This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2009

US Airways Flight 1549

When a plane crashes a block from the studio while the audience is waiting in line and witnesses it it is sort of a big deal. It will definitely go into Daily Show taping lore. But my REFERENCED addition was deleted here

I deleted it. Go ahead and put it back if you feel strongly about it. I just don't think it will be important. Maybe I'm wrong.Belasted (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That whole segment needs MUCH better referencing. I also suspect that colbertsheroes.org does not qualify as a reliable source. Without a good source discussing this, it will probably be removed (exactly how does this relate to the show anyway?). DP76764 (Talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A fan site is not a reliable source, and while the plane crash in itself is notable and certainly an experience the studio audience of that night's show won't forget, the event had no lasting impact on the show and makes a fairly trivial addition to this article. With that in mind, I believe the paragraph should be removed. (Besides, the taping time is already discussed with a more reliable reference in the Production section.) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Gender Bias

Several episodes of The Daily Show have addressed the paucity of female correspondants. Samantha Bee has done several segments lampooning this. I think this should be explored more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.73 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source discussing it, otherwise it is original research. Also, add new sections to the bottom of the talk page in the future, please. DP76764 (Talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Include Jim Cramer showdown

It seems like there should be something about the showdown with Jim Cramer here, as it was talked about on virtually every news outlet. It is also an example of Stewart's influence (as when his criticism killed the show Crossfire), his ability to ask hard-hitting questions, and his critique of the media (speaking of which--the media played this up as a personal conflict, and even Cramer seemed to take it primarily as personal chastisement, when the larger goal was to demand responsible financial reporting). 24.245.42.233 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit on Jon's page already: Jon Stewart#CNBC Dust-Up. DP76764 (Talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's bring it over here. (Could also copy the summary from Cramer's page.)24.245.42.233 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering: this bit (and the Crossfire bit) are going to be in multiple places. Is 1 article more appropriate than the other? DP76764 (Talk) 20:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one article is appropriate: a separate article (Jon Stewart's interview of Jim Cramer?) about the interview (with coverage of the lead-up and fallout). Then the other relevant articles can link to it and have abbreviated coverage.--ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Speak of the devil: Jim_Cramer's_appearance_on_The_Daily_Show_with_Jon_Stewart Also up for AfD. DP76764 (Talk) 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode/guest list

Wasn't there a link to the guest/episode list? What happened? --little Alex (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Other countries

I went to edit to add More4 (as Bleeping/Pixellation section implies, it is broadcast daily in the UK) but think better in the section.

Then I saw a comment "Please do not add your regional channel" or something like that. Now, excuse me but that is blatant WP:POV. To list a particular channel guide would be inappropriate; but to state that it is broadcast on a freely available UK station four nights a week (I assume just a day later than the US since it runs Tues-Fri) is plain nuts--- this is notable.

And although in the UK now I started watching it when it first came on Paramount Comedy Central about ten years ago. to respond to another Q, Jon Stewart was on then, I think he has been from the start; but it was not renamed from "The Daily Show" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" until a little later (I think he was Executive Producer, whatever that actually means in real life).

If no comments added I will simply remove the WP:POV comment suggesting this is purely a US article, tag it as being purely POV (which was done before, not by me, and removed as no reason was given), or americocentric, or simply mark for prod. I don't like getting that grumbly, since I have no contention with the article really beyond comments in the plaintext that say don't add your own channels etc-- but unless one actually takes some action nothing gets done, so I am quite willing to mark that section at the very least.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How exactly are you proposing to add this? Please bear in mind the policy: WP:NOTADIRECTORY; we shouldn't be listing any and every channel the show broadcasts on. Also, have you read the history section of the article? The show was hosted for its first 2 years by Craig Kilborn. DP76764 (Talk) 02:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A simple sentence saying "In the United Kingdom and Ireland it is broadcast one day later on digital channel More4". Yes, I have read the other article, I was just generally setting my stall out saying I am familiar with this program. BUT as it stands this article is, I think, too US-centric. Of course it is made and broadcast there, and its content is heavily US-oriented as one would expect, none of that is wrong; specifically to say in a comment "do not add..." -- and there's no reference to WP:NOTADIRECTORY there, nor WP:POV, just a bald command that sounds rather uppity-- if you compare loads of other articles they will list regional differences; the other thing is, it says that regional variations have various cuts and edits for those markets, yet really doesn't detail what they are, which is just too vague. It is, admittedly, hard for me to know what editing is done for the UK version since it may have different time constraints, credits, there was mention of things being bleeped out, that would be very unusual for a UK broadcast if anything it is much more liberal than the US, but in its 8.30pm timeslot it may be bleeped because it's broadcast before the watershed (television). All of this stuff I can research and then add, briefly, to the article, but if it has a banner saying "do not edit" I thought in the first instance to come to the discussion page. To be honest I don't care about it that much, perhaps I'll just go do something else instead. SimonTrew (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm right there with you on most of your points. Perhaps the note should be toned down a little or be made more explanatory. My thought is, where is the line in terms of going from listing notable (and I think notability is an important aspect here as well) re-broadcasts into 'directory' territory? Out of curiosity, if you are familiar with the articles on some UK shows, do they list what channels re-broadcast them in the US? DP76764 (Talk) 21:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The actual channel ident I don't think important particularly, but if you take e.g US-produced Friends#Interlational it does list stations and even viewing figures for the UK. Conversely, [[Fawlty _Towers#Overseas just said it was (in 78/79) sold to 45 stations in 17 countries, without listing them. I agree that I don't want a huge list or TV planner, my main thrust is if it's notable to say there are regional differences then that should be backed-- and it would be unnatural I think to say "in the UK it is broadcast with cuts" etc without using two words("by More4") to mention the broadcaster.

The problem for listing in the US market is the way the TV franchising/syndication system works; here; in the UK virtually all stations broadcast the same material across the whole country (with some regional opt-outs for regional news programmes and sporting events, which is irrelevant here). So it's not as if we're going to be listing 200 UK franchise stations that each broadcast it.

I think it is notable precisely because it's a US show with primarily US topical content; in a way sitcoms like Friends and Frasier are less so because although they are set in US cities they are not *primarily* US events, places, etc, but built on character interaction, so while it is useful to say Frasier is set in Seattle, for example, it doesn't need to gom uch further than that.

That argument is a bit of a hodge-podge really, I'll probably come back a bit later and try to put it more succinctly. SimonTrew (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

SimonTrew (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Entry or Interview

I honestly can't understand why this article hasn't been flagged for rewrite. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic entry describing a television show. However, it reads like an interview with Stephen Colbert. Stephen Colbert is even offhandedly introduced as "Colbert" within major sections. If you want to cite Colbert as a source, then cite him properly and within style guidelines. Davjosmes (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New Time poll of interest

Today's Time poll, while not the same question and Gibson is replaced with Diane Sawyer, may be worth noting as the results are near identical to the "Most Trusted Name in News" poll so far thus highlighting Stewart's claim that he was the "None of the Above" option. --69.31.182.109 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs a better source before we can include this. Drawing the conclusion that this poll supports/mirrors the other one would be original research. DP76764 (Talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2010

Global Edition no longer on CNN?

There hasn't been a single episode of TDS Global Edition on CNN International in 2010. While the show is still listed on its website¹, it's no longer part of its schedule². Comedy Central Germany also used to show the Global Edition on Sundays as well as on its website for a week afterwards, but while the show info page is still up³, no video has been posted in 2010 either. Is it safe to assume that the Global Edition is gone for good?

¹) http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/daily.show

²) http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/schedules/europe

³) http://www.comedycentral.de/index.php/Shows/Detail/id/999284 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.62.232 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Seperation

I think that we need to follow the same form as other late night talk shows. Ex: The Tonight Show does list Jay Leno as the host, but has a seperate page for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I think we should have The Daily Show and THE DAILY SHOW with JON STEWART. We may also like to create a Daily Show page for the Kilborn era, such as was done with the Johnny Carson and Conan O'Brien eras of The Tonight Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhayes1995 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

liberal bias

Someone please put fact and who tags after the "liberal bias" statement in the lead. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the source, but you either need to say "Fox news contributor Brad Wilson has accused the show of a liberal bias" or find some reliable source which backs the assertion that it is a widely held belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Others have criticized" doesn't seem to assert that it's a widely held belief. And the article quotes multiple people on the bias issue; I don't see the need to list every single one of them. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 04:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing them would be original research anyway, since finding a list of people stating the show has a "liberal bias" is different from a reliable source stating that "the show has been characterized by some as having a liberal bias". "characterized by some" begs for a who tag whenever I see it. After all, if a view is held by a "significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seriously now, the cited source is for a fox news contributor quoting a gaggle of think tanks, none of which actually mention TDS. Someone please either throw up a fact tag, a who tag, or strike the material. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been a month, I'm striking the material for the reasons stated. --65.127.188.10 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jon Stewart does admit he's a liberal, but he's nowhere near as biased as Colbert is. Colbert used to be funny when Republicans were actually in power, so making fun of them all the time was justified. But they have nearly zero power in Washington and all he does is go after Republicans now... PokeHomsar (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the more recent spats with with fox news' bernie goldberg, does anyone here think it necessary to finally just include a fully formed criticism section? Criticism of the show seems to be scattered all over the place in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.236.214 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- Yes, criticism is scattered all over the article because a "criticism" section is both POV and lazy article construction. By putting all the "bad stuff" or "controversial issues" together, a wikipedia article singles out this information in an unnatural way that fails to properly place all viewpoints within a consistent and well-organized narrative frame. One gets a more complete picture of the subject by combining the good with the bad, the controversial with the mundane within larger main ideas rather than dumping a lot of specific information at the end of an article in a criticism section and making no real attempt to explore these issues intelligently or integrate them with other ideas in the article. Remember, one person's controversy is another person's non-issue. Commenting on Stewart's actual and perceived biases is certainly appropriate, but creating a criticism section is not. Indrian (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

List of episodes

I came to the page as a visitor looking for the list of episodes (as a great many do), and could not find it. I am certain that many visitors experience the same.

I made that "excessive and pointless" section so that visitors can find the episode list easily. Your move of that { { Main } } template to "Celebrity interviews" section still makes it hard to find. How are visitors to know that a list of episodes is to be found under "Celebrity interviews" in a { { main } } link entitled "List of The Daily Show guests"??

I am, however, grateful that you did not remove it all together, as it is needed in the article. But where it is now does not serve the visitors very well. I suggest returning it to its previously, highly visible place, or, present some other solution. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I used that section all the time and now I can't even find it. It's the quickest way for me to see if they are back from their break, now i have to think about where to go. Please put it back the way it was. Talnova (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the section with { { main } }. I think it's harder to argue for its removal than its inclusion. If you really think it's pointless, please make your case here. Until then, please let it remain as visitors often come to TV series' articles looking for "List of episodes".

As it is now, the section begs a sentence with the string "...list of episodes..." so as to be searchable within the article. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTGUIDE for more information on why this is not a valid reason to keep something within an article. DKqwerty (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a needless and pointless section. First of all, the heading has no content aside from a single template. The section also does nothing to address "episodes", only guests, meaning the title itself is inappropriate. Given the lack of actual content for the section, it only serves to increase the page length and further complicate the table of contents.

This is what I feel would be more appropriate: rather than create a completely new section for only one {{Main}} template, adding it under the "Celebrity interviews" section would still allow logical access without further lengthening and complicating an already brimming page. If this is still not satisfactory, a link can be added to "See also" as well. However, creating an entire heading for the benefit of one link is not how Wikipedia operates; please see Wikipedia:Layout#Body_sections. While not explicitly stated within the policy, it clearly indicates that a section should contain at least some content (at least a paragraph) and not clutter the TOC or the document itself.

I also fail to understand how placing the {{Main}} template under "Celebrity interviews" is at all confusing; it seems absolutely logical to me: what are you looking for? Guests. What are the guests involved in? A celebrity interview. It's one degree of separation. Perhaps a more logical solution than just tacking on another empty section is to simply rename "Celebrity interviews" to the more logical and accurate "Guest interviews". I think overall this solution would serve as a happy medium between our two ideas (I prefer finding middle ground rather than arguing over whose binary position is most correct).

Also, for the record, according to WP:BRD, this discussion should have been initiated and resolved before you restored your changes. One person agreeing with you is not a resolution. DKqwerty (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your belief that a visitor will think: "I am looking for the list of episodes. Hmmmm, I know! Guests. What are the guests involved in? A celebrity interview. I will look there." My opinion is that when a visitor arrives looking for the list, he thinks: "List of episodes. I will look in the table of contents for exactly that."

Forgive me, but I cannot find anything in WP:NOTGUIDE that applies here, nor anything in Wikipedia:Layout#Body_sections apart from "...Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose..."

To clarify my position: The term "List of episodes" should not just be easily found, it should be glaringly obvious. Degrees of separation are not good. Of course, this is just my opinion, which is often wrong. (I just bought shares in a carbon paper company, and I'm sure trampolines are going to be hot next year.)

Per: WP:BRD, please move/remove the edit until this is resolved and accept my apologies for re-adding it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the article List of The Daily Show guests isn't an episode guide; there are zero references to individual episodes outside of the lead. So debating the merits of placing it where people who are looking for a list of episodes can find it is moot. WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't apply to you, but to Talnova: usage of the encyclopedia as a TV guide is not its intended use nor does such usage support any arguments therein. Regarding Wikipedia:Layout#Body_sections, what you quoted, "… Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose…", and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points [in this case, {{main}} template]."

Frankly, I don't think people looking for a list of guests will be confused by "Guest interviews" and placing it in its own section is wholly redundant. And to reiterate, people looking for a list of episodes won't be helped by this wikilink anyway.

As for WP:BRD, your action wasn't particularly bold, and I'm not concerned enough to revert again until resolved. That was just a friendly reminder. DKqwerty (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note here: is everyone aware that there's a link to the episode list article in the infobox? Infobox is the primary place I'd look for a link like that. DP76764 (Talk) 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as there haven't been any opinions achieving consensus, some statistics might help. I don't see a sustained rise in traffic, so a separate section doesn't seem merited. Please feel free to move the { { main } } to the location of your choice. You were right. Thank you and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Now there is a sustained increase in traffic: around 30% higher relative to this article comparing May to June. It is apparently worth it to have its own section. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Links

I recall a year or so back there was a link to established fan-sites for the show (and for the presenter for that matter). Now they've gone. Any particular reason? My interest is as the owner-operator of "The Jon Stewart Experience" web site, gallery and forum. Rest assured I am not expecting a link back or anything like that, I just wondered why the links went. Kerojack, Argenta (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of sexism? Really?

Does a single blogger making a single statement about a single event really warrant its own section? I have to question the fact that this accusation is even included along both those lines as well as the fact that it is totally slanted to current events. Just thought I'd open a discussion on it since no one seems to notice that it's been added. Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Salon reported on it and mentioned brought it up during their interview with Olivia Munn, as well as the fact that The Daily Show itself responded by addressing the matter on their own website, made it reasonable, in my opinion, to include it.

As for its emphasis on a singular event, much information on Wikipedia is indeed based on singular events rather than ongoing ones. Not all single-event material is encyclopedic, but some of it is. Nightscream (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean it has too much emphasis on a single event, I mean that it is written based upon events that occurred no more than a month ago. My point being - do you think any reliable source will be reporting on this event or its repercussions in the near or even distant future? I doubt it. Xenocide^Talk^|^{Contributions} 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same (right down to the really?). Irin Camron isn't what I would call a reliable source on sexism. This is a random blog post targeted at a popular counter culture icon so it got a bit of a media flurry. It died as quickly as it was born, and is best removed. --72.148.136.13 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth a mention, but the section it has is too long. Zazaban (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd definetly agree that it's worth a mention, but it is certainly a bit long; some tightening is definetly in order, though I don't think it should be taken out completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.198.59 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it significantly; this still feels like overcoverage of a minor event though. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

President Obama on The Daily Show - images

Two images that could be used in this article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the closer version. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably works well in the "In the political spectrum" section, if not rearranging any other photos. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

German adaption

Not sure where it would fit in the article, but it should probably be mentioned that there is a german adaption/remake called the "heute-show" running on the public-service channel "zdf" since 2009. It's pretty much a 1:1 copy of all the concepts of the daily show, except its target is obviously mostly german politics and media. (International topics are also covered though.) It aired monthly at first, now weekly. I could not find any english-language resources except an overly negative blog-post about the first episode (http://www.me-blogs-it.com/the-heute-show-a-bad-copy-of-the-daily-show-ill-also-touch-upon-wwii-and-the-eu-21-06-2009). It's also on imdb and the german wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.12.148 (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference to the pun should be eliminated. I don't see any no pun in it. Besides, Heute is a translation for today and not for daily.--Gciriani (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

sexism 2

6 months later and it's still there?? Doesn't wikipedia have a tag for something that flared up briefly but was never really significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.134 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly short (one full paragraph plus one very short paragraph) description of a controversy involving the show, and it tells both sides of the story. The original criticism appeared on a web site which (though I have never heard of it other than in this article) that is apparently considered "notable" on Wikipedia, because it has it's own article. I don't see what's wrong with this brief section. Neutron (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the IP was commenting on the significantly longer version as seen here. I trimmed it down earlier today; see also #Accusation of sexism? Really? above. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Good point. I had not seen the longer version and did not realize how old the original comment was. (Interesting coincidence, huh?) As for the discussion below, I generally agree that the shorter version is better. This is not about wars or earthquakes or anything, it is about one employee of a TV show and some people commenting about her. Neutron (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would it not still be here after six months? The material is encyclopedic, so naturally it has permanent relevance. This isn't Wikinews, after all. AS for significance, it was significant enough for the staffs of both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to address it. Beyond that, significance is subjective. I fixed the errors that occurred during the paring-down, such as attributing Munn's statements to Sarah Hepola, as well as including Jezebel's rebuttal to her. Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the inadvertent error with Hepola/Munn. However, the rebuttal has been pulled again; we really need to resolve this here first, and we certainly do not need to put more emphasis on this than is necessary. There is no indication that this has achieved significant notability, and there is no reason to cover the rebuttal. It is enough - possibly too much even - to describe the initial blog post and the staff reaction. (Colbert's comments aren't relevant at all.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the errors, no worries. Happens to everyone. For my part, sorry if I neglected to see this discussion to its conclusion before re-adding more detail. :-)

Regarding the rebuttal, neutrality and balance would seem to require us to include Iris Carmon's rebuttal. Part of her rebuttal is to address the accusation that she only interviewed former non-regulars. Her point that her piece was about on-air performers and behind-the-scenes writers, and that she tried to interview the current production staff, who declined, are valid. Without mentioning that, the idea might be conveyed that she chose to only interview former employees and not current ones. If the current staff are going to decline to be interviewed, and then criticize Carmon for not interviewing them, then Carmon's reply that she tried to and was rebuffed need to be mentioned, so that the reader can draw the most informed conclusion. It is also pertinent to include Carmon's response that she wasn't insulting anyone's looks or speaking out of petty jealousy. Nightscream (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)