Talk:David Letterman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Married?

has letterman been married? and what about letterman's stalker? Kingturtle 04:51 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Yup, his wife, Michelle Cook, is mentioned in the article. The couple divorced in 1977. He also had a longtime relationship with his co-creator of "Late Night" - which is also mentioned. The stalker stuff should be added though..

Looks like all this stuff is covered in the current revision of the article. -- Branden

As of today, there is no longer any mention of his stalker. Can someone readd it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.129.111 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Memorable moments

How about a memorable moments section?

• Sonny & Cher reunion
• Drew Barrymore flashing
• up-side-down episode
• Madonna cursing

I'm sure there's at least 10 others that I'm not remembering off the top of my head Dyl 12:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Retiring?

Has anyone else heard the rumor that he is retiring? Is that merely a rumor? --Feitclub 21:54, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Various parties have made claims about Letterman retiring since the 1980's. Until Letterman himself says it, it is worthless to listen to such rumors. --Rookkey 03:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Christ Elliot

Should Chris Elliott be included in the number of appearances by comedian section? - Diceman 14:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

photo vs. drawing

Re: recent drawing replacing photo. Yeargh. Keep the kids away from that one. Besides, Dave's wig looks totally fake in the sketch. Jgm 16:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aw, man, I hate that picture. :( Can't it be replaced with something from his promotional shots? Mr.Icon, 25 May 2005.

Yeah, I've finally had enough with that hideous drawing, so I removed it. We could replace it with the image seen on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Excellent, thanks. I did that one quite some time ago when I was just starting sketching, and I certainly didn't intend it to end up here. I was quite surprised and appalled to find it used in the article, and will sleep much better knowing that it's not there any more. :) The picture from The Late Show with David Letterman seems like a good candidate. Mr.Icon

Promised Tonight Show?

The article indicates Letterman claims to have been promised The Tonight Show by NBC years before he left. According to the NYT, the most Letterman got from NBC was a $10 Million penalty clause if Letterman didn't get it. NBC promised Letterman the Tonight Show at the last minute, just before Letterman's contract was going to run out, but only after giving Leno 17 months as host, which Letterman decided to reject.[1]

No--Letterman was not promised (by anyone with the authority to do so at NBC, at least) that he would receive The Tonight Show after Carson's retirement. According to The Late Shift (1995) by Bill Carter, Letterman even denied in published interviews that he wanted to take Carson's place; however, the Letterman camp (Peter Lassally and Robert Morton especially, but Bill Carter included) have very effectively spread the canard that Letterman had somehow been robbed of the opportunity to host Tonight. I removed this part of the article some months ago using another computer. Even the penalty clause Letterman had in his contract doesn't count as a promise or guarantee that Letterman would succeed Carson, only that he would recieve $10 million if he didn't get the job when Carson retired. Evidently, avoiding that same kind of public struggle over who was Carson's "rightful" successor that arose in 1993-1994 was the impetus for NBC to announce in 2004 that Conan O'Brien would be the next host of the show. Also, according to Bill Carter, the NBC executives officially deny that Letterman was EVER offered the show, even just before his contract expired. Hope this helps--all my references are to to Carter's The Late Shift. 69.166.17.41 08:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

B.A. degree?

Although Dave attended Ball State, I though that he left without graduating. Can someone confirm or deny this? --Xcali 04:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just coming on the talk page to say the same thing. Letterman DID leave without graduating, but when he returned to give a commencement address -- unless I'm mistaken -- the President of the college said that the few classes he had left didn't really matter, and that he could consider himself a graduate. Still, it's not exactly correct to state that he "earned" a BA. -- MusicMaker5376 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jay Leno on letterman 40 times?

Lol Is that vandalism? or is it part of a joke in the newsletter (Cfitzart 06:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC))

In the early years of Late Night Jay Leno was a frequent guest on the program. It is very likely that the number of Leno visits over the ten years of the show exceeded 40.

The guest list in the article is incomplete as Marv Albert has had the most appearances of any guest (roughly 80, but I cannot verify it.. therefore its inclusion here) and Regis Philbin has had over 60 appearances himself, often in one-shot gags and not counting the episodes he guest-hosted for Letterman.

-- B.Wind, 9 August 2005

Recent Guests

So, are we going to be adding highlights of all recent guest visits? I think the O'Rielly and Brooks mentions, while interesting, aren't really vital for an encyclopedic entry on Letterman. (The Oprah might stay since that is in reference to much longer and more publically known "feud"). If anything, they should be moved out of the "Hosting The Late Show" section and into a new section called "Notable Appearances" or something. Come of think of it, much of the article could be restructured in such a way .... mtz206 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly's appearance should stay since it got some good news coverage, but I don't think Brooks appearance garnered much attention, even for Dave's claim they'd be there for 2 to 3 years. BTW, I think Dave is truthful about this because I don't think he'd want to compete with Conan O'Brien, whom he's supported for many years. It would be awkward.

As for making a new section on notable appearances, it sounds all right. If other people agree, why not make a 'section break' right before that list of appearances and tag it as "Notable Guest Appearances"?

User:L1759 03:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Guests

I deleted the long list of guests inserted by 138.253.244.181. If we want to include such a listing, it should be properly formatted and in its own article (linked to by the main Letterman article) mtz206 20:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So Why Didnt You "properly format it and put it in its own article"???Otis66Driftwood 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)OTIS

Cast of characters

As an occasional viewer, I see running gags which might well be explained in the Wiki article. I do not understand the bit about a girl names Stephanie who brings prizes out when Letterman does "stump the band" with the audience. She wears a letter jacket, and if I understood correctly, called Dave "Mr Carney." Seems like a running gag like "Ross the Intern" on Leno, but not so funny if you don't know what the gag is. Inside jokes are only jokes to constant viewers. Letterman does resemble Art Carney.Any other running gags or minor recurring characters? How long has he been doing remotes with Rupert from the "Hello Deli?" These running gags make a tv show sort of like family or perhaps liturgy for some viewers. Jack Benny had "George Remley, the drunk musician" as a minor recurring character, for instance.Edison 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC) >

That person is Stephanie Birkitt, who has an article here. --rogerd 04:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside of television section

Everything in the Outside of television needs to be referenced and moved into other sections in the article. It's very crufty and should gradually end up deleted. -- Wikipedical 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Comic character

from section "comic character":
Satirist Daniele Luttazzi, who brought Steve Allen's genre of talk show in Italy and works as script doctor in the US, gave this analysis of Letterman at the Late show: [...] "On a personal note, I consider Letterman irreverent, but qualunquista [roughly meaning 'politically apathetic']. His jokes on the Iraq War were trivial, little informed and therefore reactionary." [...] (july 2003, Luttazzi's own site luttazzi.it)

Bill Hicks, when guest at the texat music program capziz, said: "I found out that one of Dave's rules is he doesn't like comics to talk about Jesus on his show; which I find really wierd, I mean, to pretend to be this "hip" late night talk show, while actually being as mainstream as anything".

The section above has been removed and restored several times. Is this, indeed, legitimate for the article or is it criticism that should be labeled as such?

• Spacini 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Words to avoid - Article structure says to not marginalize criticism to only one section "criticism". The material above also provides some analysis of the kind of comedy given by Letterman, an area in which this article is lacking. --BMF81 11:07, 14 September 2006

• • No, it really doesn't. It gives critical opinions of Letterman by two people unknown to most readers. Neither comment really illuminates Letterman's style. The "Jesus" quote, in particular, is merely trivia. There are abundant references to Letterman's style throughout this article, all of which do a much better job than either of these rather spurious quotes. I vote for removing the "Comic Character" section once and for all. PacificBoy 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

to be "known to most readers" is not in wikipedia policy. Which of course would be a silly criterion considering that most people get their "knowledge" from watching tv.--BMF81 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said above, and say delete it. When I was reading the article, I had a "WTF moment" when I read this section. --Spiff666 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I really see no reason why you want this removed. Just because you disagree with it? An article to be comprehensive can't esclude criticism.--BMF81 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the inclusion of criticism, provided it is done correctly. Since you like quoting Wikipedia's rules, here are a few that support the removal.

"A perfect article..."

"...is well documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date." You have not adequately sourced the Bill Hicks quote.

"...is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." Neither of your quotes fit any of these criteria.

"...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject." This means not just a couple of stray quotes that you happened to find that support one opinion.

Adding criticism is fine, but don't call it "Comic Character" (whatever that means). And if you're going to add criticism (and criticism doesn't mean negative; in this case it should mean both), include citable quotes from players who have relevance to the article at hand (TV critics, guest stars, current or former members of the show's staff, etc.).

At the end of the day, do you really have to stretch to an obscure Italian talk-show host to find a negative opinion of Letterman? PacificBoy 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(1)Both quotes are now properly referenced. (2 and 3) Your argument about neutrality and "exploring all aspects of the subject" just substain the need for more material to be added, not for the current to be removed. (4) Change the section name or erasing its content are two very different issues. (5)Hicks and Luttazzi are Letterman colleagues, at national level in respective countries, so they are relevant experts; about Luttazzi's nationality, keep in mind that this is the "english language" wikipedia, not the "american culture" wikipedia.--BMF81 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You made my point, my friend. It doesn't get much more "American culture" than David Letterman. PacificBoy 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The section as written represents ONLY negative views (from two obscure sources) and, therefore, clearly violates wikipedia's NPOV policy. Who cares if these two individuals have made these comments? What do their comments have to do with "Comic Character"?-Hal Raglan 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

They're are obscure just to those ignorant about comedy and satire. If you can reference more analysis about the kind of comedy provided by Letterman then add them. --BMF81 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These are not "analytical" comments, they're simply brief criticisms. Do you honestly believe Hicks' remark offers any substantial information regarding Letterman or his comedy? Your response completely ignores the main point of my comments, as well those made by all previous posters. What's the point of having a section that only references negative comments about the subject of an article? Especially when reading these individuals' wikipedia articles emphasizes that they truly are (relatively) obscure. Please note the previously provided quote: "The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views." Why does it matter that these two particular individuals' negative comments are emphasized in a separate section? Why is it so important to add Hicks' claim about Letterman's alleged Jesus rule? There don't appear to be similar sections in their articles, or in Johnny Carson's, Conan O'Brien's, or Jay Leno's. If you read BLP, you'll see that having a separate "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section is not encouraged, as they exist ONLY to include negative POV. And the suggestion to simply add positive comments to the section doesn't make any sense to me; Letterman's career, popularity and awards are sufficiently documented in the main article. The consensus above is clearly to delete. As yet, you have not provided an adequate reason why the section should not be deleted. Unless you can do so, I will remove the section as per the consensus.-Hal Raglan 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hicks analysis tells that Letterman comedy excludes satire on religion, while Luttazzi's analysis tells that some of Letterman jokes are not sustained by deep information. Wikipedia policy says that we should reference primarly to experts in the field, and Hicks and Luttazzi clearly are, at national level in respective countries. I'm not for a criticism section, I'm for a section that provides analysis of the kind of comedy performed by Letterman: tropes, use of freudian humor, subjects, etc; I didn't suggest you to add positive comments, I suggested to add furhter analysis. For now that is the only paragraph in the article that discusses Letterman's comedy, and also is the only part of the article that has sources, you can't delete it just because you don't like it.--BMF81 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But "further analysis" implies that you actually believe these two brief negative comments are analytical in nature, providing insight into Letterman's humor. You say you want commentary that "provides analysis of the kind of comedy performed by Letterman: tropes, use of freudian humor, subjects, etc", and yet the negative remarks don't offer any such analysis. The remarks are simply opinions, seemingly off-the-cuff negative comments that really say next to nothing about Letterman's comedic style/jokes. Hicks claims that mentioning Jesus violates an actual rule enforced by Letterman -- if this was really the case one would think after more than 20 years of his show and hundreds upon hundreds of guests, this alleged rule would have generated some kind of widespread controversy. Contrary to your comment, Hicks says the no-Jesus policy shows that Letterman is "mainstream", not that he deliberately excludes satire that deals with religion. So he's mainstream, big deal. He appears on network television, of course he's mainstream. Luttazzi tells us he thinks Letterman's jokes are shallow. So what? You are the only one here who believes these two individuals are "experts in their field", thus automatically making their views worthy of inclusion. The other posters above believe the section should be deleted. As the section is now, it clearly violates wikipedia's NPOV policy. We can't keep non-notable, trivial criticism in an article just because you like it.-Hal Raglan 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you listen to the referenced video, Hicks (which talks by experience, having been a guest at Letterman about ten times) repeats that Letterman doesn't want satire on "organized religion" on his show; so this is an analysis of the boundaries of the subjects of Letterman comedy (gee I have to explain you everything, are you being a bit dumb on purpose?). Such a boudary doesn't necessarely had to cause big public controversity with previous guests.
  • Now that you've reduced your side of the argument to simply hurling insults, I think its clear that you can offer no logical reason for this section to continue to remain in the article. You seem to be confused by what the word "analysis" means. Hicks negative comment about Letterman being "mainstream" (which is what the current quote that exists in the article says) is not analytical by any stretch of the imagination. And despite your naive belief, if Letterman really has been enforcing such a policy on his show for over twenty years, yes, this would have caused a controversy by now.-Hal Raglan 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Luttazzi's remark says that on the subject of iraq war L's jokes were not informed, which is a crucial technical criterion (it's called be relevant and it's from the "universal conversational rules") when you are making jokes on such a satirical subject.
  • Luttazzi's brief comment says that he feels Letterman's jokes about the war in Iraq are uninformed. How incredibly analytical! Just because you say this negative comment is crucial and relevant to the article does not make it so.-Hal Raglan 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• they are (were in the case of Hicks) comedy writers and performers at national level (in the us/uk for hicks and italy for luttazzi, although he also works for HBO and Comedy Central), and their pieces of the 90s are now classics that have been referenced by many other comedians (and they of course satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and have an article on themselves). So if you just don't want to consider them as experts on comic monologues (for ignorance or whaterver else) that's just your problem.--BMF81 09:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I find it curious that you keep ignoring the POV issues that are the heart of the matter. You are obsessed with sloppily inserting a "Criticisms" section into the middle of an article. Such sections are inherently POV and are to be avoided. Simply claiming that these negative comments are profound analytical bits of wisdom doesn't change the issue. You have not even attempted to argue the issues at hand. Instead, you keep saying that Hicks and Luttazzi are/were astounding experts in the field of comedy and therefore their comments must be included here. You may be surprised to learn that calling me "dumb" and "ignorant" has not convinced me that this section does not need to be removed ASAP.-Hal Raglan 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alledged NPOV is not an excuse to delete. As for you to be "convinced", is not necessary really.--BMF81 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you do need to convince other editors if the consensus is against you. Instead of spewing insults ("dumb", "ignorant" and, according to your most recent edit summary, "vandal") at me, you should attempt to discuss our concerns. You've simply reverted w/out explanation. You wrote and inserted the section, so you need to explain why its so vital that it remain. Nobody else wants it here. We've explained our reasons. Its up to you to convince us that your reasons are valid ones. You haven't even attempted to do so.- Hal Raglan 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that these two quotes provide an interesting insight into both Letterman's humor and his limits. While brief these quotes are definitely from experts and would be worth including in a section on Letterman's humor and style. I speak as a a fan, by the way.69.241.126.114 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, try to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. If you want to be taken seriously, its always best to try to keep your cool and refrain from attacking others simply because you disagree with them. Oh, and you obviously need to read up on what constitutes Vandalism. -Hal Raglan 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Smothers Brothers

The reference to Letterman writing for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour is inaccurate, according to his IMDB entry. He didn't even get to L.A. until the mid-1970s. Can someone prove otherwise? I can't confirm it, so I removed it. - Stick Fig 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Host of The Late Show" Box

Does anyone else think the "Host of The Late Show" box at the very bottom is unnecessary, since Letterman is the only host so far? anonymous6494 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed petition link

Removed from external links "Petition to bring the Late Show back to UK television", for obvious reasons. Naphra 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Throughout this page there are references which redirect to the main page of websites. An example of this is the first reference in the lead about Regina Lasko being 13 years younger than Letterman. Since these references technically aren't references I will be switching them with the fact tag. Acidskater 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Davestand.jpg

Image:Davestand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daveln.jpg

Image:Daveln.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Johnnyondave.jpg

Image:Johnnyondave.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Happydave.jpg

Image:Happydave.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Late Show

Late Show have always been my favorite TV show, his doubts about what I really tought of the show were understandable, what's important is his opinion now...! 70.55.128.246 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Feud with Regis Philbin

Regis Philbin used a Letterman show appearance to get even with Letterman for constantly making fun of him. Regis was in an absolute state of rage during the entire appearance. This really deserves a section along with all the others.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of Letterman's Cruelty in Joking about Others

This also deserves a section. Letterman has frequently been accused of crossing the line into cruelty in his jokes about other people. In particular he tends to target certain individuals whom he either doesn't like or doesn't agree with in order to damage them, rather than just making light-hearted comedy.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

David Letterman's father

On Dave's entry, his father's date of death is given as 1974, but on the entry for Dave's mom, his date is listed as dying in 1973.Does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WILLIAMS37LINDEN (talk • contribs) 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Feud with Oprah

The article mentions his Oprah feud in passing, but no information is given as to what the feud was about, or what started it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.129.111 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I just figured I'd like to second the motion, what was the feud? ~User:joel.a.davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.15.232 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oprah wouldn't appear on Letterman's show for a long time after making some appearances on the NBC show. She maintained there was no feud when she finally appeared on the CBS show. It probably had to do with Letterman making too many fat jokes. Stevetimko (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Political views

Removed this section because:

• Letterman is not known or notable for his political views;
• The section attempts to divine his views from jokes or conversations on his show rather than any stated positions or positions, and is thus original research;
• Describing his (not that extreme or controversial) interactions with one particular guest is too much detail for this type of article Jgm (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

don't removed this section; there's a video from 1988 on his show back then saying that he is for the libertarian canidate ron paul on youtube he has never had ron paul on his show however —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.188.50 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there anything in this guys early career that indicated he was to become a far-left loon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.77.174 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest restoring this section because of the increased political option he's expressing on his show. It's becoming obvious that his show is not just an "act" anymore, it's an effort to sway public opinion with his own. His most recent show on Friday Oct. 3, 2008, was a brutal attack against Sarah Palin that went beyond funny, to cruel. I do not make this suggestion because I'm a McCain/Palin supporter - I'm not. I make this suggestion because I'm a long time Letterman viewer who's disappointed with what he's becoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.148.234 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who says he has no political views is lying. He is extremely liberal and, like many of the 60's generation, thinks that its OK to abuse his position, and other people, in order to press his agenda.

65.103.122.211 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An ambiguity

"Only 16 other entertainers earn more. Leno, with higher ratings, is #23 with $32 million, but Letterman owns a piece of his show."

Whose show? That is, does Letterman own stake in his own show, or does he (also) own stake in Leno's? — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 04:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is it means Letterman (via Worldwide Pants) owns a piece of his show and therefore must make money from royalties etc, unlike Leno who I presume only earns a salary Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Radu Catrina as a someone who has been influenced

This removal was unwarranted, Radu Catrina does actually work in the television industry in Australia. He is currently working as a writer for an Australian-produced TV show, is rumoured to be in negotiations with one of Channel 10's biggest shows (Rove), and is also currently in negotiations with RMITV and CH31 for production of his own show. He has his own page on Wikipedia, it is currently under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Letterman, Carson, and Wapner

While the article mentions Carson's appearance on Letterman's show and fleetingly mentions their friendship, the two of them were in fact friendly neighbors in Malibu. In one of Letterman's appearances on The Tonight Show, they enlisted the (on-air) services of The People's Court judge Joseph Wapner to arbitrate a dispute the two of them had regarding Letterman's pickup truck. Wapner ruled in favor of Letterman, awarding him $30 for a broken mirror (episode aired 26 June 1986[2][3])Letterman mentioned this in his Late Night With Conan O'Brien appearance of 28 February 1994.[4] 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is he jewish?

Does anyone know whether David Letterman has a jewish ancestor in his paternal line? David Letterman's surname is just an anglicized version of the surname lederman which some jews have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.208.76 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he is of German descent. Look at the bottom of the article (personal life). Maybe his name is the anglicized version of the German surname Briefmann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.200.190 (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivial recentism

How is the following anything but trivial recentism? I tried to delete it but it was replaced so quickly I thought an automated bot had to be doing the editing, including a Level 2 Vandalism warning.

===Letterman and John McCain===

On September 24, 2008, Republican presidential candidate and U.S. Senator John McCain was originally scheduled to appear on Letterman's show. But McCain cancelled his visit because he had allegedly suspended his campaign due to the ongoing financial crisis and was "rushing" back to Washington. On the The Late Show broadcast that night, Letterman seemed displeased over the cancellation on short notice and appeared even more annoyed when he received notice that McCain was actually preparing to conduct an interview with Katie Couric on CBS Evening News while the The Late Show was recording. During the Late Show broadcast, the camera cut to a live internal CBS feed of McCain being dabbed by a make-up artist while sitting on Couric's set. Letterman sarcastically remarked, "Hey John… you need a ride to the airport?" It was revealed later that McCain did not leave New York until the next morning. On October 16, 2008, Jay Leno referenced the incident by joking that Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama was supposed to appear on The Tonight Show, but blew it off for Couric.

This urged Letterman to rhetorically ask, "What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now."

198.161.2.241 (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, what on earth does this have to do with understanding David Letterman, the person. This is useless trivia. Why is it in the article and why is it being so jealously guarded by not one but two editors, one of whom is an administrator who threatened me with a Level 2 Vandalism warning within 5 seconds of my having deleted it, and falsely accused me of not having provided an edit summary? I'm agog.198.161.2.241 (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section on Letterman and John McCain

Hi all, bit of an edit war going on here: I have two issues:

1) Process.

a) The removal was a good faith if very slightly bold edit by an IP address, and with a good edit summary (including the wiki link) - "remove WP:trivia - this is recentism at its worst."

b) The edit was reverted by Huggle - which is an abuse of Huggle - see the Huggle splash screen on startup: it is for use with Vandalism.

c) The edit was restored - again with edit summary.

d) The edit was again reverted by Huggle - which is again an abuse of Huggle.

e) The IP editor then raised the issue in the article talk page.

f) I then manually undid the revert - again with an edit summary.

In conclusion - the "status quo" is with the good faith IP edit at (a) above.

2) Way ahead.

Following from the above - please do have a substantial discussion here about the removal or restoration of this material - in which discussion, btw, I have no interest whatsoever! - but imo it is appropriate to leave the material deleted until that discussion is complete and consensus reached.

Regards,

Springnuts (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion on this. I saw a removal of cited text, so I reverted. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also have no opinion on this, I was just backing up J.'s revert of cited text. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 10, 2009 @ 17:46

Regina Lasko

Have they really been together since 1986 or was that just a joke on the show? The article previously said 2001, and the Merrill Markoe article says they were together until 1988. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post says 1986: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009 Say something if you find a contradictory source. Plastikspork (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But they're just quoting what he said on the show, which, as I said, may have been a joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, say something if you find a contradictory source. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Weatherman" section

The "Weatherman" section is entertaining but completely unsupported by references. Does anyone have sources for it? rspεεr (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How Did Letterman Avoid Military Service?

If Letterman's grades were poor during the height of the Vietnam War draft, as they apparently were, how did Letterman avoid military service? Did he manage to get student deferments until the lottery plan was instituted? No bio of a male Letterman's age is even remotely complete until the biggest issue of that era (the Vietnam draft) is dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

This whole incident with Letterman's joke regarding Sara Palin's daughter has had substantial media play. That it should be included is not really questionable, the scope of the inclusion, however, is. The question then is how to incorporate this material. Arzel (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just 'a joke', but an entire Top 10 which included references to Sarah as a "slut" and Alex R. knocking up her daughter. He then said he actually was directing the 'getting knocked up' joke to her 18 year old daughter and not the 14 yr old. Mrhyak (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not even bothering to include what he said shows clear bias on the part of whoever wrote the section. 204.193.203.97 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to WP:ABF like the above IP, however personally I prefered this [5] version to the stripped down version. It doesn't deserve a huge article, but I think it needs more then teo sentances.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would WP:ABF. simply calling comments potentially alluding to the rape of a person "off color" is either biased or stupid. 204.193.203.97 (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question here. Maybe I didn't get the meaning, but at what point does the

joke suggest rape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealitosnocturnos (talk • contribs) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anytime sex is suggested of an adult with a minor, that is rape. A minor child cannot consent to sex in any way with an adult without it being considered rape and so by Dave suggesting it happened would suggest her daughter be involved in a rape.Mrhyak (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be a user that the section had too much detail. I disagree with that user on content, but there's a better way to discuss it without jumping right to name calling.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well putting some details in beside the fact that it was centered around a 14 year old, which provides no clarity would be nice. 204.193.203.97 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All that is necessary and appropraite is that he received criticism, and that he addressed it. Lengthy cut/paste quotes from either side are not appropriate for a biographic encyclopedia article. Go visit wikinews if you want to create detailed news reports of the event. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be no more than a couple sentences on it. It was an insulting joke that got media attention, but it should not have its own section. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cube Lurker that this [6] is a proper write up that should be used rather then the watered down version currently shown. Sure it was some jokes, but it also shows the character of the man and this is suppose to be (as mentioned by someone else) a biographic encyclopedia. Mrhyak (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Shows the character of the man? Do you have an agenda here? Yes, he said it, but it was probably written by his writers. The current version is a little short, but an entire section for a single joke is WP:UNDUE weight. Reywas92^Talk 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Reywas92. Any suggestion that the joke reflects "the character of the man" reeks of original research. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are calls for boycots and now a call from New York Lawmaker for his [7] firing Agintx (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone should put in that the 14 year old daughter was the one at the game. Let it read "In June 2009, Letterman was criticized for off-color jokes made about Alaska governor Sarah Palin and her 14-year-old daughter, who were visiting New York City at the time.[34][35] Letterman later clarified his remarks, nothing "these are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter."[36]" I think it makes it quite clear, The daughter was the one there, and Letterman denies that was his target. 69.151.152.148 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no verifiable evidence that the jokes were, indeed, about her 14-year-old daughter. According to Letterman, he was making a joke about the 18 year old, presumably not realizing that it was the minor who was at the ballgame. We need to be very careful about not letting POV sneak into how this is presented. Again, all we need to note in this encyclopedia article is state that he was criticized, and then also mention his response. Simple as that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the coverage that this has garnered it deserves more than what is currently presented. There is almost no context regarding why this is even an issue, and has been watered down to the point of not even being an issue. For instance NOW has also come out against Letterman regarding this incident. Also this has been just another of a long list of jokes Letterman has made against Palin, which has also been reported. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence that Letterman was not intending to make a joke regarding Bristol or Willow, the POV to which this became an incident is Palin's view, which is why this is even an issue. We simply should report what happened and let the reader make their own interpretation. So long as it is present in a NPOV there is no problem in presenting an expanded section. Furthermore, it must be noted that Palin's 14-year-old daughter was the one that was at the game. This is why Palin was so upset, and provides the context for the entire event. It has been reported in hundreds of reliable sources, so there is no worry about a NPOV issue. The current white-wash is not sufficient for what the story actually is. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The citations provide all this information; we don't need to re-hash the entire drama on his biography page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Imus conterversy has three subpoints, including the full qoutes. Would you call for editing down? Would you include more in this section if it was Obama's daughter? This should be treated just the same as IMUS joke is Agintx (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely off topic. We don't know how people would react to that. Don Imus is something else altogether: That brought him to national attention, lost him his job (for a while), and could be considered racist and much worse. Let's stick to what's relevant and not be comparing lengths. I see Letterman's event as significant, but there does not need to be a full-sized section for it or else being WP:UNDUE weight to the event. Reywas92^Talk 01:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Imus controversy received significant coverage in reliable sources; this has received some, while the bulk of it appears to originate in the fringe of the conservative blogosphere. i.e. non-notable. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to dismiss coverage of this as fringe blogs. It's on the front page of yahoo news atm, multiple AP stories, CNN.COM, Time.COM, looks like it's been carried in just about every major paper. I'm not adverse to moving this to the show page as opposed to the bio page, but let's be honest about the coverage.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Folks, fact of the matter is that this article is a biography of David Letterman, and it is not the place to report each and every daily detail of each and every daily drama he might be involved it. If you feel there should be an article about this incident, then to create that (and I'm not suggesting or endorsing such an article). But here, we just need to state the simple facts that he was criticized over a joke, and that he tried to explain what he meant. All the other drama should not be here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, there should be zero mention of it here in a bio page, and we seem to have a pile of one-issue users trying to pile on the misplaced criticism. If it fits anywhere, perhaps a mention on the main show page, along with the rest of the past memorial episodes, i.e. Joaquin Phoenix, Madonna, etc... Tarc (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, it's a recentist bias to spend so many words on the "controversy" that nobody will remember six months from now. rspεεr (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from here and fixed up the cut n paste job that an anon had done over at the Late Show article. 2nd paragraph was trimmed a bit, as we really don't need to provide a platform here for Palin's full response. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Naw, the information about Letterman's requirement to apologize to Palin makes the situation reach the level of inclusion in the main article. The controversy was getting out of hand and Letterman had to issue a formal apology. There is a New York state senator calling for him to be fired and CBS has received tons of phone calls and e-mails. Also, Wikipedia is not censored. I know that it is an embarrassing situation for Letterman that does not mean that it should be removed from the main article and hidden in a child article. Wikipedia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that moving the information from here to the article about the show is "censorship" is ridiculous and not in good faith. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course, censorship applies. There is a criticism section in many, many BLP. For example, in the Carrie Prejean article there is a gang of editors that demanded that Perez Hilton comment calling Prejean a "dumb bitch" HAS to be in the heart of the article. When other editors attempted to move the exact wording to a footnote these editors were called censors. Also, there is no mention of this significant error on the part of Letterman either in his article or the Late Show article. Wikipeidia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with "hiding", that has always been a spurious and ridiculous claim that some like to bring up in these sorts of discussions. All it is is placing the information in the proper venue, and we generally do not put controversies or criticisms into WP:BLP articles. Dave vs. Oprah, for example, was a long-running "feud" of a sort that extended beyond the scope of either of their respective TV shows, which is why it warrants a mention here. The Plain flap is entirely a product of an in-show joke gone awry. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion. It is not fact. It is a significant aspect that Letterman had to issue one insincere apology and then a sincere apology. This is a moment that stands out in his career and as such must be mentioned. Until there is a good reason to removed fully reliably sourced, relevant information I am going to place it back in the article. No reason has been given for its removal.--InaMaka (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this edit: Example of reason compromise edit.--InaMaka (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)