Talk:The Daily Show/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Jon's interviewing skills

He is one of the better interviewers we have, and I think something should be said about it in this article, no? See this. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are enough reliably sourced comments from notable people and/or media outlets regarding his interviewing skills, I suppose a section or paragraph on the subject would be justified. As long as it is NPOV in tone and style, of course.--JayJasper (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I've heard his interviewing praised before, so it would be a matter of picking out the sources. The Rumsfeld clip just made me think about it. I was wondering mostly where this paragraph/section should go. I couldn't quite decide by myself and would like consensus on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Early Critics Section

In the introduction the article currently includes the following: "Critics, including series co-creator Lizz Winstead (who has since changed her view[1]), have chastised Stewart for not conducting sufficiently hard-hitting interviews with his political guests, some of whom he may have previously lampooned in other segments.". The problems here are: 1) The Winstead criticism is acknowledged to have been withdrawn, so why bring it up? 2) the reference to the Winstead criticsm (or its withdrawl) is a dead link and 3) there are no other references to anyone else making this criticism. I suggest that either a reference to someone else who made this criticism be provided, or the criticism section here be deleted. I will wait a week, and if I do not see a reference provided will delete it. Gogh (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While the soft-ball criticism may be warranted, the example given is inadequate for the reasons you specify. And also, I don't think such a criticism really belongs in the lede. Ashmoo (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, too. I Googled Stewart and Winstead together, and the in-depth articles showed her praising him (for example: http://www.nofactzone.net/2008/04/23/six-degrees-interview-with-lizz-winstead-co-creator-the-daily-show/ and http://bloggasm.com/daily-show-co-creator-erupts-at-feminist-blogger-during-netroots-nation-panel). If you removed it, someone put it back. I'll take it down now.75.70.204.208 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
p.s. What I meant is that I would take out the reference to Winstead. Whether the whole criticism thing should stay in the lede is for others to say (though I would vote no). Personally, I think the criticism is without merit. Jon merely treats people like people. He interviews those he disagrees with and treats them with respect. He allows them to express their viewpoints and to convey them in a nuanced way. I don't know many interviewers who do a better job.75.70.204.208 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dick jokes

They are unfortunately ubiquitous on the show and have come to characterize it. They have moved beyond verbal references and are now increasingly graphically illustrated, in case viewers miss what is being referenced. Probably as many people (mainly young males who unaccountably can't get enough of this type of humor, but undoubtedly some women as well) watch the show for this penile wit as for the political commentary, and would sorely miss it if it stopped. Since it is so integral to the show and to Jon Stewart's mentality, it should be mentioned in the article, in my opinion. I agree with Indrian that there is no independent source for this fact, but a fact it is: one need only watch the show.Syzygos (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Watching the show to determine a fact would could as original research. Even if we did, how would we decide what is a lot of dick jokes. I watched the last episode and there was none. How many is 'a lot'? Do we compare it to other shows? Other comedies? For all these reasons, Wikipedia insists on reliable 3rd party sources. Ashmoo (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the point about original research and that's why I haven't put the comment back in the article. But you are incorrect about there not being an example in the most recent program. See from 1:40 to 1:45 here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-may-19-2011-lisa-p--jackson. This trope has become so pervasive on the show that it is barely noticed. A Daily Show episode without such an example is the real exception. Syzygos (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you can find a reliable source discussing this, it might be add-able to the article. They have addressed the 'toilet humor' nature of the show several times on the air; Stewart can be a little self-deprecating in that area sometimes. DP76764 (Talk) 17:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The program seems to have found its true calling. Syzygos (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The program has taken a pathological, or at least highly bizarre turn in this regard since the Anthony Weiner scandal. Is there any way this can be noted in the article without incurring the charge of original research? Certainly not every obvious statement about a subject in a Wikipedia article has an external source. Syzygos (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Still needs a reliable source I would say. DP76764 (Talk) 04:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that Wiener is no longer in the news, the dick jokes have reduced. We need to edit for historical significance and not change the article based on each news cycle. And yes, we do (in theory) need an external source for every statement in wikipedia. Some statements are so obvious or well accepted that they are never challenged, so they don't get a cite. But obviously here, the fact is challenged, so needs a 3rd party source. see WP:TRUTH. Ashmoo (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

'In the political spectrum' OR

I chopped this paragraph, because none of the cites adequately support the statements they are attached to, and the long list of Democrat bureaucrats seems like OR, since no sources are provided. Although I have no doubt that they appeared on the show, we need a 3rd party who has counted them up (and also determined that Spellings was the only Bush era government guest). Ashmoo (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

During both the Bush administration and the Obama administration, the liberal overtures of the show were not lost on politicans, as during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was the only sitting cabinet member to appear on the show. The eight minute segment Spellings was on the show progressed largely without the "the more pointed jabs that the comedian routinely levels at Mr. Bush and his administration."[1] Within the first ten months of the Obama presidency, five cabinet secretaries and two cabinet level administrators appeared on the show: [2] Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebellius, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

Status

Gotta agree with Xeworlebi..."Returning series" doesn't make much sense. Will have to check pages for other series to see what is generally used...something like "Active" seems better. Dk100 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oliva Munn - reliable source/notable

I put the notability template in the Oliva Munn section. It is a striped down version of a section called "Accusations of Sexism" from last year. It's based on a blog, Jezebel, and the response from TDS. Since a blog is not an RS, and there seems to be no other source objecting to Munn, I think the whole section ought to be struck on the grounds that it is not notable and has no reliable sources. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves its own section, maybe we could condense it a bit more and include it under "Correspondents, contributors, and staff" - reception is already very long. AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Describing itself as fake

This reference is unsorced and links to "news satire" page.

Satire is not false construction. It is exagerated commentary. Unless Comedy Central or John Steward, a producer or a writer has called in Fake it is empirically not fake. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

South Park

Both South Park and The Daily Show are claimed by Wikipedia to be the longest running program on Comedy Central. One of the statements must be wrong, and I am not allowed to edit the South Park page. This is a call for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.47.135 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it from the South Park article. It should be cited in this one. (Assuming it's true, I don't know.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Daily Show lists - consolidate?

Can interested editors take a look at the following two articles and offer their opinions on whether they should be consolidated? (Same thing for 2001, 2011, and 2012)

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Genital jokes

User:DKqwery legitimately reverted my edit on Stewart's incessant references to male genitals, since it wasn't documented by an independent source. However, this is a case of a Wikipedia policy being inadequately specified. One might as well demand a citation for the statement that air is transparent. Stewart appears to have similar propensities to his friend Anthony Weiner, which he is in a position to satisfy not privately online, but by publicly making joking references to, or showing representations of, his own and his co-genderists' sexual organs. Anyone not familiar with "The Daily Show", reading this article without the equivalent of my unexceptionable statement that "most episodes under Stewart's tenure include one or more references to penises or testicles" will have a very incomplete idea of the tone and content of the program. Syzygos (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • As a regular viewer of The Daily Show, I can't even fathom the litany of things the show mentions monthly, weekly, or almost daily. But in the absence of a source to A.) prove it and B.) establish its importance, it's at best indiscriminate info and at worst original research. DKqwerty (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of Viewers

What specific demographics does it discuss, it's just some unsourced discussion on being informed versus not being informed compared to PBS / Jim Lehrer and Bill O'Reilly. This should be deleted until more ratings data is provided or some more scientific explanation of "being informed" is detailed. Until then it is nebulous and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.36.25 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the above comment. The section entitled "Demographics" mentions nothing about Demographics. Is anyone overseeing this page? --Memarshall (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. I'm going to give it a day or two and honestly might just remove the entire section. Beach drifter (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed the title. I also removed the last sentence as it no longer fits with the new title, but it would probably fit in somewhere in another section. Beach drifter (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Chronology / Related Shows

In the article's side bar, under the heading Chronology > Related Shows, it lists "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver". However, I don't see any commonalities, such as network, producers, writers, etc., other than Oliver being an alumnus of TDS and a similar format. It makes sense to list The Colbert Report as related, since it was directly spun off from TDS, but that isn't the case with John Oliver, so are they properly referred to as being "related"? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Related is rather vague terminology, but I tend to agree with you on this; there is no production link that I know of, other than Oliver being the host. Unless the comment was meant to imply that they are tonally related, which would be original research anyway, I don't see that there is a connection worth noting here. If anyone has any information regarding a more formal relationship between the shows, we can always add it back in, but I'll remove it for now. Snow talk 08:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Didn't see any change, so I removed it myself. As you say, we can always add it back in if a more substantive relationship emerges between the two shows. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that -- I went to make the change and then noted that Stewart's earlier show was also listed (basically under the criteria of a connection between hosts) and as this seemed likely to have been a long-standing element of the article, it gave me pause, since arguably both should be included or removed. I meant to come back here and state as much as much for further discussion, but was distracted by circumstance. I still have no opposition to the change, but think it should be either removed or included in a manner consistent with the other show. I tend towards seeing the inclusion of both as "related" as being original research, but not altogether without a mixed perspective and, in any event, I think removing Stewart's former show is likely to provoke disagreement. Snow talk 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, the co-creator of TDS Madeleine Smithberg, also worked as a producer on The Jon Stewart Show. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Spin-Offs

Should "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" be added to the "Spin-Offs" section?

Agree • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlike The Colbert Report and The Nightly Show, it's not an official spin-off in that it's not being produced by Jon Stewart's company/Comedy Central. So I don't think it qualifies, as related as it is. There is no official connection aside from the host being a former TDS correspondent. Ausir (talk)

Add that LWTwJO also picked up a lot of staff from TDS. Trackinfo (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Interesting detailed information in this article: 

Headline-1: How Jon Stewart turned lies into comedy and brainwashed a generation

QUOTE: "Though Stewart has often claimed he does a “fake news show,” “The Daily Show” isn’t that. It’s a real news show punctuated with puns, jokes, asides and the occasional moment of staged sanctimony. It contains real, unstaged sound bites about the days’ events and interviews about important policy matters. Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one." -- AstroU (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Article should be split

CLOSED; NOT SPLIT
The article was not split for now as per WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against future discussions after Noah's edition has begun, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think this article should be similar to the page like The Tonight Show, Late Night, and Late Show should be. Then we should create a The Daily Show with Jon Stewart because by the time Trevor Noah takes over this page is going to get very crowded and it would make since if we split the pages into two. (McQueen.30 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

Agree: In addition, Kilborn's and Stewart's versions of The Daily Show are vastly different in terms of format and definitely merits an article split. Tktru (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but don't jump the gun. Rename/split once the transition actually starts. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but not yet Let's wait until Noah's run has actually started. At that time, then I think it would be acceptable to talk about splitting the page into two, maybe three, pages. Pyrotle {T/C} 03:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but wait until the show's Trevor Noah era has officially begun, per EvergreenFir & Pyrotle.--JayJasper (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If we split the article, we should cover the formulation of the show and some of its notable evolutions. Stewart has been at the forefront of the show for the majority of its time but we have the Kilborn era to cover as well. Trackinfo (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait, too early for this. There might not be much of a change to the formula with a new host. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.255.153 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

’Disagree:' We need to wait until at least a logo for Noah’s show comes out.
Agree with split, much like we have split The Tonight Show, The Late Show, Late Night, etc among their various hosts. Canuck89 (chat with me) 09:55, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
Agree to much weight is already on Stewart's version of the show. Grapesoda22 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but no need to be hasty. There may still be changes to the format. It'd be best to wait until, at least, the officially date of Stewart's departure, in couple of months. ProKro (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for now per WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, the length of the article is fine. For all we know, Trevor Noah might not make any changes to the show. If and when length becomes an issue, we can split the article. But as of now, the length is fine. JDDJS (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose per WP:SIZESPLIT, but I see the argument for uniformity with other shows of this nature. As it stands, this article is perfectly readable, but I'd have to support JDDJS's argument of WP:CRYSTAL as we don't know how much info will come, if Noah will change the format, or if the show will be cancelled a month into his run. Sock (tock talk) 10:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The comparison with other late night shows is false. When The Tonight Show, Late Night, Late Show etcetera change hosts they are completely relaunched with new people involved in the production and writing and major changes in scenery and location. For The Daily Show, the changes have been incremental. The Daily Show hosted by Craig Kilborn in December 1998 was essentially the same as the Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart in January 1999. Same idea, same show structure, same studio, same set, same crew, same writers, same correspondents, same theme music, same logo and (mostly) the same jokes. If the show is completely overhauled when Noah takes over, then a split may be warranted, but there's no evidence of that at the moment. Väsk (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. In the interests of uniformity with other late night shows covered on Wikipedia, I believe that we should split the article by host, as outlined above. After all, when Colbert was announced as the next Late Show host, a wiki page was up fairly quickly detailing Colbert's new iteration of the show. The same should apply with Noah. I also find it hard to believe that Noah, who is from an entirely different cultural background, would not make changes to the Daily Show. Mhoppmann (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off-site studio

I propose adding something like this (captioned photo at right) to the Studio section. Please edit or comment:

File:Obama on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.jpg
An elaborate set was created in Washington DC for the show which hosted sitting President Obama.

While we already have a photo from this show (both are public domain), this one shows off this set. A good addition or undue emphasis on this (presumably) once-used set just because we have a PD photo of it?--Elvey(t•c) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The photograph may be PD but it contents may not be. Unless the White House built the set too (and even then I'm not sure), the set design has its own copyright and could end up deleted from Commons. – czar 16:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore

The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore is really not a direct spin-off of The Daily Show, I'd consider it more or less a spin-off or at least a replacement series for the Colbert Report which is a direct spin-off of TDS. I'd like to remove this section and move it to the Colbert Report but before I do that I'd like to get some opinions first on whether it should be done and in what manner that would be proper. Thanks. YborCityJohn (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Toss

The "toss" to Colbert section indicates that the toss was used on Colbert's final episode. Was there a toss done at the end of the Daily Show that night prior to Colbert? Or is this a reference to Stewart's appearance at the end of Colbert's last show? If the former, the wording here should be changed to something like "... and again to close the episode that aired before the final episode of The Colbert Report on December 18, 2014". If the latter, it shouldn't be mentioned at all, because the close of Colbert wasn't a "toss". TheHYPO (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done TroyGab (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This time, it has to be split

Dear fellow wikipedians, I believe it is time to spilt this article. With Jon Stewart's tenure as host is sadly done, it is time for this article to be similar to The Late Show, The Late Late Show, The Tonight Show, and Late Night. I mean Trevor Noah already has a page and Jon Stewart should have his own page and Carig Kilborn's should be similar to The Late Late Show. When September 28 comes, there should be two Daily Show pages. Crispy Dream Milk (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, except there should be four pages total. One for each of the host's tenures plus this main Daily Show article. I would say to any editor, feel free to cautiously take a stab at splitting the Jon Stewart sections into a The Daily Show with Jon Stewart article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree: I think it's appropriate to have Kilborn, Stewart, and Noah's three respective version be split off. The article might become too long otherwise. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree:Thank you Fireflyfanboy, that is exactly the same suggestion I made the last time we brought this up. There should be a master version of the article showing the overall history and a linked article for each of the (soon to become) three hosts. Trackinfo (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: It's still too soon. Trevor Noah still has over a month before he starts. We have no idea how different it's going to be, or how long it's even going to last. For all we know, he could suddenly get replaced before he even starts. Is that likely? No. But it is possible. JDDJS (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That's an excessively extreme reading of WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits speculative articles on future subjects. The reliable sources are available in this case. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue that while it's a pedantic read of WP:CRYSTAL, it's the prudent read. There's no hurry, and I suspect the discussion will be reopened before long regardless of what happens.ACB Smith (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
We clearly have two eras that have existed and a third, whatever happens, that is about to begin. Even if The Daily Show is cancelled before Noah says a word on camera, it will be significant enough to merit a lot of coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: I agree that shows like "The Late Show" should have different pages for their different iterations, as the different iterations are completely different shows. However, the change from Kilborn to Stewart was a change of host, not of creative team. Correspondents, writers, producers, and even segments remained; from what I think I've read, the same is true this time. There's a chart on this page that shows the tenure of correspondents and hosts, and I would argue that the continuity of that chart into the Noah era will be reason enough to keep them together. As an analogy, the page for "Doctor Who" doesn't get split every time there's a new Doctor. I would not oppose a split if the rest of the team greatly changed, or if the page became unmanageably long. ACB Smith (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Ummm they're playing the same character. This is not the same situation. I don't see why this is any different than Late Show. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was particularly notable because of Jon Stewart and the way he transformed news. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It's fallacious to argue that separate articles about different iterations shouldn't exist because the format is the same (which it isn't, as segments like "Headlines" disappeared and extended interviews on the web were introduced). The history of the show under the entire Bush administration and most of Obama was under Jon Stewart, the details of which should be split leaving a summary on this page. Kilborn's and Trevor Noah's iterations has nothing to do with the Daily Show of the 2000s. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree - time for The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - good luck Trevor! —МандичкаYO 😜 06:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agreeThe hosts have a significant effect on the show, regardless of the same creative team. I'd agree with splitting the three, with an additional The Daily Show article to talk about history and change in format as well as the styles of the three hosts compared. The page is also getting unmanageably long, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has so much more significance than "The Daily Show" and I think that the majority of people are interested in information about one iteration, not the entire history of the show.Jacobmacmillan (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree- I believe there should be three articles for each of the three respective incarnations by the time Trevor Noah takes over. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also agree per the precedent of the other late night talk show articles. Even though it mimics the format of news, it is still like them in that they are effectively a "new' show when a new host takes over. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Trevor Noah tenure article

Hello, I have once again created The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, per the multiple split consensuses above. A reception section can definitely be added tomorrow. In the meantime, feel free to add additional information (history, etc.) there, since there has been significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose to splitting the articles up. I believe The Daily Show will continue to be the same show like it was from the previous tenures as well as keeping their current recurring segments such as Your Moment of Zen. Let us see after the first show if anything changes as such then we could conclude that the articles should be split up. Glencoco8995 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the creation. Noah still hasn't debuted as host yet (although they're just about to film the episode), and it's clear from this talk page that there isn't consensus to split anything. Yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New Host = New Article! Honestly, why is there so much resistance to creating separate articles? Mhoppmann (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, Noah's already debuted at this point, and the article is starting to look pretty crowded accounting for now 3 hosts. The bare bones "Daily Show" should have basic info about the format (moment of zen, etc), accolades, while history of each respective tenure should be done the way the articles for the respective incarnations of The Tonight Show, The Late Show, etc. are. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently no need to split the article. Noah has only been the host for 2 shows right now. There has been no significant change in format. Currently, this is listed as a Good Article. A Noah version article will only be a stub. The show is essentially the same exact show it was with Stewart. Game shows have many different hosts, and we never split those articles. Live! also only has one article despite the many hosts that it has have. Yes, Late night talk shows articles are often split by host, but unlike The Daily Show, they often have significant changes to the format when a new host takes over. And there is no official policy that says each host gets their own page. So, unless there becomes too much information about Noah's version of the show to fit into this single article, or someone makes an argument based in policy that successfully refutes the points that I already made, or there is a strong and clear consensus that the article needs to be split now, I will revert any attempt to split the page. JDDJS (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The show WILL change. Just because it isn't a completely different show now doesn't mean it will be in the future. In fact, the Daily Show will have to change just by virtue of Noah hosting it every night. BTW, the Daily Show is a Late Night show, so shouldn't it be treated the same as other late night shows? I think we should put the issue of whether to create a new page for Noah up for a vote. Mhoppmann (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I would also say that individual articles for at least Kilburn and Stewart's eras would actually allow each article to have more information, I feel like both of those sections are a little skimpy simply because they're just sections of what is a pretty long article at this point. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fireflyfanboy I completely disagree that the Kilburn and Stewart's sections are at all "skimpy". I think that there is plenty of information already in the article on both versions. If you really think there is a lot more info that could be added to both sections, why don't you use a sandbox and prove it? JDDJS (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mhoppmann "Just because it isn't a completely different show now doesn't mean it will be in the future" yes it might be very different in the future, but there is no way of telling. Right now, the show is basically the same exact show with the exception that its now hosted by a South African. And yes, other Late Night talk shows have gotten their own article, but there is no policy that says they have to and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the Daily Show is really more of a (parody) news show then talk show anyway. I won't stop a vote from happening, and if there is a strong and clear consensus against me, I'll give up. But right now, there is no consensus either way, and nobody has yet to make any strong arguments against all of the points I already made. JDDJS (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Daily Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Edition articles

Other late night shows have individual articles for each host, shouldn't TDS also do this for

?

This would be akin to

etc

-- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. WP:SIZESPLIT. The article is at a perfectly fine length right now, and this is listed as a good article. If we split the article, instead of having one good article, we'll just have several short articles. JDDJS (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

With other shows, there is still a main article
so the central article and the Jon Stewart edition article won't be very short either, one or both of these two would also probably be good articles -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If not split, then much of this really needs to be updated

Quite a bit of this article still reads like Jon Stewart hosts the show. I've just gone through a couple sections, changed some uses of his name to "Noah" or "the host," and changed some verb tenses. Other sections, like "Production," still speak in the present tense about things Jon said about how the show worked at that time. You really can't even just rewrite that one, because it is very specific, and I doubt Noah works with the staff in exactly the same way. 2602:306:8320:AF00:ED07:9B97:963E:FEB0 (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting time

Late Show has its own article for Colbert version so this should do same for Noah. He's been at it long enough. As had Jon. Ranze (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Word choice?

I question this word choice: "...otherwise referred to as 9/11 First Responders Bill, which Stewart enumerated had been blocked by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for political reasons."? There's no numbered list here, only the one bald statement. How about "revealed", "disclosed", or simply "said"? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

In the opening sentence it says, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah was known as of 2016. He took over in 2015. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:80 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe the "as of 2016" means, what is the current full title of the show in this current year. — Andy W. (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Daily Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Host timeline

Although dates are correct the image appears that Kilborn had longest tenure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.222.59.187 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The positioning of the host name to the right of their time is a poor visual representation. Most timelines start with the name then display the time active. I'll look into how that format works, but this could be an easy edit for someone familiar with that level of code. Trackinfo (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done I replaced the old timeline with one using {{Simple Horizontal timeline}} a couple of weeks ago. It should be more legible now. Gourlaysama (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Daily Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Daily Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Daily Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Far left

Is the Daily Show categorized clearly as a far left show as the beginning of the text make it looks like ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passemort (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to have been taken care of on the same date you posted. I assume, therefore, that this section should be removed from the talk page? I'm completely new to "contributing" so I hesitate to make such a change without confirmation. J-Reis (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Ratings

The rating section seems dated. I found this page [3] 

with some more recent ratings --Zaurus (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Basken, Paul (May 23, 2007). "Comedy Left Behind as Margaret Spellings Appears on 'Daily Show'". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 23, 2011.
  2. ^ "Want to write for The Daily Show? Here's what you need to know". NoFilmSchool. March 23, 2010. Retrieved June 6, 2010.
  3. ^ "Ratings - "The Daily Show with Trevor Noah" Records Most-Watched and Highest-Rated Quarter Ever and Is the Only Daily Late Night Talk Show to Grow Year-Over-Year with Both Total Viewers and Adults 18-49". The Futon Critic. Retrieved 13 July 2017.
Are there rules for vetting sources of this kind? Having reviewed these guidelines, I'm not certain how to categorize The Futon Critic. I'd be happy to incorporate the linked data into the article, but I'm unfamiliar with the source and cannot verify its quality. J-Reis (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Daily Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

I've tagged this article for a Good Article reassessment, since many parts of it have clearly become outdated (and have not been addressed by the tag I placed on the page in March), and a lot has changed on Wikipedia since it was made a GA in 2008. - Sdkb (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Has a lot of proseline too. Will probably open a reassessment soon. AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Daily Show/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GAR requested by Sdkb in June and I am inclined to agree. The quality of writing and referencing has notably declined since 2015. AIRcorn (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • No response. Delisting AIRcorn (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What counts as a spin-off?

I added 'Last Week Tonight' to the list of spin-offs and had it reverted by User:JDDJS who said "Reverted good faith edits by Niccast (talk): It's not an official spinoff as it airs on a different network." Hopefully I am going about starting a discussion regarding that the appropriate way.

Wikipedia itself disagrees with that definition of 'spin-off'. The wikipedia articles Spin-off (media) and List of television spin-offs say nothing about the spin-off needing to be on the same network. And the list of spin-offs includes numerous that violate this 'rule' including The 20th Century Fox Hour (the original. Was on CBS then later Fox Movie Channel) -> Broken Arrow (its spin-off. Was on ABC); ALF (NBC) -> ALF's Hit Talk Show (TV Land, owned by CBS); and The Archie Show (CBS) -> multiple spin-offs some of which aired on CBS but others aired on NBC ('The New Archie and Sabrina Hour', 'The New Archies') or PAX ('Archie's Weird Mysteries').Niccast (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources calling it a spin-off? Just because it features a former Daily Show correspondent doesn't make it a spin-off, official or not. Reywas92Talk 19:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not just about network. It's about multiple things. Colbert Report and Nightly Show were both produced by Busboy Productions, Jon Stewart's production company that produced the Daily Show during his run. Stewart was also credited as an executive producer on both shows, and was credited as creator of Nightly Show. The character that Colbert played on the Colbert Report was developed on the Daily Show. The Opposition was produced by Ark Angel, Trevor Noah's production company that currently produces the Daily Show. Noah was also credited as a creator and executive producer on the Opposition. All of the shows considered spinoffs were often given tosoffs by The Daily Show. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ahhh, I get it now. Thanks JDDJS. I still disagree with the network thing, but a spin-off does need to either continue some story arc from the original or feature one or more *characters* (not just actors) from the original. Otherwise one could say that Cougar Town is a spin-off of Friends because both starred Courtney Cox.Niccast (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Noah resigned from the daily show

Not sure how this would be implemented, but Trevor Noah resigned and who the new host is is still unclear. 62.139.105.79 (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023: Running time adjustment

It seems with Trevor gone, they’ve reverted the regular running time to 30 minutes, not just on Hell of A Week nights. So please, in the infobox change "22 min. (1996–2020)” and “45 min. (2020–present)" to 22 min. (1996–2020, 2023-present) and 45 min. (2020–2022). Also the portion of the paragraph where it talks about the host titles, it still says Trevor’s 2015 to present, so that should be updated too 108.41.81.126 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like the listing turned out wrong anyway. An interview just started at :28. However the portion about Trevor Noah no longer being host should already be sourced elsewhere within the article. The episode did also run past the 11:30 mark. The episode is ending as I speak, I can probably confidently provide the new regular runtime by the end of the week so it’s not a fluke, using its P+ page to show runtimes--108.41.81.126 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The Comedy Central schedule consistently lists The Daily Show in a half hour timeslot. 108.41.81.126 (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split

The result was not to split.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's my view that the show had much more notability as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" as a distinct entity, and I think that warrants it's own page, in the vein of The Late Show vs The Late Show with David Letterman. Maybe a page for all three eras, but at least a separate one for Jon's 16 year run. --Volvlogia (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I’d agree it should be done the same as The Late Show.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)— DonkeyPunchResin (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SammySmith8765 (talk · contribs).
Don't split. Exact same show. Helloiamauser (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree to the split.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  13:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, and I still strongly oppose a split. Other late shows having different articles for other hosts is irrelevant. Those shows usually only retain the name of the previous show and are otherwise completely different. Each time the host has changed of the Daily Show, they've kept a significant number of the same writers, producers and correspondents. There were no immediate drastic changes in formant. We don't create new articles for daytime talk shows or game shows when they get a new host. We shouldn't here either. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose : It's the same show with different hosts. The popularity and viewership may differ during different era of hosts, but it's the same show. 49.207.214.158 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose : For reasons stated above. It's the same show that just featured different hosts though the years it's been on the air. No need to split. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Iran’s spinoff Parazit

In the spin-off section it talks about Parazit being a show in Iran inspired by the daily show. Parazit is in the Farsi language but it not based in Iran at all as the Islamic regime would not allow that show at all. Parazit is actually an American created show in the Farsi language. 76.30.133.9 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

Change: * In the United Kingdom, The Mash Report is a British version of the format, hosted by Nish Kumar. to:

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Jon’s back early?

The article says that «it was announced that Jon Stewart would return as host for Monday night shows, »(…)« beginning on February 12». Yet today’s still the 7th and there he is. What am I missing? Tuvalkin (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it’s re-runs… Tuvalkin (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"critics" and missing citations...

The article is protected, so I can't directly edit, but this section of the article's intro is problematic:

"Critics chastised Stewart for not conducting sufficiently hard-hitting interviews with his political guests, some of whom he may have lampooned in previous segments. Stewart and other Daily Show writers responded to such criticism by saying that they do not have any journalistic responsibility and that as comedians, their only duty is to provide entertainment."

It's unclear [who?] exactly these "critics" are, and how widespread this criticism was. There is a citation at the end of the paragraph, but the linked CNN article doesn't specifically mention the criticisms alluded to here. -2003:CA:8717:D2FF:9369:1DF8:C9AE:692 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Daily_Show/Archive_4&oldid=1225437865"