Talk:Jon Stewart/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Batman is he!

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why isn't he allowed to be named batman, since he said he was... as far as you know he could be batman.... And if that isn't allowed, there should be something about it.... Pat 61 (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC) WP:RS →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Bruce Wayne might disagree with you. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Spoiler alert, dude? Sheesh! MikeWazowski (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC) How do you know that he isn't Bruce Wayne? Do you know them personally? Pat 61 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I agree. The creator of Wikipedia itself was sitting right next to Jon when he said that. If Jon's statement wasn't true don't you think Jimmy would have done something? I mean if the maker of this site himself doesn't mind it should be added. And protecting this article was ridiculous, it's just a few bored people having a little fun, no one will care tomorrow. Talk about overreacting, good lord. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC) No that is vandalism. The admin did great by protecting it. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC) No it isn't vandalism, I would like you to give me a reason of how this is vandalism... Pat 61 (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC) From WP:VAND; "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I would say that is compromising Wikipedia. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 04:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Under Wikipedia's policy we should get a consensus whether or not Jon Stewart is a reliable source on Jon Stewart, and if this Jimmy guy and his dubious website can be trusted as sources. Under policy we should begin a poll, or else that is blatant bias. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I agree, this contributes to his person. It explains how he is and what kind of person he is. I don't see that as compromising... Pat 61 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, think it's time to call it a wrap on this particular joke. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources! DP76764 (Talk) 05:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Dp76764 is saying that Jon Stewart ISN'T an extraordinary source? That is defaming his character! I think he knows who he is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.232.24 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.204.67.142, 6 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

Education: College of William & Mary, 1984

Source: https://alumni.wm.edu/notable_alumni/jon_stewart.shtml

98.204.67.142 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your request is not specific enough. Where do you want this information added? The {{Infobox comedian}} template does not seem to provide a space for "education". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an award or honor

In 2000, when he was labeled a Democrat, he generally agreed but described his political affiliation as "more socialist or independent" than Democratic.[81]

Uhh.. being named a democrat or an independent is not an award or honor...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement dosen't say it is an award or an honor, so....what is your point, exactly?--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the "Honors and Awards" section. 88.217.15.137 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. Point taken. Indeed, that is the wrong section for that comment. Not sure where it does belong, though. Or even if it needs to be included at all. Thoughts, anyone?--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was a Moderate or "Left-leaning". Phearson (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It probably belongs in the Personal Life section, don't you think? It's a pretty common thing listed in people's biographies, I don't think it should be excluded. It gives insight into motivations, etc.

Agreed. The "personal life" section is more appropriate.--JayJasper (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Statement restored and placed in Personal Life section.--JayJasper (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Books Section

Someone needs to add in his 2011 53rd Annual Grammy Award for Earth (The Book).

Suggestion:

Earth (The Book): A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race is the 2010 humor book written by Jon Stewart and other writers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It is a sequel to America (The Book), and was released on September 21, 2010. On February 13th, 2011, Earth (The Book) took home a Grammy Award from the 2011 53rd Annual Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album.

The Daily Show

In regards to added content for 1/11/2011 show: Referenced. Cited. NPOV. Notable for: Personal interruption of the show for Stewart's own personal reasons. A quick search on Google for "tuscon shootings jon stewart" reveals how notable and unusual people felt his monologue was. Returns approximately as many results and references as his Harry Truman war criminal accusation. "jon stewart monologue" returns more Tuscon-related results than 9/11-related results. People are looking for this information about Stewart, not The Daily Show. Stewart rarely uses the show for somber, serious monologues. In fact, excluding apologies, he's only done it one other time and that was after the events of 9/11. Please discuss this content's relevance, appropriateness for this article, or other issues you have here before reverting or removing to avoid edit warring - as this is cited and referenced NPOV material. Please and thank you.

Criticism on the Daily Show

A recent controversy has engulfed Stewart with regard to Pakistan, and it should be reflected in his profile as it is gaining momentum day by day and the talk of town on Facebook, twitter and social networks, WIKIPEDIA EDITORS IGNORING THE SAME is simply a show of BIAS and "pro West" favoritism then objective journalism and realistic information portrayal, I am saddened already by Mr or Miss Moboshgu's deletion of the same, unless Wikipedia is a covert CIA information arm you will probably take world views on your articles a LOT more seriously then it appears you are.

"Surprisingly Jon Stewart had a fan following in Pakistan which has increasingly turned swiftly against him and even hate / venom filled post his Daily Show on May 3, and May 19, 2011. A profanity filled email widely circulated and posted on Facebook and other sites follows. From a neutral perspective, while it shows the anguish of the Pakistanis at a "friends" mistreatment, it doesn't portray fact, as a Pakistani I do believe that talk show hosts have nothing to do with foreign policy or national defense strategies, hence the email and it's content are mistargeted under the assumption that somehow Jon Stewart can "make a difference" on the US position globally. The same letter modified to PotUS or the Pentagon would perhaps make better sense, and that too from Pakistani leadership then civilians, hence people like the writer should aim at fixing the mess Pakistan is in first, before addressing foreign powers who are following their own policies that have little to do with Pakistan's interest."

Source http://www.facebook.com/notes/bilal-ahmed/worth-reading-an-open-letter-to-jon-stewart-critical-of-the-diatribe-we-hear-on-/158140304251879 http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring-Jon-Stewart-to-Pakistan/127187470626294 http://changepakistannow.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imranokazmi (talk • contribs)

Imranokazmi, we'd be happy to include any content that is notable and supported by reliable sources. Your criticisms and suggestions, however, do not contain any sources that meet wikipedia's quality standards. Anyone can make a facebook page or a blog and neither shows evidence that the issue you address is in any way notable to anyone outside of a very animated, but very small group. You will need to find mention of this issue in an notable news source (e.g. coverage in Al-Jazeera) before it can be deemed of broad enough interest to be included here.--Louiedog (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Email to Mobsohgu

Dear Moboshgu :)

The aim of the contribution is INDEED to improve the article, this should be a NEW section in the article, CONTROVERSY ON PAKISTAN, it has generated enough media interest and wikipedia NOT reflecting it is simply poor quality of information to the end user, I hope you will study it more carefully as I believe you simply assumed someone put up an email up there, that was not the case.

Imran

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Jon Stewart are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Pi Kappa Alpha

This page is protected so I can't edit it, but Jon Stewart is not a brother of Pi Kappa Alpha. I attend William and Mary, and it's widely known that Stewart dropped Pike during pledging. He was never initiated as a brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.146.104 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be "well known", but the frat's official site says otherwise. [1] - SummerPhD (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A cite to the San Francisco Chronicle that is making the rounds is bogus. The claim is Stewart was a member for 6 months and left because he did not agree with hazing. However, everywhere that claim is made uses the exact same cite to the same article in exactly the same way (the cite is written identically an does not contain a link). The actual article, available online, says nothing of the sort. It does not mention Pi Kappa Alpha at all. The frat's official website says Stewart was a member, and so should we. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

New Movie

According to his Monday show, Jon Stewart is making a movie with the author of "Then they came for me" about a man's imprisonment in Iran. Worthy for inclusion into the filmography? Also, let's assume his casting choice of Matt Damon is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.161.62 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. I've added mention of it to Stewart's "producing" section.--Louiedog (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart and Anthony Weiner

In the Jon Stewart article, it states that he was "friends with Anthony Weiner in college" inferring that they attended college together.

In the Anthony Weiner article, their relationship is described as "Weiner has been friends with Jon Stewart since the two lived in the same summer house in Dewey Beach, Delaware, in 1987.[73][14]".

Your Stewart article should add this to his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.200.74 (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article quoted by this IP user and, more specifically, the citations that are listed there. While one of the sources is The Daily Show itself (which, as we know, is not a reliable source), the other one comes from The New York Magazine, which states:

{{cquote|This is what he lives for. He's just one of those guys who like to be in it," says Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, who has been close with Weiner since the two lived in the same summer house in Dewey Beach in 1987. "It's odd that we get along," Stewart adds. "I'm pretty cynical; he really believes in this stuff. Actually, you know

Soccer Player

I have to preface this with the fact that I have already had problems with this particular editor, so I am not reverting this: In this edit he just removed Stewart's categorization as a William and Mary alumni in favor of his being a soccer player. His exact statement: "People are only supposed to be in the lowest possible categorization, so Stewart should be in the W&M men's soccer category but not the general alumni category." Stewart is not known, in any sense of the word, for being a soccer player. You can quote WP rules all you want, removing his status as having been educated at the university, in favor of one extracurricular activity unrelated to his notability makes no sense. Somebody else, please take action. Trackinfo (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so I reverted the edit and cited this thread. We'll see how it goes.--JayJasper (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm following policy. Both of you are providing opinions. I'm reverting the edit. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For those joining this late, the contested category is Category:College of William & Mary alumni, the ultimate parent category of Category:William & Mary Tribe men's soccer players. As the final category is in the category Category:William & Mary Tribe athletes which is in Category:William & Mary Tribe athletes which is in Category:College of William & Mary alumni, we only list that final category. For a similar situation, we do not list everyone in Category:Actors from Los Angeles in Category:Actors from California or Category: Actors or People from Los Angeles or ... etc. If someone is an actor from Los Angeles, they are an actor from California without anyone saying it. For a full explanation, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing_large_categories and its following links. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy, whatever it is, however it was devised by the handful of wikipedia backroom administrators, stinks. I'm talking about the real world. The harsh, blind application of policy bears no resemblance to what is appropriate in this article. Nobody knows Stewart as a soccer player, or as an athlete. He even belittles his athletic ability and small stature as part of what is his real act, comedy. In fact, I'll go further to say it is informed and literate comedy, something that bears upon his education and upbringing. On Wikipedia, as we are here to inform the public by giving accurate summaries of the subject presented. Mis-categorizing one of the most popular comedians of our day under a minor role of athletic participation AT THE EXPENSE of including his educational background serves only to MISLEAD the public, distort information. That is, or should be, contrary to wikipedia's goals. We use human editors to help make sense of facts. Without the requirement to make sense, we could just use BOTS to blindly apply policy. Trackinfo (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Trackinfo. This is a case where using WP:COMMONSENSE and ignoring all rules is warranted.--JayJasper (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Backroom administrators"? Oh brother... This is not about what he is "known" for. This is who he is. Yeah, he went to school there, ALL of the people who played on their teams CLEARLY went there. There are a few other missing categories you'll want to add, to prevent the public from believing that Stewart played soccer for William & Mary without going to school there. The categories, as laid out by the WP:Super Secret Cabal to Hide the Fact that People Who Played Soccer for William and Mary Went to School There, current hide that Stewart is:

• an actor from New York (Category:Actors from New York)
• a person from New York City (Category:People from New York City)
• a person from New York (Category:People from New York)
• an American person (Category:American people)
• an American actor (Category:American actors)
• a Jewish entertainer (Category:Jewish entertainers)
• a Television award winner (Category:Television award winners)
• 1,658,203 other parent categories we don't add to articles already included in daughter categories

"Nobody knows Stewart as a soccer player, or as an athlete." Wow. People know him as being an alum of W&M? Or being from NJ? get a grip.

Yeah, we can ignore all rules, much as we can repeatedly pound our heads with large rocks. You don't ignore the rule just because you want to and you do not go against consensus to ignore the rule. The consensus that applies here is as follows: "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch." If you wish to ignore this in the particular case here, you must establish a consensus to do so. Good luck. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

PhD, your sarcasm misses the point. Categories are designed to help people find things her on WP. If you look at the category main category of College of William & Mary alumni, you are enforcing placing this name two layers deep. That is hiding information. Try reality for a change. Between these two editors, there are about 100,000 edits. You're well versed in the rules of WP, probably well experienced in the ways these were drawn up. Seriously, how many editors were even involved in the discussion, vs how many editors--even just registered editors--are there on en WP? What percentage of registered editors have been part of ANY policy discussion? Or compare that number to the number of readers of WP, or just the number of readers of the Jon Stewart article. Before you stand on those hard and fast rules, realize those rules were drawn up by an extreme minority. Thank you Jaspar for pointing out the Common Sense guideline. That should apply here.

To drift off to a previous argument I have had with Jrcla2, that is why lists are also created: to help people find things. They are also needed to make up for inappropriate things that occur with categories because of these blind rules you quote that make stupid things happen. On the list of College of William & Mary alumni, does Stewart appear under Soccer Players? No, he's under Television. Because that is what he is known for. Other people appear on that same list multiple times, because they are known for multiple things. I probably shouldn't have pointed out that article because you'll probably take it to AfD as LISTCRUFT too. Trackinfo (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "extreme minority" is a consensus, and one that is much larger than the few seeking to ignore it here. Here in reality, there is a dispute here: follow the guideline or ignore it. In the reality I am trying, we follow guidelines unless there is a consensus to ignore it. I don't see it.

As for your assumption that I will take the unusually well sourced and well organized List of College of William & Mary alumni, I have nothing for you.

(As for the two editors with "about 100,000 edits" between them, Jrcla2 and I have about 100,000 between us as well. I see no value to this factoid, but there it is.) - SummerPhD (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To lighten the mood: Watch The U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Abandon A Possibly-Concussed Jon Stewart. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, it's hilarious. I found it a bit ironic that that aired just as this discussion was unfolding. Thanks for lightening the mood by posting that.--JayJasper (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I understand the logic behind the list-only-the-final-category policy and think it's a very good rule-of-thumb. However, Wikipedia recognizes that there are cases where applying policy to the letter can ran counter to the purpose it was intended to serve. (Hence, the guidelines for using common sense and editorial discretion). I feel that this is one of those cases. As Trackinfo pointed out, a reader who searches Category:College of William & Mary alumni to confirm that Stewart is indeed an alumni will not find him listed and will not likely think to look under the "soccer players" category. And, as Trackinfo also pointed out, the purpose of categories is to assist the reader in finding the information he or she is looking for. So I reiterate that ignoring the rules is in order here. That being said,in response to SummerPhD: it is well understood that consensus is needed to do so. Note that WP:BRD is being observed: I initially reverted Jrcla2's edit in response to Trackinfo's comments, citing the rationale given here, and was reverted. So now there is discussion, not edit warring. It is hoped that the discussion will result in a reasonable consensus of some kind.--JayJasper (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm hard pressed to imagine someone going to Category:College of William & Mary alumni specifically looking for Jon Stewart. I can imagine them going to Jon Stewart or College of William and Mary. The first ends their search at Jon_Stewart#Early_life (among other mentions); the second, at College_of_William_and_Mary#Alumni. Missing the various entries in Jon Stewart and the photo at College_of_William_and_Mary#Alumni, our searcher might look at the categories on Jon Stewart, finding W&M again. Somehow, they miss that and end up at List of College of William & Mary alumni, where they again find him.

The only case I can see for your argument involves someone using Category:College of William & Mary alumni to pull up a list of notable W&M alumni and skipping the links to both List of College of William & Mary alumni and Category:William & Mary Tribe athletes. Said person would also likely be skipping over the link to Category:William & Mary Law School alumni. In addition to missing Stewart, this person would also miss Michele Bachmann, Richard Berman, Eric Cantor, Ryan McDougle and John C. Wright. These are the names I immediately recognize from the Law School, none of them listed at Category:College of William & Mary alumni, none of them famous as lawyers. Under Category:William & Mary Tribe athletes under baseball we have H. Lester Hooker (notable as a basketball coach) and Joe J. Plumeri (notable as a CEO). Under basketball, we have Jim Hickey (notable for American football, no one else's football) and Curtis Pride (notable for baseball). Under football, we have Keith Fimian (notable as a politician), J. D. Gibbs (a race car driver), Brian Partlow (notable for "arena football" which, come on, is no one's real football), Joe J. Plumeri (a CEO) and Jeffrey Tinnell (a film producer). Under men's soccer, we have Pinball Clemons (notable for American football in Canada (where they make Foster's - "Australian for beer").

Long story short (way too late), I cannot begin to imagine this concern being in any meaningful way limited to Stewart. Pick any other large school and we'll certainly have the same situation. Yeah, you can hash it out here and leave the others hanging out in the wind. Yeah, when others who are familiar with how we handle this everywhere else comes along and removes the category you fought for and won, you can revert them and point them to the discussion here -- until the end of recorded time or you miss it, whichever comes first. Or, you can start a discussion on the larger issue and correct what you see as a problematic guideline created by that mysterious, backroom, extreme minority. Take your pick. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points all, I must admit you've made your case. Unless someone else can offer an effective counter-argument to any of Summer's points, I have to say game, set, & match:SummerPhD. Thanks for the thoughtful & reasoned discourse.--JayJasper (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think Summer PhD made my points quite well. If someone were to go to Category:College of William & Mary alumni to look for the illustrious alumni at that institution, look at the long list of names the average user would have MISSED seeing. Therefore, when we bury information into sub-categories on WP, we are making it harder, thus less likely that the information will be found or useful. So you can talk all about your wikipedia format . . . the format does not work. It requires the average reader to understand the wikipedia file hierarchy and a nose to know where to look. We are fortunate that the article and a sub-article on alumni DO convey the information. But this category system FAILS to help. Trackinfo (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Trackinfo, if you are right and you fight about it here and eventually persuade enough people, you'll eventually (and probably temporarily) change it here. In terms of the whole system that you disagree with, it will continue as it is. Or, you can take this upstream and try to change the system as a whole. Take your pick. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why has this page been locked?

Why has this page been locked?67.169.25.132 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only locked to IP editors and unconfirmed users, due to vandalism and edit warring by IP editors. Create an account, make some other edits and wait for autoconfirmation if you want to edit it. Yworo (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Early Life

In the last paragraph in early life the article mentions Stewarts' friendship with "future" congressman Anthony Weiner. Shouldn't that be disgraced or at least ex-congressman, or is the author being prescient ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.147.70 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Calling him disgraced would violate WP:NPOV, and calling him ex-Congressman would be grammatically incorrect because when they first met, Weiner had yet to be a Congressman. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with father

This section says " Stewart no longer has any contact with his father.[6]" but reference 6 at http://www.momentmag.com/meet-jonathan-stuart-leibowitz-aka-jon-stewart/2/ says "Leibowitz ...and Stewart are estranged." And reference 13 at http://www.tcnjsignal.net/2009/09/15/no-joke-stewart%E2%80%99s-dad-taught-at-college/ says "The former professor still keeps in contact with Stewart despite his son’s busy schedule."

In the "Early Work" section, "[Stewart]has implied that the name change was actually due to a strained relationship with his father, with whom Stewart no longer has any contact.[18]. The only reference to Stewart's father in [18] at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/26/broadcasting.oscars2006 is "His father has still never seen Stewart perform live. However, like much of Stewart's biography, such stories are gleaned from his own comedy act. Stewart is, in fact, highly private and has admitted he exaggerates his past for his shows. 'I made up shit for the show about my family,' he once confessed."

The conclusion that Stewart has no contact with his father is unjustified and should be removed. Drienstra (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If they are estranged, then they would not have any contact because that is what estranged means. And although Stewart has admitted to "[making] up shit...about [his] family", he didn't specify what shit. So it is not for us to say that what he said about his father is that shit. We could possibly add that Mr. Leibowitz claims to maintain contact with Stewart. MrBlondNYC (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2012

To include his salary as cited here, "Newsweek's Power 50: The List". Newsweek., on the sidebar. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/11/01/power-list.html 74.136.193.230 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The sidebar is a standard template, {{Infobox comedian}}, which does not have a field for salary. His salary is discussed in the text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez

Not a single word?... Sanchez was fired from CNN, his career destroyed because of the incident involving Jon Stewart and yet not a single word about this on Wikipedia article on Jon Stewart? People who didn't know about this before sure don't need to know it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diefromevileye (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the "incident involving Jon Stewart" revolved around things Sanchez said about Stewart, CNN, his bosses, theories that Jews run everything, Barack Obama, etc. If you have reliable sources that discuss Sanchez's "situation" as it relates to Stewart, feel free to make concrete suggestions. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, what wikipedia reports about Stewart on the incident, he was supportive of Sanchez, calling the firing "absolute insanity," and that he was not "personally hurt." This certainly doesn't sound like anything controversial on Stewart's part, or anything sufficiently notable to be included in his article without a lot more explanation about Sanchez to set up the minor role Stewart played in it. Essentially the only part Stewart played was that his name was invoked in the remarks Sanchez himself used in order to generate the controversy that "destroyed" his own career. Trackinfo (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 October 2012

"On October 6, 2012, he will debate political commentator Bill O'Reilly in The Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium." this event is over and the sentence should be in past tense Bartelmess (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done DP76764 (Talk) 01:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Christopher Edward Jeffers award

The award Ceremoy happened in private. Although Jon Stewart did not attend, his Trophy remains in toronto canada waiting for pick up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.36.110 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

Is he a descendant of Jacob Frank? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.120.156 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

On the January 23, 2014 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, he disclosed that he was afflicted with a rare condition in which he contained three swim bladders, unlike a shark. This was Stewart's first acknowledgment of the disease. Leestancill (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I don't watch these episodes so I can't verify if it's correct or not. Someone else will have to handle this. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Daily Show is not a reliable source, even about facts concerning Stewart himself, because much of what he says on the show is a joke. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

My request is to add additional information to John Stewart's early life section informing users that he is a remarkable swimmer because of the fact that he was born with three swim bladders as he confirmed on 7/23/2014 during the taping of his show. Elftech (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Daily Show is not a reliable source, even about facts concerning Stewart himself, because much of what he says on the show is a joke. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The swim bladder remark last night was clearly a joke and Stewart ended it by suggesting that his Wikipedia entry was about to change, which likely accounts for all the edit attempts on this topic.--agr (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

recently learned interesting fact about him no yet on page Tacoman12344 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New Article on Subject

There is a new article on Digg.com referring to Jon Stewart's directional debut of the movie Rosewater that would be beneficial to this article. It can be found at http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/a-comedian-in-tehran/. It seems to be a very important part of Stewart's life, especially in today's scheme of current events. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I added a couple of sentences about the movie's premier to Jon Stewart#Directing citing the article you mention.--agr (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for controversy section

There needs to be a section on the anti-Christian and especially anti-Catholic sentiment of his show and him having on his show guests who have made heavy anti-Catholic statements before they have come on his show and during their visit on his show, thanks. http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/28/comedy-centrals-anti-catholic-bigotry/ Chinablue888 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sections like that are problematic as they must abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You'll need much better sourcing than that. DP76764 (Talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough , here is a new link. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/delta-pulls-daily-show-ads-over-vagina-manger-skit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinablue888 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that this subject matter has received enough coverage and analysis to warrant mention in Wikipedia, but if it belongs anywhere it would go in the article The Daily Show not in the biography of Jon Stewart. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No controversy or criticism section allowed. There is always a one sided source dispute when the politics are "right". The fact that a political comedian doesn't have a controversy/criticism section either means Stewart's not trying very hard or that the article is biased. For example, here is an I/P controversy: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4591891,00.html209.161.178.182 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous IP, but there is a reason far simpler than a massive pro-Stewart conspiracy. "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." - Wikipedia:Criticism If you have material from reliable sources that you feel should be in the article, this would be a great time to discuss it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That's okay,I just as soon not play SJWpedia.209.161.178.182 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrestling

Just thinking, with regards to this edit, we could properly source it. It is known that Stewart is a wrestling fan, and we could do perhaps a paragraph about it and the Rollins feud in the personal life section? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit of a glaring omission at present. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I Think Stewart Was Joking About Coming Back as Correspondent

Was he joking about that? I think so. I don't it should be listed as a fact that he might want to come back in that capacity. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal life's "Intricate detail" tag

I think I've addressed the major issues there, which include a fannish rundown of Stewart's favorite teams and the name of the family cat. If this trivia doesn't return, are we at a point where we can remove the tag? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Influences in infobox

See Template talk:Infobox comedian#Influences.

After the anon IP was reverted on June 2, WP:BRD protocol is that he goes to the talk page to discuss the issue, and not edit-war.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wyatt Cenac incident

Wasn't sure how much we should include, but I added a short blurb. Perhaps this would be more apropos in a criticism section? Seems like it might affect his legacy? --The lorax (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's relevant. Maybe should be on TDS page as well (I haven't checked it to see if there is or not yet). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Most trusted news source

Is this notable and reliable http://publicreligion.org/2015/07/one-in-every-ten-young-adults-calls-stewart-colbert-most-trusted-news-source/#.VbzhGdCwWNO
Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Stewart's meetings with the president

On August 3, User:Impartial Scholar added, and then re-added, information about two "secret" meetings between Stewart and President Obama. The edit included improperly cited but WP:RS references from Politico and the NYT. The edit also included two sentences' worth of negative commentary from a POV piece in the Baltimore Sun. [2] I rewrote the item to cite the references properly, and to limit our reporting to the factual information without the POV. [3] User:SemDem added Stewart's response to the story.[4] An IP then restored Imperial Scholar's original, improperly formatted, inaccurate (because the meetings were not "secret", just unreported), POV post.[5] That is the version which is currently in the article.

I believe the IP's revert should be reverted, and the properly cited, non-POV version should be restored. However, since I was a principal author of that version, I am bringing the suggestion here for discussion, per WP:BRD. --MelanieN (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I edited the paragraph to restore and amplify Stewarts response, but I left in some the critical POV material as indicative of the criticism.--agr (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the references, but I still question whether we need to include the insults tossed out on a Fox News program by a media reporter, and reported by sites like Mediaite and Deadline.com. If we are going to report every criticism of Stewart made on Fox News, we will need another whole article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wit

@Crispy Dream Milk: I'm confused as to how "wit" is a comedy genre like satire, observational comedy, insult comedy, etc. "Wit" is a personality characteristic — one can be a witty satirist, a witty observational comic or a witty insult comic. How is "wit", then, a comedy genre? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that Crispy Dream Milk "has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Atomic Meltdown and has been blocked indefinitely." --Tenebrae (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New section "In professional wrestling"?

With Stewart's seemingly growing involvement in professional wrestling, from an appearance on the main show, in addition to hosting SummerSlam and playing a pivotal role in one of the matches, and his appearances on other WWE programming, should a separate section be added for Stewart's works in professional wrestling? Or should this be held off until he does something of note?

Vilhjalmsson (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it should eventually have its own section, not sure when though; either way, I've added more details about his involvement onto the single paragraph in the article.

MisterMorton (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the added material has a citation; it's basically just your own description. I have tagged it with "citation needed"; if it doesn't get cited within a few days I will remove it. Sorry but that's how Wikipedia works; we do need a source for what is said here, especially in an article about a living person. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, sources have been added - that was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a SummerSlam article, and we don't give overly detailed, blow-by-blow, WP:INDISCRIMINATE plot descriptions of every gig anybody ever hosts. Billy Crystal hosted the Academy Awards something like nine times, and we don't have 150-word plot description for each gig. The pertinent, encyclopedic fact is that he hosted this show, and where and when it was held. That he mock-hit someone with a chair as part of the act is no way of encyclopedic significance. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen a few WWE-related pages recently and they are a hot mess of "in-universe" jargon and detail. I agree we shouldn't let that seep in here. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that if Jon Stewart did become a part of the "in-universe," that jargon and detail would be necessary, considering Stewart would now be a character portrayed on WWE television. But it seems like it isn't going to happen for now, so I'll leave this aside for a bit. Vilhjalmsson (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's far too early to suggest a separate section for wrestling, someone like Cindy Lauper was far more influential in WWE doesn't even have such a section. Wrestling articles have a tendency to be a mess because of crufty details, Stewart has appeared on WWE TV twice and I think the current version of this article gives that WP:DUE weight.LM2000 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracies in the writers' strike section

The line: "Other former writers of The Daily Show such as David Feldman have also indicated that Stewart was anti-union at the time and punished his writers for their decision to unionize." seems to base this allegation solely on the claims of just David Feldman, who, on IMDB is only listed as having worked on only one episode of the daily show, in an uncredited writing role http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0271017/ It's a fairly misleading statement, and the source link for it has some fairly inflamatory statements made by Feldman, at one point he compares him to Satan before scaling back a little. --Imacrazysloth (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect word usage

The following sentence should be edited:

In 1996 Stewart hosted the short-lived talk show entitled, "Where's Elvis This Week?"

Talk shows and books are titled, to give them names. Humans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The talk show is not entitled unless it has a right to something.

I'm new here and don't know how to make changes, but someone should change that. Thank you.

HypatiaGrace (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree and I changed the wording. (BTW I think there is way too much detail about that show, but that's another thought for another day.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How can you agree to that?? That's just plain silly (to put it nicely). Anything that has a title is (or has been) entitled. Learn to use a dictionary -- both of you! —Musdan77 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth name in the lede

Recently several people have removed "(born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz)" from the lede sentence, and it has been restored several times - most recently by me. My reasoning: When someone is best known by a stage name or revised name, it is usual here to include the birth name parenthetically in the lede sentence; see Judy Garland, Marilyn Monroe, Rock Hudson, etc. And it's not as if Stuart is ashamed of his birth name or tries to hide it; in fact he occasionally refers to it in his routines. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Subject

Currently the article lists these as the subject he covers: Mass media/news media/media criticism, American politics, Jewish culture, current events, religion, pop culture, race relations, racism, human sexuality. The list seems to be a bit excessive and unnecessary. His main focus tends to be politics, media, and current events. The rest of the topics usually fall within the context of those, therefore I don't see it as accurate or necessary to have the rest included. Any thoughts? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree. The mass media/news media and criticisms deal with the media like a Fox News, MSNBC or CNN. The subjects you deleted are stuff that Stewart had talked about during his stint on The Daily Show and don't really seem to be related with media categories. 107.77.228.214 (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review?

Sock puppet of Atomic Meltdown
Did some research on good articles and I believe that this page meets the requirements to be listed as good article. It could just be me or they might be more to this. Geek Pow (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Feud with Donald Trump

My suggestion to add material about Stewart's feud with Trump is continuously reversed in a disturbing trend to repress facts, perhaps because they are unpleasant to Trump. The feud is as relevant as any of the other episodes documented in this bio, it is clearly noteworthy, and the sources are secondary and reliable. I ask for support against edit warring and undo-ing without clear reason by Xtremeroller. Keizers (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jon Stewart. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511184221/http://www.tcnjsignal.net/2009/09/15/no-joke-stewart%E2%80%99s-dad-taught-at-college/ to http://www.tcnjsignal.net/2009/09/15/no-joke-stewart%E2%80%99s-dad-taught-at-college/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060236/http://www.pikes.org/media/documents/recruitmentresources/brochure/prominent.html to http://www.pikes.org/media/documents/recruitmentresources/brochure/prominent.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315003518/http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/stewartcramer_confrontation_dr.php to http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/stewartcramer_confrontation_dr.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102203818/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2387 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2387
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130807090038/http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2001/8/15/1/an-hour-with-the-host-of-the-daily-show-jon-stewart to http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2001/8/15/1/an-hour-with-the-host-of-the-daily-show-jon-stewart
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081017200429/http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=3650 to http://web.wm.edu/news/archive/index.php?id=3650

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jon Stewart. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101025111914/http://www.bloomberg.com/video/63932062/ to https://www.bloomberg.com/video/63932062/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304171657/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20107783,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20107783,00.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Name:

Is his name legally "Jon Stewart", or is it just a stage name, and his legal name remains "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz"? I'd like some clarification, since the text isn't entirely clear on this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The article currently says "He had his surname legally changed to Stewart in 2001" in the "Early life" section although the source appears dead (plenty of other sources available on Google though, e.g. [6]). Regards SoWhy 16:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)