to keep in mind, generally, while we continue to work on effectively summarizing Colbert's monologue. -Silence 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome job, Silence. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What did they expect?

Maybe I just missed this part, but why did they ever let him speak in the first place? I'm still stunned that Bush actually allowed a strong critic be the featured entertainer. Anyone know why? The Ungovernable Force 08:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they didn't expect him to do what he did. I doubt an entertainer at the Presidential Roast has ever had the nerve to roast the audience before. The stunned looks on their faces were priceless. They looked like a classful of third-graders who'd just been told Santa's sleigh crashed with no survivors. Kasreyn 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• If anyone can find any references explaining exactly why and how Colbert was signed up for the event, I think that would be extremely useful and enlightening; I'm sure Bush himself (and his administration) was entirely uninvolved in the selection process. And I expect that most people who heard of or briefly saw Colbert didn't fully comprehend the multi-layered nature of his act, or didn't expect his satire to be so pointed and critical, just goofy. -Silence 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I still can hardly believe it myself. The only thing that could possibly be more unbelievable would be Jon Stewart being asked back on Crossfire.  ;) Kasreyn 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For that matter, hasn't Bush said he doesn't listen to the critics? He may have never even heard of Colbert before that night. Kasreyn 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I'm surprised I didn't think of this before, watch the Bill Kristol interview on the Colbert Report video archive on ComedyCentral.com, its the thursday before the WHCD, Kristol says that he was glad to help Stephen get the gig... maybe that belongs somewhere in the article? --kizzle 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would pay good money for someone in Austria to do the same to Wolfgang Schüssel, yeah... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 00:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

liberal bloggers?

I'm not sure I like the phrase "Liberal bloggers rallied around the speech" in the Internet Sensation section. If they did, none of the subsequent paragraphs in the section cite liberal blogs. Maybe this sentence should be put in a different section, possibly in the allegations of blackout section? I'm going to take it out, let me know if someone has a problem. --kizzle 07:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

media -> U.S. media?

I don't understand. You mean that everything doesn't revolve around what goes on in the US? I...can't...comprehend... --kizzle 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Has a reputation for avoiding dissenting viewpoints"

Does anyone else feel that this is way POV? Aside from being weaselly (the referenced article says Bush has been accused of squelching dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints, not "has a reputation for"), this is way, way opinionated. Try slipping this sentence into the George W Bush article and see what happens. it would get reverted in seconds. I really don't care if the Washington Post "supports" this (in fact, they only support that he has been accused - essentially, this is like saying that Ann Coulter has a reputation for plagiarism, because she's been accused of it), that doesn't make it any less opinionated. Additionally, to say that this "reputation" is the reason that this performance is so notable is POV analysis and borderline WP:NOR. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

True, the previous sentence was unsourced original analysis. I replaced what was there before with exact quotations from Newsweek and WaPo, and I made sure to put in that Bush has been accused of ignoring outside viewpoints rather than stating it as fact, as the previous version had. --kizzle 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of having a source, it's still weaselly (Kudos to anyone who provides me with a good spelling of that word :-( ) and non-NPOV to slip that in there. I'm sure every president has been accused of that. Should we go find an article for every modern president and just stick it in their article? Of course not. Besides, the sourced wording is weaselly in itself: "accused" by whom? It doesn't say. WP:AWW applies to sourced statements too, I would think, even if it is only a guideline and not policy. Besides, being sourced doesn't grant a section of material immunity from the WP:NPOV policy; the Post article is focused on portraying Bush as a dissention-squasher who is "desperate" to improve public opinion, without any thought that it might not be the case. It's not a neutral article, nor is it a notably important surce. It's just another source. I could find an article that says something along the lines of "Stephen Colbert proved that he is a manipulative, arrogant polemicist who cares nothing for social graces and only wishes to make a name for himself by being extreme and controversial", and if I stuck that sentence in the article's main body and referenced it, it would be (rightly) reverted before long. The same if I found an article saying that the accusations against Bush being intolerant of dissention were just a knee-jerk criticism and a political tool, lacking any merit. We shouldn't be able to throw political commentary into articles without restraint based on the premise that it's "sourced". This entire statement contains non-neutral commentary about the performance; I don't care if it came from somewhere else, it's still not neutral to include it.

On top of all that, this still contains the WP:NOR analysis. The article doesn't say that this is the reason why the performance was notable. Even if it did, I'd still have problems, but it's moot, because it doesn't, not that I read anyway. We can't say "this was particularly notable because..."; that's original analysis, even if it was based on cold hard fact (itself a disputed matter), and that violates WP:NOR. Without that sentence, the rest of the material is irrelevant to the article's subject. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: After reading the Washington Post article more carefully, I see that it doesn't even mention Colbert at all. Therefore, this statement about Colbert's performance being "particularly memorable" is completely, completely original, since neither of the two referenced articles mention Colbert (one was even in 2005). Therefore, on top of all the other problems with the statement, it doesn't belong per WP:NOR. Therefore, the rest of the material is irrelevant. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 16:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Job!

To whomever put this article together, I must say you have done a spectacular job. You have overcome a subject very difficult, and an AfD and the article came out on top nevertheless. I idolize anyone who can take such a subject and transform the article into featured status. Kudos to you, kudos to you, one and all. Aaрон Кинни (t) 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Karwynn Deletions

What do other people think of this passage:

This was particularly notable because President Bush, according to Newsweek, "may be the most isolated president in modern history". The Washington Post also describes Bush as having been "long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints."

The reasons giving for deleting this passage is that it is "unsourced, non-neutral analysis; weaselly quotes from sources ("may be" , "has been accused")". --kizzle 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC) --kizzle 17:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

First, a few things:

• Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel_words:

  If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:

  "Author Michael Moore, in his book Stupid White Men, wrote an open letter to George Bush asking, 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"

• What aspect of citing opinion from the Washington Post or Newsweek specifically violates WP:RS (make sure to quote the passage that you are referring to)?

--kizzle 17:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As you know, having replied there before, this matter is already being discussed here, two headings up. Perhaps the two heading should be merged to prevent confusion. I'd hate for someone to stumble on this "Recent Karwynn deletions heading and, by no intention of your own, think that I deleted disputed material without discussing it on the talk page. Either way, here's what I have to say about the matter. I know it's long, but bear with me - you might find the rambling actually makes some sense.

• Weasel Words

Your examples of improving weasel statements should be appreciated for what they are, but unfortunately, they don't really apply here. The full process you linked to involved escalating from "some say" to "BUsh's critics" to "Michael Moore" followed by accounts of a specific statement, namely, Moore's letter to Bush. Here, that process has not been fully employed. Unlike the specifically referenced Moore letter to Bush, which was direct and obvious in who it represented, these sources themselves still contain weasel words; take this sentence: A White House long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints. Accused by whom? As I said before, just because weasel words are sourced, even directly quoted, doesn't make them ok. n your example, the weasel words were eliminated by referencing the source of criticism directly. "Michael Moore said whatever". In this case, we still haven't discovered who is doing all the accusing. To say that the Washington Post is making the accusation is inaccurate. To say that the Washington Post says that Bush has been "long accused" is an accurate weasel statement, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. It fails verifiability as well, come to think of it: the article certainly doesn't bother to support the sentence. Read it for yourself. They just throw it out there. Verifiability doesn't mean "you can find it somewhere else", it means "It's been or can be verified to be true". Perhaps it can be, but this article doesn't do it. Do you see the difference between this case and the example provided in the WP:AWW guideline? In the guideline's example, the weasel words were overcome by citing. In this case, they still remain, because they are inherent in the source itself.

• Citing the opinions of these articles

Well, this problem should speak for itself. Opinions, including those of journalists, should not be cited as support for a claim. It would be one thing if these criticisms were being mentioned to verify their existence (see Laura Ingraham, an article in which numerous criticisms are used to self-verify, but not used to support a claim within the article that Laura Ingraham is good or bad or this or that), as they are for many public figures, but they are being used as support for this "particularly notable because" statement. As I said before, which was ignored this... well, I'll just repost what I said before.

• It's not a neutral article, nor is it a notably important surce. It's just another source. I could find an article that says something along the lines of "Stephen Colbert proved that he is a manipulative, arrogant polemicist who cares nothing for social graces and only wishes to make a name for himself by being extreme and controversial", and if I stuck that sentence in the article's main body and referenced it, it would be (rightly) reverted before long. The same if I found an article saying that the accusations against Bush being intolerant of dissention were just a knee-jerk criticism and a political tool, lacking any merit. We shouldn't be able to throw political commentary into articles without restraint based on the premise that it's "sourced". This entire statement contains non-neutral commentary about the performance; I don't care if it came from somewhere else, it's still not neutral to include it.

So here are my thoughts on this point, summed up.

• Citing opinions is fine for verifying the existence of those opinions/criticisms, but not for supporting the Wikipedia article's opinionated claims (which, see above, shouldn't be in there in the first place).
• This article is not notable to the subject matter. It's very broad, compared to the narrowness of the article's subject (and, even narrower, it's notability and the cause of it). The specific criticisms are not uncommon, and the article's themselves are not controversial. They are not important enough to be set apart as evidence pertaining to the performance's notability and Bush's reputation. Additionally, the source is more focused on Bush's attempt to "remedy" the situation, and so it gives little effort to really defend the accusations of quashing dissenting viewpoints. Basically, these "accusations" (still, by whom?) are not even the main point of the article.
• The article is not objective. It focuses on Bush's failure to listen to criticism, as well as circumstances that make it appear that this person or that person was fired for disagreeing with Bush. Essentially, Bush's being "accused" of not listening to dissent is part of the article's logical premise; it's an assumption that the rest of the article is based upon that this particular article doesn't bother to question objectively. So I'm more contesting the use of the source than the eutrality; that doesn't mean the website/paper as a whole isn't reliable, this just isn't a good article choice to verfy Bush's accusation of avoiding disagreement.

And, my biggest concern for the statement...

• "This was particularly notable because..." - Emphasis mine

This statement violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Look at the nature of the sentence: it's a cause-and-effect statement, coming to a logical conclusion that

• a)This (either referring to the performance or the fact that he was yards away from Bush - probably the first one) was particularly notable and
• b) That it was notable because of Bush's "reputation for avoiding dissenting viewpoints" or whatever.

However, both of these claims are opinionated and arguable, not fact. That's the NPOV issue. More importantly, though, this claim is not supported by the sources. Cited Source #1 does not mention Colbert or his performance. Cited Source #2 does not mention Colbert or his performance. I have asked to be corrected on this if I am mistaken, and I have not been. So if neither source says anything about this Colbert dinner thing, how can they possibly uphold this claim that "This was particularly notable because..."? The analysis/conclusion/claim that the performance was particularly notable, and for the reason that Bush has the repuation etc., is indisputably not directly supported by the sources, since neither article mentions Colbert of his performance. Therefore, this first clause is original analysis/original interpretation/original research. The sources do not mention Colbert or his performance or his proximity to George Bush. Therefore, the assessment of the performance's or proximity's notability is original content.

Psycho Master (Karwynn) 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Solution: replace "This was particularly notable because" with a cited example of a source asserting that the fact that Bush has "long accused of squelching internal dissent and ignoring outside viewpoints" (which the other two quotations establish, even if it's only their POVed assessments) is a significant part of the reason why Colbert's performance was noteworthy/unusual. The actual information conveyed by this statement is highly important and relevant to this article, so we should not remove it. However, we should provide a citation and, preferably, a specific attribution, to the overall "cause-and-effect" claim. This should not be too difficult. Simply find an article that points out Bush's "bubble boy" reputation in the same context as Colbert's speech and the connection will be made. The only reason we haven't already found such a source for this statement is that most of the references implicitly reference Bush's avoidance of criticism and outside viewpoints; they rarely state it explicitly, because it's such common knowledge (or at the very least, an extremely common myth). As an encyclopedia, we cannot do the same, so, let's fix this. -Silence 18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Colbert's character

Saying his character is mocking right-wing pundits is fine, but there is no source to say he is specifically imitating Hannity or O'Reilly. True, a couple sources do point out similarities, but what exactly makes these (highly opinionated) sources authorities on the specific people who Colbert is supposedly imitating? Colbert mentions that Hannity and O'Reilly are "over-the-top" as far as personality driven opinions go, but he doesn't say that's who he's imitating. Besides, he doesn't even say them exclusively, he says "someone LIKE Hannity or O'Reilly".

His own words don't suffice here, and a source pointing out similarities and asserting in a totally non-objective (try putting "Bill O'Reilly's bullying media-age demagoguery" into the article and see what you get) way is not enough to include the comparison. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's say "like Hannity or O'Reilly", then. If it's what Colbert himself says, then I think we can trust his opinion over the commentators'. Kasreyn 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Colbert has in fact specifically identified Hannity, Scarborough, Stone Phillips, even Jeff Greenfield, and most often O'Reilly as specific targets that he intends to parody. The fact of his stated intention is objective and referenced. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then that's even better. Thanks.  :) Kasreyn 22:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to A.V. Club interviewer's description of The Colbert Report as "much more an overt parody of O'Reilly", Colbert said:

"Right, sure, O'Reilly, Hannity, there's a little bit of Lou Dobbs, where he rides the same story over and over again, the attention to sartorial detail like Anderson Cooper, absolutely bullheaded holding onto an idea, no matter how shallowly considered, like Hannity, and almost a physical aggressiveness that O'Reilly has. O'Reilly's the easiest one to reference, because he's the most popular. He's the one everyone's gonna understand. And he also does it best. He's an incredibly aggressive performer."

Wikipedia's article on The Colbert Report is also explicit regarding the show's focus on parodying O'Reilley:

"Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Ben Karlin (The Daily Show's executive producer) supposedly came up with the idea for the show after watching coverage of the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Bill O'Reilly. Jon Stewart's production company, Busboy Productions, developed the Report. Colbert, Stewart, and Karlin pitched the idea of the show (reportedly with one sentence: "Stephen Colbert parodies The O'Reilly Factor") to Comedy Central chief Doug Herzog, who agreed to buy it."

The article also points out that Colbert's character in the show, which he also used for the monologue this article is about, is "a parody of pundit show hosts found on American cable television news, in particular Bill O'Reilly, but also with influences from Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity. Colbert has said the essence of what he felt the need to mock is summed up in a rule Scarborough claimed to adhere to: that he isn't doing his job if he lets his guest speak for more than seven seconds at a time without interruption."[4]

Heck, the article has an entire section named The_Colbert_Report#Relation_to_The_O.27Reilly_Factor! It's hard to make the connection much clearer than that. -Silence 20:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Prposed changes in the opening paragraph

As it is currently: On April 29, 2006, comedian Stephen Colbert was the featured entertainer for the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, delivering a 20-minute speech and video presentation which was broadcast live on C-SPAN and MSNBC. In the same character as the one he plays on The Colbert Report, an over-the-top send-up of a conservative pundit in the fashion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, Colbert mocked the Bush administration and the White House press corps.

Proposed: On April 29, 2006, comedian Stephen Colbert was the featured entertainer for the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, delivering a 20-minute speech and video presentation which was broadcast live on C-SPAN and MSNBC. Colbert spoke as the same character as the one he plays on The Colbert Report: an over-the-top send-up of a conservative pundit in the fashion of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. The comments made by Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner mocked the Bush administration and the White House press corps.

It has this article include self-reference like every other Wikipedia entry. Thoughts? -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actual approval rating

The Bush impersonator says: "How come I can't have dinner with the 36% of the people who like me." Colbert said Bush had a 32% approval rating. It was the same day: which is it! Are they both using different polls? Is one of those numbers made up? Were the skits written at different times? This article seems to be the best place to reconcile it, as it is the most comprehensive and detailed write-up of the event, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are so many different polling outfits*, they were probably just quoting different polls. You can read about how polling is as much art as science at Myster Pollster.

* Zogby, CBS/New York Times, WSJ/NBC, Rasmussen, Gallup, Fox News, AP/IPSOS, Quinnipiac, ...

International Audiences

For an international audience, Some of Colberts lines need explanation/commentary.

I doubt I'm alone as a non-USA resident in trying to "get" all of Colbert's domestic gags & slang, & deriving some pleasure from extending my knowledge of American domestic current affairs in the processs.

I had the same problem with some of the jokes.--BMF81 13:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

diff

Original text at end of introduction:

“ Reaction to the event caused it to become an Internet and U.S. media sensation,[6][7] and ratings for The Colbert Report soared 37% in the week following the speech.[8] Time magazine concluded that "Days after Stephen Colbert performed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, this has become the political-cultural touchstone issue of 2006—like whether you drive a hybrid or use the term 'freedom fries'."[9] ”

Proposed insertion:

“ In general initial coverage of the Correspondents Dinner cited the humorous reaction to the President's routine with actor Steve Bridges ("The president killed. He's a tough act to follow- at all times." Stephen Cobert as quoted in [1]) somewhat contrast to a muted response to Colbert's remarks ("What some reported as a tepid reception to his patter was actually 'very respectful silence,' Colbert joked on his show last night" [2]).

Subsequent coverage has focused on if the routine was funnier than originally reported; the political nature of the remarks; and if there was an intentional coverup by the media in the reporting on the routine. In some ways the current status of the event is summed up by the title of Anne Marie Cox's article in Time "Was Stephen Colbert Funny? If you didn't laugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the bloggers insist, you're a White House lackey" . [3]

”

I think the quick summation of the media sensation it caused, Colbert Report's brief ratings rise as a result, and the Time quote that asserts the importance of the event in a NPOV way, is better than the proposed text. The details of the different points of view are mentioned in later sections.

The author of the changes and anyone is welcome to disagree and provide reasons to the contrary. TransUtopian 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Is it really that unusual for a cable show to have increased ratings after someone associated has a bout of noteriety? The increase, and the term 'soared', are giving the POV impression that this was some sort of endorsement of Colbert. In reality this may just be the benefit of that week's publicity and not really relevant to the article.

Also where is the context for this entry? Should a featured article really uninformed reader with such a sharp disorientation verses the actual events. We are doing a disservice to a reader 5 years from now to give the impression that this was the seismic equivlent of Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech. Thats how this article reads now.

All you have to do is watch the YouTube videos to see that Bush gave a funny speech and Colbert gave a not-so-funny speech in a venue that is traditionally tongue-in-cheek. This is not a 'hard news' event. The inital reporting reflected this. What Time termed as a "fake scandel" was that some later commentators objected to the lack of coverage of a comedy routine that they lauded for elements other than comedy. If you have to write an article explaining how and why something was funny, or if the title was "Was Stephen Colbert Funny?", then in my experience its not all that funny.

The extant version of a Time quote is kind of pointless- does anyone even use the term 'Freedom Fries'? Is that really the diacotomy here? Given the "timid response" from the actual crowd in attendance it doesnt seem necessary to be on the 'freedom fry' fringe to not have liked the speech. The impression given by the current version is out of wack enough to be POV.

Guess I'll revert, although the Cox subtitle seems to be a little too much.

I can't believe the following edit has lasted so long: "In some ways the current status of the event is summed up by the title of Anne Marie Cox's article in Time "Was Stephen Colbert Funny? If you didn't laugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, the bloggers insist, you're a White House lackey" The first part is pure editorializing, and infers that Cox's "It wasn't funny" view is the only logical response one could possibly have had. I've partially reverted to re-add the original Time quote, because it puts the mini-controversy into perspective while still maintaining the overall NPOV of the introduction.-Hal Raglan 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious concerns -- this should not be FA

I just made edits to the section dealing with Byron Calame and the NY TImes's response to the routine. As you can see from my edits and the summaries, they were rather serious: the article called him "Brian" Calame, and his quote was totally mischaracterized. Either the person who wrote the original sentence read ONLY the phrase quoted: "didn’t explain why Mr. Colbert didn’t make The Times in the first place", or the quote was intentionally and maliciously decontextualized to support the point of view that Colbert was overlooked. Here's Calame's blog post: [5]. I can't help but think that other references are similarly abused. And I can't help but think that this does not represent the best that WIkipedia has to offer. Croctotheface 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent deletions and my reversions

There are plenty of sources for the chilly reception Colbert got there. Honestly, there is no question that it happened. Consequently, I'll keep reverting these edits as vandalism. Croctotheface 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Stick to the facts. Your paragraph is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.161.179 (talk • contribs)

First, I didn't write "my" paragraph. Second, there are lots and lots and lots of sources that maintain that Colbert's act was not received well by the audience. You have not provided a single source to the contrary, you've just deleted text and harassed me on my userpage and added a tag to the article. If there is any basis in fact for your edits, give sources here and we can discuss them. Until you do, your edits don't strike me as antyhing more than vandalism. Croctotheface 04:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Croctotheface. --kizzle 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Think talent

Thank you for featuring this article - I wouldn't have known about the clever and daring Colbert otherwise. It's reassuring to be reminded so graphically that the US government doesn't represent the populace and is not the only position as presented. Thinking America? More, please. - Julia (Aust)

A big "thank you" from me, too. I'm German, interested in US politics, but had never heard of Colbert before I stumbled across this Wikipedia article by accident. Thanks a lot for reporting on the event; and thank you very much, Stephen Colbert. The speech is just hilarious, and such things should happen much more often in this country. Given they elected GW Bush president - twice -, one would think Americans are retarded, but obviously, there must be a latent, hidden intelligentsia someplace. Thank you for correcting our European liberal bias. It's so truthy I had it in my guts!

And thanks for explaining - I would have missed two thirds of the jokes and references.--88.217.32.144 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable enough for FA?

Well, it does seem a tad too insignificant for to be a featured article - Ano

Hahahahahahaha... If you think this is insignificant, you have not been alive in the past year. --Savethemooses 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess he forgot wikipedia is only available in the us, oh wait.--Dacium 05:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

that show is broadcast to half the world. plus this event was reported on bbc but your right ..sure Towers84 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

I know, I know, people tell me now that 'referencing' is accepted as a verb, but it is difficult to hear or read. Could the author consider using the proper 'referred to' instead? It just sounds very bad to anyone who reads books.

Are you kidding? Nouns get verbed all the time. Why maintain an elitist way of saything things when more effective methods evolve naturally? I say keep 'referencing' Sparsefarce 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Satire and the internet

This is an excellent article about a remarkable event. It seems odd now to read the discussion about US-centrism which almost saw the article deleted a few months ago. Coming from a British-Irish background, I admit that I had never heard of Stephen Colbert before the Press dinner roasting appeared on the internet. I was completely astounded by what I saw. For non-US citizens, the subject of this article tells us an enormous amount about American culture. It is also a landmark event because of the internet's role in this piece of twenty-first century political satire.

Jonathan Swift complained in the 18th century that one problem with satire is that the satirist's intended targets often laugh along with the satirical comedy which was intended to upbraid or sting them. The TV critic quoted in this article is absolutely right to say that the stony faces of the unamused guests is "the money shot" - this is satire that is not afraid to be unfunny in the cause of hitting home. However, it is the cameras and the internet that has allowed Colbert the luxury of dying comedically on his feet. A much wider audience, beyond not only the guestlist but beyond the USA, is able to appreciate the power of Colbert's language here. And, incidentally, we are also able to appreciate the openness of a society in which a powerful President can be lampooned in this no-hold-barred way without the lampoonist being, um, poisoned in a sushi restaurant, or something similar. --Quywompka 11:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

How sad it is that some people are so scared of this harmless little article that they have to resort to vandalism? Hatred = Fear. Xiner 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually from what I see, most of the vandalism has been pro-Colbert as expected. Gdo01 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You think it's bad now? wait until he gets wind of it. ^_^ SAMAS 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bring it on! --Kizor 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good thing Stephen is taking the week off. LOL. PerryPlanet 02:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally did a double revert, my apologies. Oberiko 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My first time on the page, absolutely pathetic. Please fix this article to preserve and proliferate this bit of comedy history. I'd like to know all the back-stories. Good Ninja 12:43, 21 November

Colbert, the nemesis of Wikipedia

Did you forget that Colbert urged people to vandalize the elephant page on Wikipedia? --Ineffable3000 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with improving this article? Gdo01 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this article is now a mainpaged FA has actually restored some of the faith in Wikipedia that I lost when I read/saw some of the reactions of Wikipedians towards quite literally anything Colbert (don't get me wrong, my faith was still quite strong). I guess this proves that some of us can take a joke. --Bobak 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Yes, I know it's on the main page, but the vandalism is simply out of hand, so I semi-protected it. I've decided against putting the ugly {{protected}} template on top, though. If somebody wishes to unprotect, of course, I'll have no major objections. – ClockworkSoul 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. --HappyCamper 01:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If somebody sees good reason to add the {{sprotected}}, though, by all means do so: my actions are far from law! – ClockworkSoul 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an official English Wikipedia policy to not protect a featured article, especially if it's simply because of vandalism. Please see WP:NOPRO. Thanks. ~ UBeR 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy says it's generally not advisable, and I agree, but sometimes I'm tired having to manually roll back the main page article because two or three people had vandalized it before my watchlist reloads. If somebody prefers to unprotect it, I'm all for it, but I choose not to, at least for now. – ClockworkSoul 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not look excesive to me, by any means. Even looking through the history, it looks as though it's nothing that's not able to be controlled. That's just my opinion though. ~ UBeR 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-sprotected for a little bit. The level of vandalism was insane. --Slowking Man 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to make this main page an exception to the usual don't-protect-main-page-articles rule. After all, this isn't Warsaw Uprising (1944) or Geology of the Death Valley area: it's Stephen Colbert. – ClockworkSoul 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Who? —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, the elephant guy. ;) – ClockworkSoul 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios being linked to?

I notice that in the External links section that there are multiple links providing copies of the event or his talk in particular. Nothing seems to indicate that they are appropriately licensed and so as far as I can tell, they are copyright violations. I've asked on IRC and in my experience, we ought not to be linking to such. --Gwern (contribs) 01:12 21 November 2006 (GMT)

The text itself states that only Google has the rights to the performance. All others are potential copyright violations. --Gdo01 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you removed them. Good: it's probably better that way. – ClockworkSoul 01:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, guys. That's setting an example. --Gwern (contribs) 02:11 21 November 2006 (GMT)

Quality

I have to say, why is this a featured article? It's not even that long!

FAs don't have to be long - just really good and comprehensive. --Gwern (contribs) 02:11 21 November 2006 (GMT)

...and agenda driven. Haizum 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What, you disagree with his position, therefore it's wrong to FA this article? The speech happened. --Kizor 10:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For an FA article, it's surprisingly lacking in background information. In particular, who invited him to the party?--Yannick 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some googling, and I found a handful of sources - of not exactly the most reliable calibre - which claimed he was invited by Mark Smith, the outgoing President of the White House Press Corps Association. Raul654 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reliable print source which says the same thing - http://nymag.com/news/politics/22322/index3.html Raul654 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is missing a surprising amount of images and details for an FA. ~ UBeR 07:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

With regards to images, any currently in circulation will almost certainly be copyrighted. Fair Use means we can only really justify using one or two in the article, and only to illustrate key points. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

I think that this article could use one more image -- a wider angle showing both Bush and Colbert. A main reason that this satire of Bush was so remarkable is the fact that Bush was sitting four paces from where Colbert was standing. Spebudmak 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a great picture Here. It's on dvmx.com, and I don't know what the image policy is for that... I'll see if I can find anything else in case that doesn't work. PerryPlanet 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that picture is great. Does anyone know the rights for it? If that doesn't work, another option would be to do a vidcap from the video under fair use--the problem is that the version on Google Video is too low-resolution. Anyone have a better quality video source they could capture a frame from? Spebudmak 00:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a slightly smaller, stylistically better version of this perspective that you can find on Google Images, but I think these are Associated Press images. —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow

This has got to be the quickest an article has ever been FA'd since its creation... not even 6 months... nice work, guys, and an entertaining read :) Kareeser|^Talk! 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have full faith that this article will become one of the most viewed feature page articles on here, and stay on top for a long time. Good to see that FA include stuff that wouldn't be expected to reach that level. Hilarious, I might add. Kaiser matias 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably an over-zealous leftist adminstrator doing his duty! :rolleyes: ~ UBeR 07:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Shouldn't there be a wikiquote link? I guess we leave the page alone while it's a FA? - Peregrinefisher 09:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There already is a wikiquote link - a rather big one at that. Raul654 09:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I missed it too. Guess I'm just used to seeing interproject links under the "External links" section rather than embedded in the main body. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability, context, globalize

I do not want to put these three tags on the FA, but I really want to raise these three issues. I am non american although I watch american political scene and US very closely. However, the lead of the article does not seem to be explaining why is this event so notable. Yes I distinctly remember seeing 20 seconds shot at Czech TV, but any non US person would be completely confused with the article. What was so special about that dinner at first? What was so special that president is being mocked? Possibly it is special, but the lead does not explain it! Almost anybody on this planet is mocking Bush and we do not have articles about it. Add some context who do not know what association dinner or whatever it was is. Make it readable for non US readers. I know that US editors will think this is important (especially democrats) and will prevent this article from being deleted as non-notable. But if we have to have this article at first, please make it readable for wider audience. --Jan.Smolik 12:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is remarkably notable, but I, as a non US reader, totaly agree that it needs more context explanation.--BMF81 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur with these two editors. Why was this made a FA in the first time? Seems to me like there are MANY more interesting articles that deserve it. Sarg 14:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

With regards to interesting topics, FAs are promoted on the strength of their writing, not whether the topic the article covers is particularly interesting (personally I can't think of a topic more dull or prosaic than shoe polish, but because that article is well-written, it still deserved its FA promotion). Of course, this doesn't affect any bias within the article, but that's another discussion. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes FA articles does not need to be interesting, "only" well written. However, lead of this article is a poor work. It does not explain why this particular mocking of President Bush is more notable than other cases. Plus it does not add sufficient context so that international readers are able to understand it. What more, are you sure that 10 years from now, US readers will be able to understand it? By the way, I have read the FA nomination discussion and it was not a clear cut decission. Concerns about insufficient context were risen even in that debate and were ignored. --Jan.Smolik 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree on these points. As an international reader, this is actually the first time I'd heard about this, and it's a bit confusing. At the moment it comes across as a list of commentators saying "OMG! That's outrageous!" regarding something I've never even heard of. Sockatume 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is poorly written, and I'm an American. I do not have cable television, so I know very little about Stephen Colbert. This article is written for someone who is very familiar with both the speaker and the speech. The article is very unclear to someone who is not familiar with both. As well, as several others have noted, the article does not place this speech within any clear context. While I enjoy reading each day's featured article because they usually are quite well done, this one is an exception. Please note that I do not make this statement from any particular political point of view. I despise the Bush Administration, so I certainly would be sympathetic to anyone satirizing it.Carmela Soprano 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jan: There was disagreement when the article was first created as to why it deserved its own article instead of just being merged with the general WHCD article, as mocking Bush is pretty much ubiquitous. I, along with several other editors, argued that it was extremely rare that someone could event dissent publicly in the company of Bush, let alone launch a caustic diatribe. The fact that the video of Colbert's performance hit #1 on iTunes, increased the show's audience by 37% in one night, and was a huge internet sensation on YouTube before it got shut down also helps define its notability. I also echo the sentiments above that many many other articles with much less interesting topics have been featured on today's featured article. I hope that helps.

Carmela: If the problem you are experiencing is lack of familiarity with the subject of the article, please feel free to follow the extensive wiki-links featured prominently in the introduction of the article, such as:

1. If you're not "familliar with the speaker":
   • Stephen Colbert (character): to find out more about the character that Stephen played at the performance, which was "the same character as he plays on The Colbert Report."
   • Stephen Colbert: to find out about the person behind the character.
   • The Colbert Report: to find out about the show that he is currently on.
2. If you're not familliar with the event itself, try clicking on White_House_Correspondents'_Association, also featured prominently in the first sentence.
3. Finally, if you're not familliar with the speech, then read the extensive first segment of this article where it goes into depth about what topics he covered.

It would be irresponsible to flesh out the entire details of who Stephen Colbert is and what the White House Correspondant's Dinner is when they can easily be linked to in order to find out more information. We don't dump all the details of all the subjects listed in an article if we can wiki-link to bios or other pages and enable the readers to click on the links if they are not familliar with the subject or else risk duplicating entire pages. If there are poorly written sections that you feel could be improved by better syntax or structure, please feel free to correct any mistakes. However, citing a personal lack of familiarity for the subject when you (and any reader) can click on the wiki-links I have reproduced above (that are in the very first section) to correct such an unfamilliarity seems a weak reason to infer that the article is written for "someone who is very familiar with both the speaker and the speech". The duplication of content that would be required is just not the way we do things around here. --kizzle 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If explained as you did now, this article seems to be keepable. But why you did not write it in the lead? Lead section must answer the question: "Why should I be interested in this?". Concerning context, linking is not sufficient. It is for details, but basic information must be repeated. Even first paragraph is confusing. Is CSPAN a television network? Or radio? Web server? How can you expect somebody to know the name of some minor cable television? I do not want to to write their profits and all the details. But simply saying "was broadcasted on cable television CSPAN" instead of "was broadcasted on CSPAN" would be sufficient. And this is just one of many examples. And I am just talking about the lead. I am sorry I am so critical, but this is FA and furthermore it is on the main page. It must really be perfect. I actually think we have better articles that did not make it to featured status yet. --Jan.Smolik 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One more note: If I click on the link, I am not very likely coming back. So if I have to click five links before I can at least little bit understand what happened, I probably will not finish reading the lead section. --Jan.Smolik 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people I know are familiar with Colbert and the show, so I can't really comment on whether or not the topic is universal enough to deserve an article. However, one of the strengths of using wikilinks is that they reduce or eliminate the need to define each and every term in detail. I suppose that there could be more context, but wikilinks are one way to contextualize. Croctotheface 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely my point, Jan. I understand that you may not be familliar with the details of the article. Take a look at Windows 2000, another FA as well as former Today's FA. I am not familliar with Uniprocessor, Symmetric multiprocessing, or even Preemption (computing), yet I wouldn't dream of editing the front page to dump all the details of these terms into the lead paragraph, and I would be careful before adding significant detail about these concepts into the main article itself. This is precisely why we wiki-link. If, as you're reading, you are not familliar with a term, you can click on that term, get the gist of the matter, then hit back and continue. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia and thus is far superior in its ability to offer the reader instant clarification of related concepts and terms by using wikilinks. Dumping a summary or anything beyond a sentence of what these terms are in every single article that uses them would duplicate content far more then necessary. Of course, this does not stop us from doing minor corrections like your example of adding "cable television" CSPAN, and I make no such claim that the article is Amerocentric-proof, but if the other changes you propose are similar to your CSPAN example, it should be a minor obstacle and not one which would jeopardize FA status. --kizzle 03:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2000 is not a good example. It is horrible. I am a programmer and I did not understand it. These details need not to be in a lead (sigh). You are right, the problems I describe are minor adjustments of the lead section so that people who do not know anything about the subject are able to get a basic idea. But these minor adjustments distuingish merely good article from a great article. And what I think, these adjustments should have been done before the article was published on the main page. The lead should tell me what happened and why is it notable (he was mocking president and he was present - 1st time in last 2000 years!). I am not against americanocentric articles. They are fine. But in such a global project you cannot count on facts that people know things you consider basic. --Jan.Smolik 10:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jan.Smolik. He/she makes many good points. It would be irresponsible to flesh out the entire details of who Stephen Colbert is and what the White House Correspondant's Dinner is. And I never said that. The article needs to stand alone on its own -- which it does not. It does not put the matter in a concise context. One should be able to understand the subject 100 percent even if one had never seen Steven Colbert nor clicked any other links here. Links do not make a bad article good. Most of the featured articles stand on their own -- one can read the article and understand 100 percent why the subject is important because it is presented within a relevant context. That is not the case with this article. It's largely an episodic -- and often wandering -- narrative of a particular event and a cataloging of various trivia.Carmela Soprano 22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Systemic bias is not necessarily an actionable item in FAC discussion. There are many US specific FAs. But I think there were several actionable items in the FAC nomination that went unresolved. Certianly, aside from this article's presence on the main page, the article is nowhere stable enough to meet the stability criteria of a FAC nominee. My feeling is the event is just too soon to be a stable featured article. There are also issues with the prose that I won't get into detail here, suffice to say it's not necessarily "brilliant." The notability of this event, not just ten years from now but one year from now, rasies the possibility that this article would be better suited in condensed form as a section of the Stephen Colbert article. Do we have articles of the Nixon era press dinners? —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is an FA because it was added by a Colbert sympathizer. A Colbert fan. This article lacks prominence. It's lacking in criteria for an FA status (e.g. 1b, 3, and 4). From the deletion discussion: "I think we should resort to ten year test (I would prefer one hundred, but I am willing to be disagreed with). Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years? It was a comedian, doing a comedy routine. That happens all the time. It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Featured Artiles represent what Wikipedia is all about; Featured Articles represent the very best Wikipedia has to offer. Frankly, this article does not offer. Do not get me wrong though, I am a big fan of Colbert, and I liked his speech at dinner; I do not, however, feel this presents what very best of what Wikipedia is all about. ~ UBeR 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is an FA because it was added by a Colbert sympathizer. A Colbert fan.

If by added you mean nominated by, then yes, yes it was.

It's lacking in criteria for an FA status (e.g. 1b, 3, and 4).

1b: "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Ironically, we were accused several times of putting in too much information about the speech itself, the reaction, and critical reception, as well as too many external links. Please, inform us as to what "major facts and details" this article is lacking.

3: "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." The only fair-use image we can use is the one included. I'm not sure what else in the article deserves an image, but a) you can suggest an image that we couldn't find and b) that's a pretty nitpick reason to withold an article from FAC, especially considering it still technically meets the requirement.

4: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" Are you suggesting it is too short? If so, I refer you to my question above where I kindly request for you to add any "major facts or details" that are absent from the article. If you are arguing it is "going into unecessary detail," then I can't but help think it a bit contrary to your previous allegation that the article didn't contain enough details.

Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years? It was a comedian, doing a comedy routine. That happens all the time. It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care.

Ah yes, and people will care about Shoe_polish, some film that came out last year, some video game on an old system, and some operating system almost nobody uses anymore 10 years down the road. You mistake the purpose of a Featured Article, notability has absolutely nothing to do with requirements for either Featured status or for Today's Featured Article. If you think I'm wrong, please do a word-search for "notability" on Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article? and tell me how many results you get. --kizzle 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that even Shoe Polish is more notable than this inane topic doesn't say much in its favour... We'll have to agree to disagree over this issue, however I can't help but feel that this would never have reached FA status if it wasn't of a political and, specifically, of North American political nature. Sarg 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Shoe Polish is more notable than this inane topic" is an opinion, not a fact. And yes, we'll have to agree to disagree, as quite frequently when an article that deals with North America gets nominated, the same complaint gets voiced over and over again. --kizzle 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What actionable items in the FAC nomination have not been resolved yet? As for complaints about prose, why don't you fix what you see as bad prose once this article is off the main page? --kizzle 20:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lee Bailey's items were not addressed and brushed aside. As for your {{sofixit}} suggestion: you wouldn't like it. My fix would be to condense the article and merge it into Stephen Colbert. —Malber (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, 1, 2, and 3 were already addressed. 4 is not an actionable item (or at least an explicit, actionable item), so I don't know what to say. For your suggestion, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The general concensus on both the FAC and AfD were contrary to your assertion, though. --kizzle 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To respond to your response of my comment, kizzle, I'd like to direct you to the very top of this section in the talk page. In case you're too lazy, I'll quote it for you here: "Yes I distinctly remember seeing 20 seconds shot at Czech TV, but any non US person would be completely confused with the article. What was so special about that dinner at first? What was so special that president is being mocked? Possibly it is special, but the lead does not explain it! Almost anybody on this planet is mocking Bush and we do not have articles about it. Add some context who do not know what association dinner or whatever it was is. Make it readable for non US readers. I know that US editors will think this is important (especially democrats) and will prevent this article from being deleted as non-notable. But if we have to have this article at first, please make it readable for wider audience."

As it happens, I'm not too lazy. It just happens to be that notability has absolutely nothing to do with FA status. Also, I already responded to the passage you quoted, if you're too lazy I'll reproduce here:

There was disagreement when the article was first created as to why it deserved its own article instead of just being merged with the general WHCD article, as mocking Bush is pretty much ubiquitous. I, along with several other editors, argued that it was extremely rare that someone could event dissent publicly in the company of Bush, let alone launch a caustic diatribe. The fact that the video of Colbert's performance hit #1 on iTunes, increased the show's audience by 37% in one night, and was a huge internet sensation on YouTube before it got shut down also helps define its notability. I also echo the sentiments above that many many other articles with much less interesting topics have been featured on today's featured article. I hope that helps.

--kizzle 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the image, I would direct you to the section in this talk page titled Images, but in case you're too lazy to do that, I'll quote it for you here: "I think that this article could use one more image -- a wider angle showing both Bush and Colbert. A main reason that this satire of Bush was so remarkable is the fact that Bush was sitting four paces from where Colbert was standing."

I read that as well, but I was unable to find an image that your quotation refers to with proper copyright status. Prove me wrong. --kizzle 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As for scope, it goes hand in hand with the first point I brought up. I never said it had unecessary detail, per se.

Like I said earlier, the Featured Article represent the encyclopedia that Wikipedia is and represents the very best Wikipedia has to offer. I don't disagree that this article is good. I don't disagree that Colbert is funny, or that his speech was funny. I disagree with it being a featured article. ~ UBeR 23:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The premises which your conclusion ("I disagree with it being a featured article") is mainly based upon your perception of its non-notability (your extensive 1st para). I'm just reminding you that notability has absolutely nothing to do with FA status or Today's FA. There are plenty of articles that are very obscure and probably not known to people in the US and many other people from different countries, but I would never say that any of them don't deserve to be on the front page as long as they were "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable", as per Wikipedia guidelines. If, however, your premise on notability was simply a tangent, then we will have to agree to disagree. --kizzle 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding or misinterpreting my premise then. In fact, I wrote it in bold so I could be clear as possible. Apparently not clear enough though. My point is that Featured Articles represent the encylopedia that Wikipedia and represents the best Wikipedia has to offer. I didn't feel this article delivered that. It's a good article, especially after the quite many revision, no doubt. ~ UBeR 04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was focusing on actionable items, as your assertion in bold was not constructive in the slightest. However, it seems that you have modified the page heavily in the last few hours, which at least puts you out of the lazy you-fix-it category. Hopefully the page is more to your liking now. --kizzle 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not notable at all. It's very well sourced trivia. --86.131.93.168 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Good thing notability has nothing to do with FA status. --kizzle 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

New York Times columnist Frank Rich called it the "defining moment" of the 2006 campaign.[6][7] That's fairly notable. -- Brian.fsm 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

C-SPAN is cable TV, radio, and a webserver. The significance of a satire delivered in President Bush's presence is that the White House goes to great lengths to control the people in the audience at his public appearances. Racepacket 21:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the new lead paragraph. BTW -- thanks kizzle for keeping this thing going. -- Brian.fsm 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem Brian :) --kizzle 03:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortened the lead section and hopefully clarified it for the international audience. If someone thinks that the place of the dinner requires a reference, please put that in (I was wavering on that and finally had to toss a coin). Moved almost all of the cut material further down into the relevant sections. Hope the first screen now shows a reader the who-what-where and why-should-I-care of the story, and where to go to form their own opinion (as this particular performance happens to be legally available on-line). --Ronja Addams-Moring 12:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job Ronja, it is much better now. Now it deserves being featured. --Jan.Smolik 14:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it too Ronja, thanks a lot :) --kizzle 03:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wording

Although President Bush shook Colbert's hand after his presentation, Colbert received an icy response from the First Lady

That doesn't sound quite like encyclopaedic language. Can this possibly be changed to something more neutral and meaningful, especially considering this is an FA now? Gimlei 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between writing that is enyclopedic and writing that is dry to the point of desiccation. The quoted fragment seems fine to me, so long as a cite is provided (there are two) to qualify it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Geejo. Raul654 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded - and I'll be quoting that in the future. --Kizor 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of saying an icy response, may I suggest a sitting ovation? Apparently their customs are different than ours... like in China, they don't shake hands, they bow, like Mr. Colbert did. Mikiemike 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I Screwed Up

I made a couple of changes attempting to fix some blanking of the article and, due to the fact that I was making changes from work while paying attention to other things, ended up reverting to a version that was also partially blanked. This was a mistake on my part and not an intentional attempt to vandalize the page. Thanks for catching it, but I don't need it pointed out yet again on my user talk page. Eceresa 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Great page

This a great page, well written, kept me interested and half smiling to the end. I really enjoyed seeing it on the main page today. Congratulations to the authors - wonderful to see some original and different material here. Giano 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a great page. Bravo, Stephen Colbert and a big thank you to the Wikipedians that wrote this fine article! El Chileno Chido 20:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is this article?

I cannot gain access to this article, at least not through the Featured Article link. It just says "I like cocaine energy drink. It makes me feel high."

That's a particularily imaginative example of vandalism. The project gets that a lot, especially in high-profile articles such as this one, and it's usually swiftly defeated. If you have the bad luck to find a featured article vandalized, I'd say the best thing to do is wait thirty seconds and try again. --Kizor 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

I have removed the image in this article, as it is listed as fair use but is in fact a copyrighted image. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. All fair use images are - by definition - copyrighted. What's different in this case? Raul654 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there has to be a better reason if the image needs to be taken down. ShigityShank 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. I've restored the image pending the outcome of this discussion. --Kizor 01:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images should only be used when there is no other option, and when the subject of the image is the article in question. The subject of the image is the correspondents' dinner, not Stephen Colbert, and as such, it is a copyright violation. I addressed this at WP:AN and the only response I got was an agreement by one person that this is a violation of the use of fair use. I will be re-deleting. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair use

There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis...

Film and television screen shots.

-- Brian.fsm 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Zoe - I read the comments at WP:AN. Jaranda thought the dinner was at the White House and that a free image could be found. Centrx pointed out that the dinner was not at the White House and that it was unlikely that there were any free images. Neither Jaranda nor Centrx agreed with you and said that the image was a violation of fair use. -- Brian.fsm 03:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring image per comments on WP:AN. --kizzle 04:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Huffington Post

They send congrats for the daring featured article choice. -- Zanimum 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha sweet. --kizzle 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Great FA-maintenance by Brian.fsm

I was really pleasantly surprised to see how much better Brian.fsm had managed to make the page still. Thank you for a really good example of what featured articles should look and feel like. I did not diff too carefully, but noticed at least reference checking+adding, content touch-ups, and language+style polishing. Someone please teach me to WikiSmile - I feel like doing just that! :-)

--Ronja Addams-Moring 15:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Amen. --kizzle 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronja. But you really deserve most of the credit for the new Intro. Excellent rewrite.

BTW - kizzle, you rock. You saw the potential and you stuck with it. How do you stay in the middle of all these arguments and stay sane? -- Brian.fsm 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said I was sane? ;) --kizzle 03:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Audition Video

"The entire second half of the video is a spoof of horror film clichés ..." Perhaps, but more to the point it is a reference to the Tex Avery cartoons with Droopy chasing the wolf all over the world.

99,999% of the world population doesn't care about Stephen Colbert

This Wikipedia isn't US internal playground. I don't have any idea who SC is and the majority of the world doesn't care about that dinner. We prefer our dinners. Xx236 13:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

By the same logic, any non-international political articles are pointless. Your opinion is moot. -- Viewdrix 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that! And since this is, strangely, the _English_ language variant of the Wikipedia, then even if the Polish dinner-eater's rude hyperbole were true, it would only be 92% give or take, counting native speakers, and 50% of the world's population with knowledge of our language. :) Chris 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... [insert rubber-stamp complaint of Featured Article that has anything to do with the US]. --kizzle 04:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length above. Basically the problem was that the article failed to assert its notability for non-US readers. For example the Bush impersonator act at the same dinner is better known and more remarked upon in the UK media. Sockatume 04:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, notability has absolutely nothing to do with FA status criteria. If you think I'm wrong, do a word search on Wikipedia:What is a featured article? for "notability" and tell me how many results you get. --kizzle 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with the notability of the article in itself*. There are plenty of niche topics which would make great featured articles. What bothered me was that it was a niche topic which was poorly introduced for anyone unfamiliar with the story. The version used when it hit the front page was essentially a list of responses in the press without any real introduction into why this particular skit was a big deal. It's an editorial issue, not a notability issue. (This has since been resolved, hence my use of the past tense in the comment above.)

*That said, notability is supposed to be a prerequisite for the existence of a Wikipedia article in the first place. Featured articles are a subset of existing wikipedia articles, therefore notability should be a logical inevitability. Sockatume 01:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to keep out of this, but my willpower being what it is... I agree with Sockatume that notability is now established already in the introductory section, especially after the "six months later" comment was added. In my honest opinion, article notability should not be underlined too strongly, either (e.g. with language or style gimmicks): that could easily become insulting to readers. Certainly Bush and his administration had heard the same criticism, but rarely so bitingly clearly and in a setting where Bush could neither interrupt nor walk out without loosing face. I cringed several times watching the recording and would certainly have felt quite awkward had I been in the room, but despite of that I feel it was an important moment in the tradition of free speech and political satire. The media's initial disinterest of course heightens the free speech aspect further.

BTW - Who was quoted as saying something to the effect "The president of the United States is too important a position [from the viewpoint of all mankind] to be decided by American voters alone." Einstein? As a Baltimorean living in Finland, EU, since 1969, and with family and relatives in Florida, New York and Oregon, it is easy to sympathize with that comment... though I have absolutely no idea how to resolve the problem (leaders of China, India and Russia pose effectively the same dilemma). --Ronja Addams-Moring 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you could argue that every nation should have a say in the leadership of any nation which can affect them, but that's an epic and entirely off-topic dicussion. Sockatume 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ronja - not sure about the quote. Sorry.

Sockatume - you said, "notability is supposed to be a prerequisite for the existence of a Wikipedia article in the first place." There are many Wikipedia content policies. Notability is not one of them.

There is a Wikipedia:Notability guideline (not policy), but the first line (as it currently is written) is instructive: "A subject is notable if it has been documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent, published sources, or if it satisfies one of a number of additional subject-specific criteria." If you read through the entire article, including the notes, you'll see trivial sources (as opposed to trivial information) are illustrated using quite narrow examples. For example, you cannot write an article about your best friend simply because their name appears in a directory/phonebook or because their name is mentioned in a single line of a book.

Xx236 - WP:Notability as currently written states, "Notability does not equate to 'I've heard of it.'/'I've never heard of it.' or 'I think that it is notable.'/'I don't regard it as being notable.' A Wikipedian who judges an article based upon those subjective criteria is not employing a notability criterion."

Because this guideline is often abused, WP:Notability is often rewritten and currently being disputed. -- Brian.fsm 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there's by no means a universal baseline level of notability, and a subjective sense of notability would never work, but I was trying to get the idea across that there must be some reason why the subject was important enough to get its own article in the first place. Now, going by some of the responses on the talk page, that wasn't immediately obvious what the big deal was, so the article needed to make this clear. For example a good article on M-theory would make it clear why this is such a big deal in physics. The article currently does assert its significance, but it did not when I first looked at it. I'm retroactively defending my position at this stage, I didn't like Kizzle's accusation that I'm just some whinging foreigner who feels left out. Sockatume 03:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I made you feel like a "whining foreigner", didn't mean to do that :) --kizzle 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a hazard of using the internet, I guess, and my rampant insomnia's just confounding matters. Of course that I was retroactively discussing a resolved issue definitely didn't help either. Well, anyway, outstanding article. If it hadn't gone on the main page, all I would've heard about that dinner would've been the Bush impersonator. Sockatume 04:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, if his show gets ~1.1 million viewers, it's ~99.982% max. - Boss1000 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 21

I don't believe that footnote 21 (regarding Scalia laughing in response to a joke) supported the statement. I changed it to an article that supports the proposition. Katulus 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Before the dinner...

I'm curious - does anyone know of any build-up that Colbert's routine received in the days and weeks prior to the dinner? I know, for instance, that Jon Stewart's gig at the Oscars was trailed weeks beforehand on The Daily Show, and it would be interesting if anyone pointed out the blatantly obvious beforehand - that Colbert wasn't the type to pull punches and it was probably going to be mighty interesting... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.194.62 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think his show was available at iTunes yet, so I was limited to just the comedycentral.com cilps back then. However, I saw nothing about it in the blogosphere until Crooks & Liars posted a clip from the speech after the fact. So I doubt it received much pre-show build-up, or there would have been some buzz before the dinner. -- Brian.fsm 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

His appearance at the event wasn't hyped if that's the question, other then through in-character commentary. The event wasn't hyped either. None of the dinners are hyped or advertised as they do not have commercials / sponsorship, they are quite long and they are broadcast live late in the evening. It's not the sort of stuff that gets on most radars. How to incorporate this fact into a wikipedia article if there's no direct mention of it in the Media(tm), that's another question. IshaMessmer (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a White House Media Dinner until this incident. User:Hibbidyhai

I remember Colbert mentioning this multiple times in the week beforehand, and Stewart wishing him good luck on the Thursday before,in the end segment of The Daily Show where he and Colbert have a scripted transitional conversation. I have no proof, however. -- Viewdrix 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Having watched the Colbert shows before that, I didn't notice any buildup, although I can't say whether the Jon Stewart thing was true or not. There were a few mentions afterward, but not much. -mattbuck 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Does anybody know how george bush felt about stephen colbert's speech? he seemed to be enjoying it and he also seemed to like the comedian impersonator he had. I think george bush doesnt take the jokes offensively. he was making fun of himself too 24.166.154.108 17:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


I think george bush doesnt take the jokes offensively. he was making fun of himself too
Maybe that is so; then again, maybe not. I bet that it is not -- but that is just an opinion.
--Nbahn (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT COLBERT WAS DOING. He is so unintelligent that he cannot grasp the concept of satire. This is obviously tre, we just need it to be verified, and once it is, it should go into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

References

I just read the article and was trying to visit a few of the links on the page. What I don't get is why some of the links go only to the home page? For example, the Daily Show links were only to its main page, and thus not really valid as a reference. Also, a lot of the links lead to nothing, so that was a problem, but I guess you'll always have that problem with the always-updating nature of the internet. Cordially, Jimmy Tseng (http://jimmytseng.org/) 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of news sites don't keep their old articles around or change the URL, which is frustrating. If you can find the new URL, feel free to update the citation. Otherwise, I'd leave it alone. The accessdate attribute in the citation does let everyone know one date on which the article was still accessible -- and the Wayback Machine[8] might have a copy. Many sites, though, ban the Wayback Machine from making copies of their articles -- copyright protection. Luckily, many citations come from newspapers & magazines, which you can always find archived at the library or LexisNexis.-- Brian.fsm 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then a quotation must be added, the access date is not enough to make the ref valid.--BMF81 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Citing sources" specifically addresses what to do when a reference link goes dead. Nothing in the section " What to do when a reference link 'goes dead'" says that you should add a quotation. Also, the very first sentence of this section says that the link "should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted." (emphasis added)

Maybe you meant to say a broadcast date should be added, which I've done for the reference to the May 1, 2006, episode of The Daily Show. But source material does not need to be quoted verbatim, just because the source material is not or no longer available on-line. Take a look at today's front page featured article on Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. The books The Matabele Campaign, 1896 and Deception in War are both used as references but are not quoted verbatim. The article "A Separate Path: Scouting and Guiding in Interwar South Africa" from the journal Comparative Studies in Society and History is also cited without being quoted. -- Brian.fsm 06:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, using the Robert Baden-Powell featured article on today's front-page as one example, two books and a journal article are used as references but 1) are not quoted and 2) these citations do not contain links to on-line source material. If you are aware of a Wikipedia policy that states that all references must link to on-line source material, please cite this. -- Brian.fsm 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comedy Central's updated video section seems perpetually flaky. I've had the same problem -- a video's URL taking me to the home page instead of the video's page -- for URLs I just watched within the past week. Someday those URLs may work again... -- Brian.fsm 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Then"-declining approval rating?

Why does the article mention Bush's "then"-declining or sinking approval ratings? Are they not still declining? --Lyght 01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because he may have a revival. This keeps it safe for all eternity :) mattbuck 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. 128.210.12.39 (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Book addition?

"Colbert still occasionally references this performance on The Colbert Report and included the speech in the appendix of I Am America (And So Can You!)."

I really feel like this should be included somewhere, even if not in the intro (trying to keep it concise). I couldn't find any suitable section, though. If it should be moved elsewhere, go for it. I'm always a little cautious when editing FA's. - Boss1000 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Labeling Franken and Matalin

I don't think the article is improved by adopting arguably pejorative terms (left-wing/right-wing) just because we're citing a source that does. If either of them self-identifies with those labels, that's one thing, but I don't think they do. These are living people, after all. Croctotheface (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

left- and right-wing are common USAdian terms for liberals (generally Democrats) and conservatives (generally Republicans), and indeed, I heard "left-wing" used to describe a South American leader on the BBC world service last night; I don't at all think they're considered pejorative, as "socialist" or "reactionary" would be, unless -- as you say -- *those* labels were self-applied.
--Baylink (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The test of time

From up above and getting close to three years ago -

"This article lacks prominence. ... From the deletion discussion: 'I think we should resort to ten year test (I would prefer one hundred, but I am willing to be disagreed with). Will anyone remember - or want to remember - this event in ten years? It was a comedian, doing a comedy routine. That happens all the time. It is not anything special, not notable and in a few years no-one will care.'"

I remind briefly that in the 18th century, "A Modest Proposal" was just another satire, and satires happened all the time. "The Wealth of Nations" and "Das Kapital" were just a couple more books among many books seeking to make sense of it all. "Mein Kampf" was just another failed artist's politically filtred autobiography. And the newspaper articles behind "All The King's Men" were just another way for newspapers to sell copies.

99+% of all things written are forgotten without visible trace. History will judge which traces will remain. We cannot. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.245 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will concur. The article (which I linked to from our list of performers at WHCDs) told me things I didn't even know then, and by the very fact that *it's the only performance with its own article* I also learned something important. Not that I didn't already know *that*, of course, but... Excellent coverage, good balance and background. Shame it was an FA then, as it seems a candidate now, too.
--Baylink (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently stumbled across clips of the dinner, and wanted to learn what kind of reaction his routine had - because it's not every day someone roasts the (former) president to their face! This article had exactly what I was looking for. --Fishy c (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

too long?

it's one talk by one comedian. did this performance have that much of an impact? it's fascinating and amusing, but how did it affect anything with the media, politics etc.? as far as i can tell it had zero relevance after it took place, except for a possible, mild media "blackout."

Nasty Sentence

"In DC the response from the politicians and those who cover them, both groups targets of Colbert's satire, the reaction was predictably negative."

Been way too long since I edited Wikipedia, so I have no idea what lil' template to use for that. Just that it's hyper-biased. 203.143.248.114 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jab at Bush?

"Bush did not understand what Colbert was doing. He is not intelligent enough to grasp the concept of satire, and he was under the impression that Colbert was complimenting him. This is why he did not get angry and kept smiling throughout the performance."

I don't write for Wikipedia so I'll leave this up to the experts to fix, but I just wanted to point this out. 173.33.219.42 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK it was (and is) a funny joke but someone fix it as there are already enough truly funny jokes from that time. In truth Bush looks like he's about to cry being scolded by his mommy, as indeed his dad did do around that time on TV.92.14.238.224 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GA?

I's the article good enough for GA? Spongie555 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Needed article: Barack Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

This article is great and reminded me that we need a 2011 version. The CSPAN clip of Obama at the dinner just broke some huge record, they're reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangledorange (talk • contribs)

Are there as many third party reports about the dinner? Something being "great" is very subjective, and part of the reason the 2006 dinner has an article is because of the large number of reports surrounding it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no scarcity of sources-- if your threshold is very very high, then you just need to remember the request and wait-- because nobody's going to stop writing about it any time soon, I suspect. --Tangledorange (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)