Talk:The Colbert Report/Archive 1

What happened to accent marks? - Talk section from old accented "The Colbert Réport" page added in here

Everything short of "For previous discussion, see Talk:The Colbert Réport" is from the Talk section of The Colbert Réport, from which this page on The Colbert Report was copied.

"Réport" or "Report"? The great accent mark controversy

The Comedy Central website doesn't show an 'é' in "Report". Nor have I seen it in any ads for the program. Can documented evidence be provided that the 'é' will be permanently shown instead of just plain 'e'? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be without the é. I've never seen that on the website or the commercials. - Stoph 03:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. So are there any objections from anyone to moving this article back to The Colbert Report? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Stephen pronounced it as "réport" and I think on the opening it had it the same way. IMDB lists it this way too. So I think it should stay. Jayc 04:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be moved back to The Colbert Report. The on screen title seen during the show clearly has a normal, unaccented e. (The IMDb title will soon be changed as well, because they go by what is actually shown on screen.) The presence or lack of an accent isn't determined by Stephen's pronunciation. Jason One 00:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the initial ads for the Réport that ran on the Daily Show, which you can still watch on the Comedy Central Colbert Réport and Daily Show websites, use the accent mark - more than that, the missing accent mark is dramatically inserted by a lightning bolt near the end, seeming to emphasize its importance (as well as its silliness). And the T-shirts in the shop section on the Comedy Central Colbert Réport and Colbert Nation websites show the accent. But the accent is missing from the caption as it often appears on the show itself, so they've been inconsistent so far - so I was planning on waiting a few weeks into the show to see if it continues to make appearances or if it is forgotten.

And, I fear what preposterousness Colbert would wreak on Wikipedia on his show if he got wind that its users were debating whether a diacritical mark is necessary for the name of his show. :) Reaverdrop 06:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus... consider his use of "ø" in The Wørd - with the diacritic also dramatically inserted after the unadorned "o" appears originally. He's not done with ironically unneeded diacritical marks. Reaverdrop 09:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Upon further review, I agree that there is an inconsistency, in that it's pronounced as "Réport" but displayed in the airing show's lettering using an unaccented e. I'm thinking that pronouncing it "Réport" is a temporary stunt that falls in line with "It's French, bitch!" and a direct correlation to O'Lielly continually asserting that France is an enemy of the U.S. (lol) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe the pronunciation is temporary. It's just a joke -- Stephen can pronounce it the "French" way with or without an accented e. (Why should an accented e determine whether or not the t is silent, anyway? By that reasoning, his last name would have to be spelled Cólbert.) The title of the article should reflect the actual title of the show, and that title (as seen on the show) has a plain, unaccented e. Jason One 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The accent does not affect the silent t - although 'report' is not a French word, assuming standard French pronunciation rules, it would be pronounced with a silent t regardless. The accent affects the pronunciation of the e it modifies, making it a softer e than the one usually used for 'report' in English. At any rate, the accent does not appear to be consistently used in the show, and the article should probably be moved to The Colbert Report. Bbatsell 21:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my point. The fact that Colbert says it with a silent t is not a valid argument for keeping the accent in the article title. Also, it's not that the accent is used inconsistently in the show -- it's that it's not used at all. In every occurence, the title is always accent-free. Jason One 22:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The accent mark hasn't appeared on the show itself, but a very oversized accent mark - one that is installed by a lightning bolt at one point, in an unsubtle emphasis - was used in the original preview commercial that ran on the daily show and that is available for viewing on the website. And the official gear for the show that has been depicted on the website since several weeks before the show started, shows the accent mark on the "e". That's what made its use inconsistent. Reaverdrop 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

But it's not inconsistent in the actual show, which has so far not had even a single occurence of the accent. Both of the examples you mention are from outside of the show, and should have no influence on the name of this article. Jason One 19:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• The preview, with the huge accent mark that is delivered by a bolt of lightning, is posted for viewing right along with other video segments from the show on the website. This indicates the preview, which had been shown repeatedly during the Daily Show along with one other preview segment for the past year or so, is on par with the post-premiere episodes as part of the "actual" show. So far we have only four episodes of the standalone show to compare with a year or so of frequent showing of the two preview segments, firmly establishing "Réport" as the original spelling, along with the official merchandise which also uses the accent. Many different forms of "Colbert Report" logos have already appeared on the show; and it has introduced a steady stream of new other segments with logoed captions, some also with goofy accent marks (e.g. The Wørd). If you look near the top of this thread, we just proposed to wait a few weeks to see if the accent mark makes another appearance. The Réport is still in the shakeout phase. I'd hate to switch everything to non-accented only to see the accent reappear on the next evening's episode. Just give the show a few weeks to settle in, eh? ~ Reaverdrop 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, the preview is not part of the actual show. TV show and movie titles change all the time from pre-production to the final release. The accent was clearly dropped during this time. The preview carries far less weight than the actual (completely accent-free) show. As for the "official merchandise," note that you can't actually purchase any of those items. They're just a joke. There's no need to wait several weeks -- the accent is not anywhere to be seen in the show, and there's absolutely no reason to believe it will return. Do you really think they're going to redo all the logos throughout the set to add it back? Jason One 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's a play on the French word "rapport" you dumb-dumbs! Anyone here actually go to college? 64.12.116.130 12:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Stephen said that he is saving all those 't's. What is he planning on doing with them. Any suggestion you all.--Tjkphilosofe 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• First, Colbert's pronunciation of "Report" is not a play on "rapport". It is a play on the Frenchiness of his own name. Second, Jason One is right that the spelling on the actual show must take precedence over everything else. And last, Colbert does not pronounce the first "e" as the French "é". If he did, it would sound like "ray-POR" (with half-swallowed Rs). He pronounces it as an ordinary American schwa and only Frenchifies the last part ("ruh-POR"). Comedy Central only adds the accent in certain cases because it thinks people need to be reminded of the faux-French pronunciation. --Tysto 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Nation

What do people know about Colbert Nation? It says it's unofficial and claims to be written by a man named Avery, but Colbert referenced it twice on tonight's show (Show #2) and it has a letter from him on it and a link to it from comedy central's website. It wouldn't suprise me to know that Colbert does the whole thing himself.

And if your wondering, they are not selling light up pens. At least not when I checked.

The domain is owned and hosted by Comedy Central. I simply assumed it was a joking poke at astroturfing and written by TCR writers. Bbatsell 07:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, most of the material that's on Colbert Nation now was on the Comedy Central Colbert Réport website - including Colbert's letter naming Avery Gordon as his webmaster, and a blurb from Gordon describing being tapped for the job. So it's safe to say it's official. Reaverdrop 09:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems right. Okay, official website it is. Though when I tried voting in the poll during the commercial ("should this man be allowed to immigrate") it just said thank you for your vote before I did anything. I hope they get that fixed, it could be a cool feature of the show. 70.18.242.170 13:05, October 19, 2005

Please remember to sign your posts when making a comment. Also remember the show is tapped, not live. The "poll" was just used as a setup for the joke. Can't exactly poll an audience and display the results on a show before the audience sees said show. ;) Jayc 21:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I hadn't thought about that. Yeah, you're right. Though they could do a poll at the end of one show and show the results the next day...but it wouldn't be the same. Anyway, I just hope he can keep the show up. It's great, and I hope he can keep it going. As to signing my name, I still haven't registered on wikipedia...I guess I should. Whatever. I'll just do this: --Carl.

I am pretty sure that the fact that it merely says "Thank you for your vote!" without giving you the results is a joke in itself. I may be wrong, but it goes in line with the humor of the show. You give your opinion, but you are unable to see what your vote is worth. In other words, your vote doesn't count. Also, I would almost bet my life on the fact that the website is run by someone with the show, if not Colbert himself. - Mikejoyce

My first clue was when the first show aired I went to the comedy central site and it already had a link to the "unofficial" site. Not only that, but the shop had already supposedly ordered paraphernalia. I hope it is for real. I want a shirt with a big ol' yellow ribbon and fanciful bald eagle with the Colbert Réport logo on it. Just to confuse people who think they are only their symbols! Khirad 06:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an allusion to the Savage Nation? 129.170.202.3 09:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Colbert Nation is connected to the show, as evident by the plugs for it. As such, it contains suppliments to the program such as the Stephen Colbert's Balls--For Kids! Coloring book pages to print off to teach kids about the threat of bears. It also has some erotic fanfiction about Colbert. The Nation deserves a section devoted to it in the article.Rokor 19:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotes Page

We should start a page of quotes from the show. Let's start with: "Put some pants on, America, the Truth is knocking at the door."

            --Carl

Nice idea. Done. Reaverdrop 08:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Is that the truth in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

"A wop-bobbalooba, a-wop bam- TRUTH!"

I've got an addition, Part of the Ben Franklin interview:

"King George...great king, or the greatest king?" "Neither." "What have you got against the king?" "Well, you know......" "Don't we need a strong executive in the time of war? I mean, we need to vest one person with seemingly limitless power..." "Limitless power?" "...and what he says cannot be questioned or else it gives aid and comfort to the enemy." "No. It can always be questioned." "Well, even by discussing this, we're helping the enemy right now." "Oh, you are?" "You are, because I'm not talking about it."

Also, there's the Ariana Huffington interview: "Thank God there's finally a place for Hollywood people to express their views. Because, you know, if the war was any indication, they really can change things. People love hearing what they think about politics."

And just because I think it's funny, based on the site we're all on right now: "Let me ask you something. Speaking of you and hating our troops, I've noticed that you're one of those cut-and-runners." "You know what, Stephen? I'm amazed that you would use the phrase, 'cut and run,' because it is the ultimate in truthiness. 'Cut and run' is just a catch-phrase that stops people from thinking." "Exactly, we want them to feel. It doesn't matter what your reasons are, it feels like you're betraying America...you've got to admit, cutting and running sounds bad." "Cutting and running doesn't sound bad unless you're a truthiness fanatic, like you are..." "I'm not a truthiness fanatic, I'm truthiness' father." "Not according to Wikipedia. You popularized it, but you did not invent it, Stephen." "F*** them."

dog on fire v. baby muggles

The show's theme music is "Baby Muggles", recorded by the band Cheap Trick. The song was recorded on October 3rd, and is a faster, rockier version of The Daily Show theme "Dog On Fire", written by Bob Mould and performed by They Might Be Giants. This might have been subtly referenced in a piece on American obesity, which was introduced with the caption "We Might Be Giant".

how is TCR's theme "rockier" that TDS? they are just two different rock songs, one is not a version of the other. the last sentence is superfluous. and who cares what day it was recorded-TMI

Screenshot request:

We have got to get a screenshot of the screaming eagle filling the screen with talons and beak open wide to devour the viewer, from the end of the intro sequence. Any volunteers? Reaverdrop 10:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Done! 30 or so at http://al001.blogspot.com/2006/02/colbert-report-title-sequence.html ready to be picked, uploaded, linked! Al001 08:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Having done video and graphic editing, I figured I'd hit my PVR and take a stab at this. Unfortunately, the person who did the 3D animation of the bird was good - good enough to add motion blur to the bird to give it more of a sense of speed. By the time the bird is clear enough to post as a screenshot, it is an undistinguishable bottom of beak and feathered belly. A better shot might be when the bird passes Colbert a few seconds earlier, but not better than the current image of the eagle alone. badmonkey 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Truth-y" intro lines

Seeing as how it looks like he's going to start each show with a quote involving "Truth", maybe we should have a running list, like his Word and guest. Maybe add it to the chart we have. Also, the one I just added (Truthocution) is just my best memory of what the quote was.

• I went ahead and made your suggested change - I was thinking the same thing. Incidentally I removed the long explanation of "Bring Them Back Or Leave Them Dead" from the highlights column of the episode guide - with the columns more constricted, it took up a lot of lines; and longer explanations should be in the body of the article somewhere instead of in the episode guide.

~ ~ Reaverdrop 07:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Episode guide

I think having the episode guide is fantastic, but at the rate of four shows per week, the main page is going to get cluttered pretty quickly. Is anyone opposed to moving the episode guide to a separate article, such as The Colbert Réport Episode Guide? (Please make recommendations for other article names if you have any as well.) --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing since last week - other shows like Star Trek have separate episode guide pages, there's a precedent. It would get unwieldy otherwise.

~ Reaverdrop 07:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone does create a separate episode guide, please follow Wikipedia naming conventions regarding capitalization. The correct title should be The Colbert Report episode guide. Jason One 20:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Done.

~ Reaverdrop 23:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! Jason One 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is Colbert mocking again?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic that Colbert's galactic-sized ego is a send-up of no one else - not O'Reilly or Scarborough - so much as the original Daily Show host, Craig Kilborn?

~ Reaverdrop 07:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact, I think that Colbert (even the actor) isn't as liberal as many of the websites I've read about the show claim him to be. I mean, let's be honest here; he makes fun of the left quite a bit as well.

I like Colbert, but I hate Stewart.

Give me a break. He skewers the left for the very reason that he is mocking the right. Colbert is amusing, whereas Stewart is hilarious.

We must remember when dealing with Colbert that he is in character during the show. He isn't satirizing the talking points, its the pundits that make them and more specifically, the way they make them.Rokor 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For previous discussion, see Talk:The Colbert Réport

Some guy named Pielover87 switched the article over by the incorrect method, so it didn't preserve the talk and history here.

Stone Phillips and Greg Behrendt in the hot seat

I dont like the fact that the author points out Stone Phillips comment of pencilneck indicating that he doesnt quite get that Stephen is in character. Stephen Colbert has often said that the way he speaks and and dresses in character is based on Stone Phillips, a fact that Stone Phillips is likely to know.

• Sure, he might have known it, but he was also clearly uncomfortable, and he called Colbert "pencilneck" for no comedic purpose. But he got into the hang of things, certainly by the gravitas-off. He definitely got into the flow of the Colbert interview a lot better than Greg Behrendt did. ~ Reaverdrop 06:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure that the Greg Behrendt was real? The calls would have had to have been when the show was taped. Who could call then? They would have to have been in the studio. I thought it was staged and very funny. And sorry about the accents. It was late at night. I won't do it again. -- Ezradf

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean, but wasn't Greg Behrendt the studio guest? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 17:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't know what you mean by studio guest, but he was the guest on the Report, if that's the same thing. I mean that I thought the whole taking-calls part of the show was probably planned ahead of time, that Stephen would give the opposite advice as Greg and Greg would get annoyed.

• The callers were definitely staged, but Behrendt dimly seemed to be taking serious exasperation from Colbert's provocative responses. I was convinced Behrendt probably wasn't just hamming it up because even when they cut away for a commercial, you can see Behrendt still apparently earnestly protesting to Colbert. ~ Reaverdrop 22:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think Behrendt was actually getting into the role. Just good amature acting. Its unlikely that they would script out the phone calls without telling Behrendt of the whole point of the segment, which is to showcase Colbert's know-it-all attitude. I don't think its important to point out that Behrendt might not have been fully aware of colbert's character, at least not without some evidence. Right now it comes off as casual opinion. Seg 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I don't think the situations are accurately portrayed as it is in the article. I think Stone's "pencilneck" comment was in jest. He's in the business and would certainly know Colbert's style. The viewers at home understand the context of the show. Surely those that have been interviewed would. There's really no way to prove either way correct. I think something should be done to that section but I'm not sure what. Jayc 05:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• FYI: Behrendt is a comedian first, author later.

Page move (or lack thereof)

Um... there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, and the incorrect way of moving the page leads to incorrect edit histories and NOTHING on this talk page, when there is a fairly substantial one. Could someone explain to me why the page was moved in this manner? --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 05:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some guy named Pielover87, who doesn't appear anywhere in the longrunning discussion of the accent mark controversy at Talk:The Colbert Réport, made the incorrect change. And someone named Ezradf put accent marks on the "o" in Report throughout the episode guide. Please, people, look around and check out the discussions before you take it upon yourself to rearrange everything. ~ Reaverdrop 06:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

New York Times Errs in Coverage of The Colbert Report - and Stephen makes them pay

In a piece on October 25, 2005, the Times reported a Word of the Day as "Trustiness", rather than "Truthiness". A correction notice was emailed with references to an appearance of the term "Truthiness" on the Comedy Central website, and a link to this Wikipedia entry; the online article still remained uncorrected over twenty-four hours later. In comparison, when I emailed them a correction notice on an article about Harriet Miers a few weeks ago, they fixed it in the online version and emailed me notice of the fix within about an hour. If only they understood how much more influence Stephen Colbert is going to have on our society than Harriet Miers. ~ Reaverdrop 06:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To follow up now on "If only they understood how much more influence Stephen Colbert is going to have on our society than Harriet Miers" - as we can see now, Harriet Miers was a flash in the cultural pan, while Colbert is going to be a profound influence on American life for the long haul.

~ Reaverdrop 05:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Slam! The Times finally did run the correction - and Stephen had a ball on episode 111 taking them to task for it, including by giving the Word of the Day as "cat", so it would be something easy enough for the New York Times to write down correctly - he spelled it out for them, C-A-T, and gave them an extra minute.

Now, I'm sure other people besides me wrote in to the Times to get them to correct Colbert's word of the day... but even before Stephen said anything, it looked pretty damn funny seeing the blurb in the Times having to explain that the "correct" word was "Truthiness".

~ Reaverdrop 07:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kudos on adding the gravitasful Colbert portrait screenshot

That is a gravitasful, dignityesque, and ballsy addition to the site. Not to mention hilarious. It's my new wallpaper too. Thanks, NJM.

~ Reaverdrop 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't catch it in the show, but look how prominently his Peabody award is featured in the portrait-within-the-portrait. Fantastic.

~ Reaverdrop 05:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Colbert Pumpkin

Did anyone get a screenshot of the Colbert Pumpkin from the end of the 10/31 episode? We could start a whole page of pictures of Stephen, with two so far. Okay, maybe that's too much. But the pumpkin was good. --Ezradf

Also, unrelated, it looks like the counter on Colbert Nation is set at 3412780. You guys all probably noticed that. -- ezradf

I saw that it was 3412780 before the show had even aired - a pretty good clue.

~ Reaverdrop 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Bears

OK, which version of the bears quote at the end is right? Thanos6 04:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the one that mentions god...I remember that he said that. Now let's see if this four tilde thing works...Ezradf 05:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I must add that the first episode of the Colbert Report has no metion of bears in the threatdown.

Forminadble Opponent

Okay guys...let's settle this once and for all. In formidable opponent, is one side of the debate recorded beforehad or not? -Facts which point to it being recorded beforehand:

  - Different Background
  - Different Tie Color

-Facts which point towards them both done at once:

  - There could just be two cameras at different angles
  - When cutting between the two Colberts, it seems like you can see him changing his expression.

It's the Tie changing color which really bugs me.

So...discuss. Ezradf 05:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's done live. The tie is blue (or green) and at least one angle he is standing in front of a blue (or green) screen. That is the red tie part, where the image is flipped and he is standing in front of a generic image with a red oval that is obscured by his body. That makes the blue (or green) become red.

Tonight they added some pre-recorded reaction shots to mess you up. It is obvious when he freezes his expression so that they can do the cut. --waffle iron 05:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's all still done in one shot, but that he freezes his expression deliberately for comedic effect.68.186.144.156 03:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am almost certain they only use one camera. They simply invert the image (mirrored left to right) to make it seem like the two versions of Colbert are facing each other. Look at the location of his hair part and his asymmetrical ears (which he referenced in an early episode). The two Colberts are clearly mirrored images of each other. Furthermore, at the end of every Formidable Opponent both Colberts turn and face the camera to deliver the last line. Since both Colberts are looking directly at the camera there must only be one camera. He is standing in front of a blue/green screen wearing a tie with blue/green stripes. They add in different tie colors and backdrops for each version of Colbert.--Cspencer 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On notice?

Is Canada still on notice, or no? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire country was put on notice? I missed that episode, what was it for? -Arctic.gnome 06:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Canada was put on notice for not giving the Colbert Report Intern a prescription medication. If my memory is correct, Canada was put on Notice in the first episode for having the Toronto Reports and then taken off notice then put back on notice during the first episode to air in Canada. FullSmash26 07:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

On Notice / Dead to Me / Segments and Gags

I moved the two lists from the Recurring Segments subsection to the Running Gags subsection, as it seems to appear more often as a gag than a well-defined segment. I then moved the segments and gags topics under the Show format heading. If anyone feels these were bad switches, go ahead and revert/respond to this post. I also added a small description to the two topics because they wouldn't make any sense to someone not watching the show. Please revise that bit, as the current version is just a hack-up. Nobi 07:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

bookshelf or mantle?

on the episodes I've seen, the bookshelf seems more like a mantle. I'm not sure if he has more than one

There is a mantle behind him in the interview set. The painting of a painting hangs above it and there is a flat screen television witha loop of a fire under it. The bookselves are to the left and right sides of the anchor desk (the so called eagle's nest). On the shelves he has a variety of items that he places there during occasional closing pieces. --waffle iron 06:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tags:Cleanup/Good Article

This article is not "good". Yes, it has every last bit of information humanly known about The Colbert Report. But in fact, it has much of that information multiple times - SIX TIMES it mentions that Cobert hates/is afraid of/includes in the threat down, bears. Six. It includes useless information, such as mentions of segments that they obviously are only doing once, it's cluttered, and it's laid out poorly, with multiple orphaned subsections. It is also longer than the recommended maximum length. This is NOT a good article; it seems to have been written by someone who snorted 200mg of Adderol. I removed the tag. --CastAStone 08:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I like the article. If you think you can make it better, go ahead, that's the point of wikipedia. As for segments that thye may do only once, it's hard to tell. A lot of them seem like they'll only be done once (War on Humbuggery jumps to mind) but I have a feeling the producers don't even know if they'll be doing it again. It depends on what happens. As to snorting adderol, you're wrong. I prefer to take my illegally prescribe adderol in pill form, several times per day. Ezradf 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think Sections 3.1 & 3.2 (and all subsections) would best fit under "Format of Show" and not "Eagle's Nest"

Time for Truthiness entry?

I checked for "truthiness" tonight and noticed it had been deleted after its original creation just after the first episode of the Colbert Report aired. However, now that there are nearly 11,000 instances web-wide via Google search, and it was even profiled as in the Sunday Dec. 25, New York Times "2005: In a Word" article

seeing as the entry was previously deleted, how and when will a "truthiness" entry be reconsidered? Revolute 09:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Much as I'd like the Colbert Report to permeate every part of the internet, I think it Truthiness should stay out of the dictionary until people use it regularly. I haven't heard anyone use it outside of the context of the Report. In other words, no one uses it when they want to describe something that seems true. Read Frindle. Good book on the subject. Ezradf 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness was just named 2005 word of the year[1]. I say go for it, but you'll have to make it good to avoid deletion under the WP:NOT statue - "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"--CastAStone 07:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being named word of the year makes it notable enough for an article. It certainly helps, and may indicate that it will become more notable, but at this time, I'd vote to delete. Tuf-Kat 08:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, time for a Truthiness entry.

As noted in the article, truthiness was selected by the American Dialect Society as its 2005 Word of the Year (or should that be Wørd of the Year?), and at least one etymology professor went on public radio to predict it would make it into the dictionaries in the next year or two. Apparently truthiness is proving more enduring in the social consciousness. And, more than being just a word deserving only a wiktionary entry, the commentary in the news reportage has included noting that the concept embodied in truthiness uniquely captures a peculiarity of our era's zeitgeist. - Reaverdrop 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit, thoguh I agree with it's existence. The longer version of the edit wasn't too long and explained the correct context. Your cut down version implies that Colbert got credit for the word, for one thing. -- Viewdrix 11 January, 2006

To remedy excessive length and need for cleanup...

... I split off most of the "lists" to new miscellania article. I thought it was a necessary but not sufficient step toward getting this article in better shape, though I'm open to further ideas. Comments? I also created a Colbert Report category. - Reaverdrop 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Work, that does help a lot. FullSmash26 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"References"

The listed "References" actually aren't references at all, they're just a separate list of external links that is somehow separate from the External links section. Either someone needs to go through and make them proper references, referring back up into the text where they are used, or I'm just going to merge them all into External links. See WP:CITE on how to do proper citations/references. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 07:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Theme song

The following information, moved from The Colbert Report miscellania, should be included somewhere in this article. It doesn't fit anywhere in the miscellania article, and seems significant enough to mention here:

The show's theme music is "Baby Mumbles" (originally titled "Baby Muggles"), recorded by the band Cheap Trick on October 3, 2005. Many fans have noted the similarities between that song and "Dog on Fire", the theme of The Daily Show, due to a similar initial chord structure and use of the same flange effect on the theme when it reprises in the middle of the show.

-Silence 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Grippy"?

"Grippy" is already mentioned in The_Colbert_Report_recurring_elements#Taglines_and_catchphrases - how about merging it there instead? That's just the sort of thing the recurring elements page was split off for. - Reaverdrop 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed!

I've never seen the show, since I no longer watch TV (damned if I let my money go to US cable companies!) However, this lets me criticize this article from the perspective of someone who doesn't know very much about the subject matter. This criticism can be used to improve the article for other Colbert Report virgins. Also, someone please archive the parts of the talk page that no longer have any currency. Clearly, I am too important to do this myself. --RealGrouchy 06:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Format of the show:

• Paragraph 1: "Colbert-the-character also claimed to be close friends with Scarborough and to refer to O'Reilly affectionately as "Papa Bear"." implies "Colbert-the-character also claimed ... to refer to O'Reilly affectionately as "Papa Bear". #ERROR! Invalid syntax.
• As someone mentioned above, there's a bunch of Bear references. These should probably be reduced and/or consolidated into a separate section
• Usage of "Colbert" and "Colbert-the-character" (which to me sounds unnecessary and cumbersome) needs to be made more consistent
• Paragraph 4: "He starts off with the introduction of the guest" ... does he start the show off, or just a segment?
• Paragraph 4: "Colbert has also usually remained in character" ... "also usually" just sounds bad. "Also" is often an unnecessary word, as with this case. He doesn't do interviews exclusively in character, and this should be clarified here.

The Set:

• Are the awards real? There is nothing on Steven Colbert referring to them. Needs clarification, particularly given the reference to O'Reilly's fake awards.

Recurring Segments:

• The names of these segments should link to the appropriate section on the "Main Article" page.
• What happens to the mirror image when one side is talking? Is it frozen? As a person who hasn't seen this segment, this description confuses me.
• Actually, this whole second paragraph is messy and cumbersome. If someone wants to know more about the segments, they can read the main article!
• NYT article link needs to be formatted as a proper footnote, as do some other outside links.

Reception:

• The last paragraph of this section seems redundant to the last section of the "Background" section. In fact, now that I think about the definition of "Background", I'm quite insulted by it being mentioned there in the first place!

Canada:

• "...on CTV and The Comedy Network which began..." should read "...on CTV and The Comedy Network, both of which began...". May even want to add "CTV-affiliated" in front of "The Comedy Network".
• 7 November, 2005
• Second and third sentences imply that somehow Stewart's segue "more likely" influenced the network to carry the show, and not that it influenced the petition, or that the petition influenced the show.
• Word or WORD? (pardon the lack of slash) - needs to be consistent and accurate throughout article
• Mention of CTV being Canada's largest private broadcasting network is poorly placed. It should either come after "CTV", or added to a new sentence/paragraph.
• January 25 needs square brackets.

Influence on the English Language:

• Why this long title, if the only entry refers to "truthiness"? Either rename the section "truthiness", or add other ways the show has influenced the English language.
• I'm debating as to whether the word "featured" should be replaced with "introduced" in the first line.
• Screenshot caption should also have WORD capitalized.
• Zeitgeist should link to Zeitgeist
• Outside link, as a footnote, should include notice that it's a .pdf

References:

• Is this references as in "Works Cited" or "Bibliography" or references as in "References to the Colbert Report in the media"?

• • As for the Emmy and Peabody awards: yes, they are real, from his time on The Daily Show. They should be added to the Stephen Colbert entry if they haven't been. - Reaverdrop 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

POV cleanup??

I love the Colbert Report and I think it's one of the funniest shows on TV, but read the following paragraph:

After the initial run-through of the day's news, similar to The Daily Show but with a psuedo-rightwing spin, and "The Word," a usually hilarious segment juxtaposing the printed word with Colbert's own commentary (inspired by The O'Reilly Factor's "Talking Points"), comes the introduction of the episode's guest interviewee, who is kept in shadows while spotlights focus on Colbert as he does a victory trot through the studio, waving to the audience and soaking up its applause. At first, the studio guests appeared to be uncertain and put off by Colbert's keeping in character during the first few episodes, particularly when Stone Phillips reacted by calling Colbert a "pencilneck." Lesley Stahl and Fareed Zakaria similarly took on a deer-in-the-headlights look as they sought to react appropriately to being interviewed by Colbert the character rather than Colbert the actual person. But by the fourth and fifth episodes, with guests Jim Cramer and Lou Dobbs respectively, Colbert mastered a routine of remaining in character in an affable rather than purely unpredictable way, and keeping his guest comfortable — and in on the fun. One critic identified Colbert's on-the-spot ad libbing in character during the studio interviews as the one aspect of the show that was funniest and most indicative of Colbert the person's true talent as an actor. Remarkably, Colbert has also usually remained in character as the anchor Colbert when he is interviewed by the media!

"usually hilarious", "Colbert mastered a routine", and especially the last sentence. Don't you all think this is somewhat POV and should be rewritten? Aplomado 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you, it certainly is POV. Unfortunately, Colbert isn't controversial enough for people who don't like him to contribute...... even O'Reilly likes him :/

KV 08:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)