Talk:Jon Stewart/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

More Vandalism

The words "JON IS SEXY" appear in the first line of the Background section, yet do not show on the editable content page. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could fix this? User: Franklooper Some uh jerk said he died on july 23 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.49.178.120 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Big Daddy

Stewart's role in the movie Big Daddy was far more significant than his role in Half Baked.

Perhaps but the movie Half-baked is arguably more significant than Big Daddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.79.163 (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy Central

This page mentions that he hosted a show in 1989 for Comedy Central. Comedy Central's article says it was started in 1991. Could someone correct this ambiguity?

It was most likely Comedy Central who was correct. If you decide to fix it do some searching in Google or Yahoo! and see what results you get. Black Kat 1 August, 21:03 (UTC)

no mention of previous films???

No offense but hes been in more than just the daily show [albiet minor roles]

Like the enhancment smoker in "half baked"?

Despite the obvious sarcasm, YES.. any role you dumbfuck

---

Hmm... That last one seems to be violating the personal attack guideline...

Anyway, I'm asking here because of the reference to roles. The current article does have a long list of his activities and his roles, but it doesn't mention "producer". On several occasions I've heard Colbert refer to Stewart as his producer, and I think that is significant enough to be worthy of mention in the main article. (However, I hesitate to make the change since I don't have a source apart from what Colbert said, basically in passing, usually during a toss. Maybe it's just an honorary thing of some sort?)

Shanen (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

cgl (personal background)

what is the cgl foundation? Under personal background the article says they urged him to quit smoking. Can you link it to the cgl wiki page, if one exists?

Most Trusted Name in Fake News?

I thought this was a joke title that Comedy Central gave him in promotional materials for the show. I don't think it's fair to say that he has "renown" for it.

Except that he IS renown for it.

Actually, I think he actually did get the "Most Trusted Name in News" title. I don't know who bestows that honor, nor do I have actual sources right now though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A-class

If this article is already A-class, why put a failed GA banner?

External link to ZotFish?

Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for Jon Stewart?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable. - Zotman (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The site violates WP:ELNO, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bagels

Jon Stewart is known to enjoy a garlic bagel with a shmear on Sundays . I dont know why he puts the shmear on Sunday and not on the bagel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia fluent (talk • contribs) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Critics

Does the statement "critics say Stewart benefits from a double standard: he critiques other news shows from the safe, removed position of his "fake news" desk" really belong in the opening paragraphs? Also, the first link goes to a transcript of the Crossfire appearance, which is discussed in-depth later in the article, and the other goes to a single article. Does one article count as "critics"? The next statement says "despite this and other criticisms" and links an article which says basically the same thing as the other one. Should these be changed? Fearing (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

His Age

1962 would make him er... 46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitoha (talk • contribs) 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in November.--Loodog (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana and Tobacco Use

Even if the following information is true, does it really belong in this entry?

He admits to having smoked heavy amounts of marijuana in college and claims that he was "miserable" there. On the September 14, 2006 edition of The Daily Show, he said that he started smoking cigarettes when he was age fifteen (he has since quit). He jokingly said, "If a camel can do it, who am I not to?"

Mwltruffaut (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very relevant to who he is and who he was, but it does need to be sourced as per WP:BLP.--Loodog (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any source for marijuana usage or the camel quote so I removed them.--Loodog (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to remove the material. However, I don't agree with your decision not to qualify your assertion that Stewart's marijuana or cigarette usage is "very relevant to who he is and was." I don't believe there is any way for you or anyone else to prove such a statement.--Mwltruffaut (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriage and Pets

MARRIAGE
Should we really include information on how Stewart proposed?

Stewart married long-time girlfriend Tracey McShane, a veterinary technician, in July 2000. On the April 23, 2002 episode of The Daily Show, Stewart stated that he had been married "almost eighteen months". On June 19, 2001, Stewart and his wife filed a joint name change application and legally changed both of their last names to "Stewart". He proposed to her through a personalized crossword puzzle created with the help of Will Shortz, the crossword editor at The New York Times. The couple had their first child, Nathan Thomas Stewart (named after Stewart's grandfather) on July 3, 2004. Their second child, a daughter, Maggie Rose Stewart, was born on February 4, 2006.

I suggest we change the above to the following:

Stewart married long-time girlfriend Tracey McShane, a veterinary technician, in July 2000. On June 19, 2001, Stewart and his wife filed a joint name change application and legally changed both of their last names to "Stewart". The couple had their first child, Nathan Thomas Stewart (named after Stewart's grandfather) on July 3, 2004. Their second child, a daughter, Maggie Rose Stewart, was born on February 4, 2006.

Mwltruffaut (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Marriage being kind of slightly a major event in someone's life and all...--Loodog (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Loodog, what does it mean for something to be "kind of a slightly major event"? If by "kind of slightly major," you mean, "noteworthy," I agree with you. Though, I should point out that my suggestion was not to excise all information about Stewart's marriage, only the manner in which he proposed. That Stewart proposed via crossword is certainly interesting, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? If so, why don't we include the place and time of the wedding, all of the guests that were present, what everyone wore, etc.?--Mwltruffaut (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going for ironic understatement. The thing about Stewart is he's a really private guy so no one really knows much about his personal life. As for including the guest list and when the marriage was, No one knows when the marriage was so you needn't make such a slippery slope out of it. The fact that his proposal was so unique only underscores the notability to the person.--Loodog (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewart hosts a publicly broadcast television show. I think by most standards that makes him not, as you put it, a "really private guy." In interviews with Charlie Rose, Oprah Winfrey, and Larry King, Stewart has been very forthright about his personal life. I did not mean to, as you put it, "make such a slippery slope" out of Stewart's marriage proposal. I simply thought, and still think, that the manner in which he proposed represents trivia. The last I checked, Wikipedia contributors are supposed to avoid including trivia in articles.--Mwltruffaut (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Marriage date, "long-time girlfriend," and McShane's occupation
The current article states, "Stewart married long-time girlfriend Tracey McShane, a veterinary technician, in July 2000. On the April 23, 2002 episode of The Daily Show, Stewart stated that he had been married 'almost eighteen months'."
I just did a bit of math and it seems that April 23, 2002 minus "almost eighteen months" equals almost October 23, 2000. In his August 15, 2001 appearance on Charlie Rose, Stewart says, "We've been married about a year and a half." August 15, 2001 minus "about a year and a half" equals about February 15, 2000. If I do some more math and subtract August 15, 2001 from April 23, 2002, I get eight months, eight days. That means that, if the current information in the Wikipedia article is accurate, Stewart gave roughly the same answer on occasions roughly eight months apart. What seems clear to me now is that Stewart and McShane were married between February and October of 2000.
I propose changing "long-time girlfriend" to the less vague "four years" we get by subtracting 1996 from 2000 per the AskMen.com article cited below.
Last, I can't find any credible-looking source for what McShane's occupation is. I therefore propose that we change the two sentences to this:
"Stewart married Tracey McShane, his girlfriend of roughly four years, in 2000. The couple met on a blind date set up by a production assistant on Stewart's film Wishful Thinking.
I have included what I hope would be sufficient citations as well.--Mwltruffaut (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

On the Wednesday, April 12, 2000 episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart tells Patrick Stewart that he (Jon Stewart) has a fiancée. Patrick Stewart lets slip that he is meeting with Jon Stewart on a Monday. It may be, then, that this episode was filmed on Monday, April 10, 2000. On the Monday, May 15, 2000 episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart tells Tracey Ullman that he is married. Unless Jon Stewart was joking, this means he was likely married between Monday, April 10, 2000 and Monday, May 15, 2000.--Mwltruffaut (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Both how he met his wife, (blind date) and how he proposed (personalized crossword) are trivial. Of the two, the crossword is more interesting. I would prefer to see it included and the meeting dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.178.79 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 January 2011

PETS
"They also have a cat named Stanley and two bull terriers, Monkey and Shamsky (named after Art Shamsky)."
There is no source for this. Also, it's about Stewart's pets. I suggest we excise it.
Mwltruffaut (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

References

The Daily Show - Stewart's Appearance on The O'Reilly Factor

I propose that we move this information to a different section of the article. The information is preceded by a general explanation of the show. It is presented to the reader as though the reader should already be aware that The Daily Show has been accused of political bias.

Additionally, I propose excising "meaning that he was uncomfortable talking without hearing the audience laugh."
In the O'Reilly interview, Stewart says he is, "very uncomfortable going more than a couple of minutes without a laugh." So, why do we need a Wikipedia contributor telling us the "meaning" of what Stewart said?
I propose that we move this after the section regarding McCain's scheduled appearance at Liberty University and make it look like this:

In an interview on The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly asked Stewart, "Do you think that Kerry does himself any good talking to you, because I think most of your audience [is] going to vote for him anyway, right?" Stewart responded, "We don't have an agenda of influence." O'Reilly continued, "...your target audience is younger, left-leaning. So, you have to play to the choir sometimes." Stewart responded, "I don't know if it's left-leaning." O'Reilly later asked Stewart, "What do you want the audience to get out of your discussion with Kerry? Just yucks, or anything else?" Stewart responded, "I'm very uncomfortable going more than a couple of minutes without a laugh, because the same weakness that drove me into comedy also informs my show."

--Mwltruffaut (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it when Stewart says that line. I only recalled O'Reilly interpretting by saying that. I think it'd be best to include all of "I'm very uncomfortable going more than a couple of minutes without a laugh, because the same weakness, same neediness, what you call 'neuroses' that drove me into comedy also informs my show."--Loodog (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; "meaning that he was uncomfortable talking without hearing the audience laugh" needs to be changed or removed - even though it is basically what he went on to say he meant; that he said pretty much exactly that isn't clear and may be taken for subjective interpretation (QED). Here's a replacement suggestion:

"In an interview on The O'Reilly Factor, Stewart denies the show has any intentional political agenda, saying the goal was "schnicks and giggles." When asked about his use of humour [on political topics] he replied, "I'm very uncomfortable going more than a couple of minutes without a laugh, because the same weakness [etc] that drove me into comedy also informs my show."

...or something similar. Confirm the quote, obviously. ('humour on political topics' seems to me to better refer the question than 'political humour' or 'satire'; just leaving it at humour may also work, in the context of the response anyway)

@mwlt's suggestion - mebbe change out a 'responded' for 'replied'

203.206.36.96 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

References

Political Identification

I'm not registered with Wikipedia or anything, but I checked this article tonight after watching Obama on The Daily Show and saw something that obviously needs to be fixed. I had remembered reading somewhere that Stewart had identified himself as a "socialist or independent" but I couldn't find it on the Wiki page; only that he identifies himself as an independent. The citation of that is a CNN transcript from him on Larry King in 2000 where Stewart says, "I think I would say I'm more of a socialist or an independent." The citation is clearly hiding the "socialist" part of that quote. It should be changed back.

Where is the transcript you refer to? Such a change to the article would need to reliably sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• The transcript he referred to is currently citation #26 [1]. It's a little vague; Larry calls Jon a Dem, Jon suggests he would call himself a socialist or independent. I don't see a problem expanding the statement in the article; I mean, it's not like 'socialist' is a dirty work or anything. DP76764 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

statement on McCain and Gore

In an interview with weekly standard editor Bill Kristol in the Daily show of 30 Oct 2008, Stewart mentioned that he had voted for McCain in 2000 if he had run against Gore. I find this interesting as Stewart is often described as a liberal and I think we should start a section political positions --Derbeobachter (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain has changed quite a bit over the past eight years. During the 2000 Republican primary race McCain won the support of many independents and even some Democrats thanks to his centrist positions. Needless to say, he did not win the nomination. Since then, he has grown more and more conservative; quite simply, McCain isn't the politician he once was. In my opinion (a common one), he realized that he would never win the nomination without gaining more support among the far-right, and this is the reason for the change. Regardless the fact that Stewart theoretically would have supported a Republican if said Republican had been in the race is a bit trivial, IMHO. Maybe there could be a one line mention of this in the article, but it really doesn't have any great impact on Stewart's politics in the big picture. As far as starting a "Political positions" section, I don't object to that - we just need to keep this statement in perspective. faithless (^speak) 01:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish roots

Why specify that Stewart was born to a Jewish family? If it is necessary, why isn't everyone's ethnicity specified (e.g. born into a [Black/White/Jewish/mixed/etc.] family)? 129.71.73.243 (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A person's ethnic background usually is discussed. If you come across one that doesn't, feel free to add that information (provided, of course, that it is properly sourced). faithless (^speak) 23:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

He makes numerous references to his background in his comedy, so it's particularly relevant for this person, Tom B (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Military?

Why is this article in the category Jewish Americans in the military? Asing89 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like vandalims/joke. I removed it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Lewis Black named in the influenced section?

Just because he is on his show every now and then doesn't mean Black was influenced by the man. Either link a quote where he states it or remove it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muisee (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

-I took it out myself, if there is no quote it should stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muisee (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

CNBC episode

Is the CNBC issue noteworthy enough to be on the page? Stewart's show is based on satire of political and economic events. This is just one more in a long line "controversies" that are the point of his show. Perhaps it is more noteworthy than other episodes because it attracted better ratings? Closetindex (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)closetindex

Yes. Yes, but 'better ratings' trivializes it. Some time will need pass so editors can get a better historical perspective on Stewart's criticism of business news channels. SultrySuzie (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One can't help but notice that all the show-related anecdotes reflect positively on Stewart. Certainly we should also have some of the cases of Jon getting on his high horse and having to admit error or apologize, such as the issue with the heavily edited Jonah Goldberg 'discussion', having to retract his statement that Truman was a war criminal after a heated discussion with Cliff May, and so on. It would also contribute to an even-handed tone to acknowledge that Stewart and his crew frequently 'chop down' interviews, and openly admit to doing so, choosing to remove discussion to keep jokes or points where Stewart makes emphatic statements. 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs)

Removing Jon's Chiefdom

I know that it sounds stupid, but as President of Liberia, Ellen-Johnson Sirleaf has the power to declare Jon a Chief, it's like Knighting in the UK. Why was it taken off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.236.197 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you find a reliable source discussing it, it could be included. DP76764 (Talk) 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right from the horses mouth http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/ellen-johnson-sirleaf

Also from three other sources

http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=23768

http://allafrica.com/stories/201006040096.html http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2009/09/world-energy-power-list-mackay --Iankap99 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Television Shows in Filmography

I noticed that some of the things in his filmography are television show appearances. Can a note be made of this in the "Notes" column? Sorenlarrington (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossfire appearance

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds/ Video clip with the quotes included in this section. Not at all familiar with policy on linking to video, or perhaps linking via a stil image, or with the status of the website vis a vi Wikipedia, but it's a clip reflecting the quotes. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Political Afilliation?

aNYBODY? On the shows page he is seen heavily criticizing the democrats, but he obviously criticised the republicans consistantly (especially during the bush era) but what is his actual political belief? Does he ever mention it in a direct way or even an indirect way? He highly promoted ron pauls book and had a fantastic interview with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

He criticizes whoever's in power because that's generally funnier. He voted Kerry in 2004 and I'd be willing to bet Obama in 08.--Louiedog (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed: Jon Stewart is a Democrat. 71.190.225.116 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Time Magazine Online Poll

I removed the Time Magazine online poll from the intro section, didn't note until after I'd done it that it had already been removed and re-added once. But nevertheless, since it was an unscientific online poll, I don't think it is reliable or noteworthy enough to be in the intro paragraph. Leoniceno (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Phrases like "hugely popular and wildly successful" are a bit too editorial for an encyclopedia. 72.152.135.201 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

True, unless they are part of a sourced quote/opinion. DP76764 (Talk) 04:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal life. valid

Some stupid websites say he dated Cindy Crawford. Anyone have any info of this? Purely faked but can anyone dispel it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

isn't it high time for admins to protect this article from vandalism like in the case of Stephen Colbert ? -- 87.202.76.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

I've put in a request. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialist?

I have seen two webpages where Stewart identifies as a socialist. But when I add "Category:American socialists" to the article, it gets removed. Wikipedia even says that he identifies himself as a socialist, so why remove it? Is it possible that he is joking when he calls himself a socialist? He even gave background to it in one of the sites saying that he got into Eugene V. Debs as a high school student. So, what do you think? user:Sbrianhicks (talk) Sbrianhicks (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The category is on the article as of now. Not sure why someone would remove it. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing it. What's your source for his being a socialist? His being into a socialist figure in high school is not sufficient to establish even his high school political views, let alone his present ones. Found source

KING: I think you're a Democrat, Jon.

STEWART: I think that's probably correct. I think I would say I'm more of a socialist or an independent but, yes, I mean, no one would ever I think watching our show think that, boy, that guy is just leaning so far right.

--Louiedog (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Created personal life section

The lead had gotten to long and included all his family info, ect. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed controversy to incident to appease you. This was an actual event, and I will cite other sources, but I dont think that will make you happy. The source I cited is NOT a blogger. He is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters and a contributing writer to Fox Forum and the Washington Examiner. He has more credentials than most of the people on here. And since when does Wikipedia require more than one source? Since when do you make these decisions for the rest of us? Is it that you like Jon Stewart and don't want him at all reflected in a negative light? That's called censorship, and is, among other things, dishonest.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/bios/noel-sheppard.html#ixzz0z5jd6jp0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.62 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Truman controversy?

How exactly were the comments re: truman a "controversy"? One mention by a commentator hardly makes this controversial. DP76764 (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. Every now and then, an editor pops in here (and on other articles) to add supposed "controversies" from that blog. Unless there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, though, it's just some blogger filling up space. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• (Moved from my talk page): I added in the part about Jon Stewart calling Harry Truman a war criminal because I remember it occurring, yet couldn't rely on Wikipedia to give me a date or explanation. Usually, these kinds of events are documented on Wikipedia with celebrities such as Jon Stewart. Many celebrities have a "controversy" section, and this was indeed (in my opinion) a controversy. I considered it such because he was lambasted in the media for portraying a former American President as a war criminal, causing him to apologize publicly. That's usually considered a controversy in most books, and if you explore other pages for public figures, you will notice this is a common theme (says something, creates a media stur, apologizes = controversy). That's all, nothing more. I don't really know how this discussion/talk thing works, so I guess a reply in here would be sufficient. I would like to put the section back, but as a compromise change the word controversy to incident? Let me know what you think. Jon Stewart, as a comedian and public figure, isn't exempt from controversial statements. He's only human. The quotation and incident were properly cited, and the incident isn't speculation because it was recorded. It made headlines and therefore should be considered a noteworthy event in his life. Example: Rush Limbaugh's page has a whole list of controversial incidents, including things he's said or done that some might not deem controversial, but because a debate over it exists, it is a controversy. A controversy is defined on wikipedia as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion." Under the logic that this is not considered a controversy, all sections entitled controversy would then be removed from wikipedia. The fact that pages closed to editing obtain sections entitled "controversies" means that it is an accepted description of an individual's debated past activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.62 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the text you're suggesting adding is that it's sourced to only 1 site, which is a blog. If there was such a media uproar as you claim, cite from those sources instead please. That will be a start, then we can talk about WP:CONSENSUS DP76764 (Talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a blog, it is a conservative watchdog agency, the same as media matters. The writer is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters and a contributing writer to Fox Forum and the Washington Examiner. He is more credible than most on this site. I'm reverting back to my "controversy" claim as you are unwilling to compromise. I'm sure Jon Stewart himself would describe it as a controversy, because he felt the need to apologize ON AIR. If he didn't believe it to be controversial, he would've kept it to himself. Don't worry, more citations to come, from more liberal sources who describe it the same way. Controversies are OPINIONS inherently. They are defined as such! For a news story to comment on a "controversy" is to insert abject opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.62 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(new comments go at the bottom of the page) Please assume good faith from other editors and not arbitrarily impose your editing choices without establishing a WP:CONSENSUS with others first; that's how Wikipedia works. You should also give other editors time to reply and offer their opinion. Take a gander at WP:BRD as well please. DP76764 (Talk) 04:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for adding the reference citations. I haven't yet learned the process yet, but it seems exciting. I'm glad we could figure this thing out. I regretfully posted to the wrong page again, which I'm deleting now

Well, there is probably more work to do. I looked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and there's no clear consensus that Newsbusters (or sites like them) are considered reliable sources, which is a foundational requirement for adding material here. I am actually leaning towards removing those cites now that there are others available. Any more mainstream sources you can find would only help. DP76764 (Talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Rick Sanchez accused Jon Stewart of being a "bigot." See the Sanchez article for more. He took it racially. Trueshow111 (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much trivial info on this entry about John Leibovitz, should be cut short. --93.82.8.98 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

needs new section" rally to restore sanity"

why there is no mentioning there? 71.99.86.158 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IT is mentioned under Jon Stewart#The Daily Show and the main article is at 2010 Stewart–Colbert rallies. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

obviously i was talking about THIS article!

71.99.86.158 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, it is mentioned under #The Daily Show. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was an amazing success. More than just a link and a mention need to appear on this page. It needs a section, with link to the separate page for that event. The rally produced a DC Metro ridership record for a Saturday - 825,437 riders (official stats from DC Metro), the crowd blew away the expected number of 60,000, the event was widely covered and discussed, and the enormous turnout reveals how Stewart's message resonated. A section on it with appropriate links is required. --Schubash (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How about a whole article about it? DP76764 (Talk) 01:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First Name???

Why is his name not John with an "h" and not pronounced differently?--Anen87 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Because that's how he spells it? Also, perhaps because "Jon" is short for "Jonathan"? Also, "Jon" and "John" have the same pronunciation. DP76764 (Talk) 00:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Harsh response

A few stupid vandalizer were there and you protect this page at least until January? Please unlock this. --Ftsw (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected, which means anonymous IP vandals and new unconfirmed accounts can't commit the hit-and-runs on the page they've been constantly doing. And this page has been constantly vandalized by far more than a "few" vandals, so I for one am glad they semi-protected it. It'll save people from having to constantly revert-and-warn, revert-and-warn, revert-and-warn ... WCityMike 14:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pschoenb, 4 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The lead summary is currently: in 2004.[11] and Earth (The Book): A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race.

I would change this to remove the period after 2004 and add "released in 2010." after mention of Earth the book.

Pschoenb (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The Early Life section contains this line:

"his father, Donald Leibowitz, is a physics professor at The College of New Jersey"

However, according to this article: http://www.tcnjsignal.net/2009/09/15/no-joke-stewart%E2%80%99s-dad-taught-at-college/ his father "currently teaches an online course at Thomas Edison University."

Suggested change to, "his father, Donald Leibowitz, was a physics professor at The College of New Jersey from 2001 through 2008. He currently teaches an online course at Thomas Edison University." with citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresacurl (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, in The Daily Show section, the opening of the second paragraph makes no sense:

"Stewart has since hosted almost all airings of the program, except for a few occasions when correspondents such as Stephen Colbert, Rob Corddry, and, from 1999-2004, Steve Carell was a regular on the cast."

I presume that this is intended to read, "Stewart has since hosted almost all airings of the program, except for a few occasions when correspondents such as Stephen Colbert, Rob Corddry, and Steve Carell have subbed in for him."

The bit about how long Steve Carell was on the show should be in a different paragraph or section.

Teresacurl (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that second one has still not been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.157.178 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been now. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Truman Incident

The coverage here seems hardly relevant. It quotes 2 paragraphs from his show and calls it an "incident" in his life. Especially since this is about him and not the show. This really isn't important to him as it shows no affect outside the show. I am opening this up for discussion, in a week I will remove it if no one voices an opinion or the consensus is reached for removing.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Maybe it belongs on TDS page in a smaller notation. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)