Talk:Stephen Colbert

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Stephen Colbert.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.

Article policies
Talk page archives:
1 2 3 4 5

Bloink1 solid.png
This article was nominated for deletion on August 30, 2013.
The result of the discussion was Keep.


It could be better. With something to expose the satire a little more explicitly. If you have to tell people its funny it probably isn't.

And WTF at the comment below this one 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

delete this page[edit]

this page is not funy and is porably oe of the most unfuny things i have ever seen

this is one of the funniest websites ever but, this colbert page is completely idiotic all it is bashing the colbert report what this page needs is some completely randomly made up stuff making it funny this is all factual stuff making it unfunny and kind of uncomfortable to read

Ahem.....this IP is not funy is porably oe of the most unfuny things i have ever seen
ips is one of the funniest contributers ever but, this talk page message is completely idiotic all it is bashing :somebody bashing colbert report what this talk page coment needs is some coherint sentince structure and speeling checked makig it :reedable this is all sutpid idiot saying stuped things making it not reedable -rAHP

Aside from the fact that this page is horribly written, I don't think it follows the spirit of this site. The point is satire, not blind slandering of an individual. Hatred does not equal humor.

You don't get it. Sir SysRq (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Sys, I thought you weren't going to talk to the trolls on here any more. It has been almost a year. Welcome back buddy. Stephen has missed you. No one else sticks up for him the way his big buddy SysRq does. Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gifTalking Woody Stalking Woody 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my bitchy essay didn't work then so I'm whoring it again in hopes that..I dunno. I'm just a bitch. Sir SysRq (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this thing fucking sucks. i like colbert, but if it was somehow funny the colbert-bashing could actually be good. someone here i think talked about bashing the on-screen character of colbert, not the real-life person. that would be pretty funny playing on treating his show as a real pundit show or something like that. this is just a long-ass rant by one person.


Like it's current form. Keep it. -RAHB 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Love Note[edit]

Someone removed the only funny sentence in the entire article:

"The only thing yet discovered that is less funny than Colbert is this article. Seriously."

Because reading a 10 page rant from some idiot who thinks hes funny and isn' the same as Colbert! Whoever wrote this article and feels so proud of himself needs to get a frigging sense of humor. You're supposed to make fun of yourself, the readers, and the subject...this guy failed in all aspects. If uncyclopedia continues on this trend of sucking, eventually it will collapse and form a black hole. Probably about 15 minutes until then. – Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

From the article: Seriously, I'm eagerly awaiting your slack-jawed demonstration of retaliatory idiocy.
So, thank you for that. Oh, and yeah this too:
Writer of the Year Award  Writer of the Year 2007    
--THINKER 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't use a fancy template to hide the truth! -- Kippy the Elf Candycane2.png Talk Candycane2.png Works Candycane2.png Candycane2.png Candycane2.png Candycane2.png 00:21, Feb. 10, 2008
Pancakes: wuv or no wuv? --THINKER 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wuv pancakes, but haet hat unfunny arrogant articles. -- Kippy the Elf Candycane2.png Talk Candycane2.png Works Candycane2.png Candycane2.png Candycane2.png Candycane2.png 23:02, Feb. 11, 2008


Definitely have some words in there, but perhaps it should be changed in such a fashion as to be actually funny? I've read maybe 300 uncyclopedia articles and found about 10 good jokes from all of them. Like a drop of honey in a sewage processing reservoir. This article isn't even worth reading....step it up, somehow. There is more than enough source material to string together something half amusing, the previous editor failed miserably. – Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Fuckyeah2.gif CERTIFIED HILARIO Fuckyeah2.gif
--THINKER 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like someone is grumpy-wumpmy. Need some {{sofixit}}, Mr. IP? *a-hem*
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:28, Jan 29

Strangers With Candy is a horrible show[edit]

There is nothing funny about Strangers With Candy. It was the worst show ever on Comedy Central and then they went and made a shit movie based on it. If the writer of this article actually believes Strangers With Candy is better than the Daily Show or the Colbert Report than I have to believe the author also likes to get violated by livestock because that is what I equate watching Strangers With Candy to. I love arrogant people that think "Wow I liked a show but no one else did and it got canceled so I must be smart and everyone else stupid." You're probably a Sarah Silverman Show fan too aren't you?

Lawl. --THINKER 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, another unfunny douche IP that doesn't get it. I love this article because it attracts people like this. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 20:43 Apr 25

Hmmm i think its rather funny that you have "Stephen Colbert" listed under the God page and here you are trashing all of his fans.... P.S i didnt just look up Colbert because The Report. i looked it up because of his other shows too. so dont assume that you are the only person on the freakin universe to have watched Strangers with Candy and Exit57 (also his appearance in "the Love Guru". You think your cool by putting the rest of we the Colbert fans down, because you think you are the all mighty fan who has watched everything he has ever done. Well your not, and even if you were that is kind of looser-ish and stalker-ish in my opinion. And why cant people like Colbert just for the Report? it is on twice a day, and on a very popular channel (comedy centeral) using commen sense, you should be able to tell that is where he as been getting most of his publicity from. Strangers with Candy is never on and besides it is a horrible show, with a horrible plot line, and the main character is a fugly bitch. So uh yea shut the fuck up.

Man, i've missed RC trolling and finding gems like the above moron. Almost funnier than the article itself. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us.png CUN20:15, 20 Dec

Are you kidding me!?[edit]

This whole thing is stupid. I'm fine with making fun of it but you can only go so far man. Colbert, the leader of Colbertica, is one of the best things to ever hit comedy. So, why the hell do y'all think you can trash him like this. That's all I'm saying man! That's all I'm saying!

...You, sir, don't seem to understand our little site here. First of all, we like being funny and clever. Kissing up to Stephen Colbert and praising him for his show isn't really funny anymore. We'd much rather be original about it. Secondly, we don't care who we offend. And as far as people we might care about offending, the entire Colbert Nation is pretty low on the list. Plus, I hardly consider the man to be "one of the best things to ever hit comedy." Not by a long shot. I like him, I like his show, I liked him in Harvey Birdman, but he hasn't reached legendary status yet.
Bottom line: We don't care what you think. If you care what you think, you're free to vandalize the article as you see fit, get yourself put on Ban Patrol, and blocked by some admin who will take you for just another Colbert fanboy. (Nice version: {{sofixit}}) ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 01:47 May 7

its not about praising nor is it about defiling its about whats funny and neither is funny unless its stupidly insane praise like chuck norris thats some funny stuff but only cause its ridiculous and absurd randomly bashing someone from your own personal opinion of them isnt funny its just discrimination on its bare knuckles and praising someone on here for personal reasons is just as dumb because that again is personal opinions take me for instance i like the band nickleback i but if there were a thing on her about them wich im sure after reading this some overly opinionated persons going to make one if there isnt i wouldnt put my opinion id put something like nickleback was recently kicked out of gotham last week for drunkenly challenging batman to a gentleman's duel and losing (granted thats kind of stupid but its not really insulting anyone cause its insane

Wow. That may be the longest run-on sentence I've ever read on this site. They're starting up punctuation lessons at the community college on Thursdays if you were free those nights. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 13:28 May 11
This IP's opinion is officially invalidated, by their stating of the words "unless its stupidly insane praise like chuck norris thats some funny stuff". Despite the fact that the rest of their message is largely incoherent, this is the point of it that makes the rest of it not even matter. Please go to the back of the line, in order to get a real comedic opinion. It's a pretty long one too, you might want to bring a tent. -Some Admin Or Something

haha yeah punctuation and grammar aren't my strong suit but it really doesn't matter all i'm saying is this page isn't even funny its just ... stupid isn't there a beginners guide to this?

Sure it matters. The fact that you find Chuck Norris jokes to be "some funny stuff" invalidates your opinion. This article is funny. Chuck Norris is not. You are not. Thank you for playing. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 12:56 May 29

Haha, ok, so because I find some Chuck Norris jokes funny, it makes my input into this discussion invalidated?[1] Does it make what I said any different?[2] This article does have its funny points,[3] but it's still just a random hate page.[4] <<<There, see, it's all grammarized for ya =P[5]

  1. Yes, it does. In fact, it makes any statement you make unreliable and invalid.
  2. Yes. Your idea of humor does not match ours. Therefore, you can tell it to HTBFANJS.
  3. I know.
  4. There's nothing random about it. It's clever, original, and it's just a big joke. No one here "hates" Stephen Colbert. If anything, Colbert fans should like this article because it's satire. Colbert's show is satire. Therefore, you should like this article. Why you are being selective about which satire you are offended by is beyond me.
  5. My corrections are in red. Thanks for playing.

~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 20:56 May 29

No need to be cruel, SysRq. The joke of the article isn't immediately apparent. It took me a while to get it myself. Adressing the random user who is offended by this article: the article is parodying itself by accusing Colbert of replacing comedy with bias, but doing the exact same thing itself. See the irony? It's an odd joke, and it's not immediately apparent, but it works rather magnificently. Also, try reading Thinker's previous posts on the subject, he's explained this about five dozen times, and reading them could prevent these repetive arguments from popping up every five seconds. --THE 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing me in a helpful manner, I think I get it now, but I wasn't offended by this page the title of this talk is how to improve, so I was merely stating an idea as to how to improve it, but this guy insults me based on an improvement suggestion seems to me someone needs to lay off the testosterone pills and start drinking decaf. (if your really that bothered by grammar have fun correcting any error i have made [this will be my last input in this particular discussion]

  • Oh, I get it. I was just coming on here to talk about how un-funny this article was, though I get it now. But jeez, can SysRq be anymore of an asshole?

What he was typing sort of constitutes as cyber bullying, no? against the rules in the Beginners guild?

Not Cool Or funny. Went way beyond Funny into sadistic and awful.[edit]

I think that this page should be deleted. If you are going to bash a fellow comedian, you should do it in a funny manner. I hate how the top thing in this article says that Stephen Colbert is a traitor. That's not funny. This page makes me want to stop visiting Uncyclopedia. My friends agree. It literally makes me feel a little sick. Comrade John 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I present to you... The Door! Don't let it hit you on the way out.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 01:47 May 14, 2008
Stop visiting then. We don't care. The article is hilarious. It's just that Colbert fanboys don't understand that this is satire, (even though Colbert's show is satire, so it's kind of ironic that people that watch the show don't get the joke) which in my opinion makes this article that much funnier. But if you don't understand satire, we won't miss you. This article is much better than the last one that was here, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.
Just out of would you have written it? ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 01:57 May 14
I would at least had a couple of photoshoped pictures, extended his cartoon series which he sometimes played, and not have called him a traitor.  :'( I'm not all that good at this whole writing scene, so I don't really know. It doesn't seem like satire to me, and I Used to watch the Colbert Report religiously until I had to start doing school work or fail.
This would be a tough article to rewrite, because we're parodying a parody-er. Also, keep coming to uncyc, but take us with a grain of salt.   Le Cejak <5:02, 29 May 2008>
I've explained this article several times. Readers need to step up; the material does not need to step down. --THINKER 05:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is win[edit]

As a piece of satire this article is fairly successful. I get the article and I'm not upset because it is not "stupidly insane praise." The article is actually original and not just the usual Colbert fanboy dribble that can be found anywhere else on the internet. I can see how pissing off these people as they are shocked to see something negative about Colbert and crying as if you are insulting their penis size. However, the actual article is dry and just not funny. It has a good direction, but its currents state is pretty much tl;dr. It would be difficult rewrite, as has been mentioned, but I think it can be done without losing the originality or direction. -- 05:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Would this article not be more ingenious if it were to Slander Colbert's character? I'm not much of a Colbert fan, but anyone that doesn't hardcore hate him is on the outside of this joke. I really appreciated the parody of The Daily Show more. 06:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From now on[edit]

I refuse to edit this page further. If any IPs/trolls plan on leaving comments here in the future, just read this before you do. I hope I've summarized things sufficiently. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN WotM RotM AotM VFH SK PEEING HP BFF @ 22:14 May 29

Funny Picture[edit]

I uploaded a picture you could possibly find use of Colbert's dream of "traveling the country on a motorized trampoline."

Steven on trampoline.

Illidan92 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Improve this article[edit]

Needs more ridiculously biased comparisons between Stephen Colbert and anything else which can be slandered. Mega bonus points if you use two completely opposing stances as negative comparisons. -- 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Run for presidency[edit]

I think someone should mention his brief candidacy for President of the US in 2008 (he only campaigned in South Carolina) but since I don't know much about it, it would be pretty hard to make it funny... – Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdly dood (talk • contribs)

Lying To Congress[edit]

J!E!T!S! JETS! JETS! JETS! BIG COCK!!!IN YO MOUTH!!! – Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

This article doesn't go far enough![edit]

I appreciate your efforts to warn us about the dangerous lack of comedy found in Stephen Colbert’s work But the whole article puts him in far to flattering and positive a light. For example: you mention that Stephen Colbert is not funny, but what about how he uses his armies of super fans and his show to actively destroy other actually funny things. He regularly displays clips of good comedy shows (such as Glen Beck’s show on Fox) and then drains them of their humor like some sort of comedy vampire, leaving behind only pain and suffering. But this issue is only hinted at in the article. More people should be made aware of Stephen Colbert's conspiracy to destroy all comedy, and until the article does so it is falling far short of the factual standards expected by this website.

Your Sincerely, Concerned Reader Number 80,325

No, that would just make it worse. The article is already an eyesore (nobody likes reading a rant), and adding more hate to it would just murder the article. Is that what you want to be, "Concerned Reader # 80,325?" A page murderer?! --Pelargonium 02:04, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
Whoah, it's all so clear now. —Paizuri MUN (Talk Contribs Poll!) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

where's the funny[edit]

This article isn't funny its just whiny

This whole article just kind of made me mad. It was narcissistic and annoying. What a douche.

Whoah, it's all so clear now. —Paizuri MUN (Talk Contribs Poll!) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing funny about this article, it's just a bunch of anger...[edit]

calling things "bullshit" and "morons" isn't funny.

This may apply to you. Woody On Fire! Wood burning.gifTalking Woody Stalking Woody 21:56, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


The article seems kind of well... bitter. Seriously, it goes from KIND OF funny to just flat out mean, and I'm not just talking about bitching and moaning about how Colbert isn't funny to all of 8 people who agree with this article (didn't actually count, but it's close enough). I'm talking about the whole "of course you haven't heard of so-and-so you miserable, pathetic, motherfucking inbred jackass from HELL!!!!!!" (yes this an exaggeration). So yeah. The article isn't funny. And i just realized i sound like an amazon book reveiwer. reviewing an Ann Coulter book. Great. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Poopetmaster (talk • contribs)

I agree with you on that it's too bitter and it kinda ruins the article, but hey. It's an open wiki, so feel free to make it better if you can. —Paizuri MUN Talkpage My Contributions 02:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Article[edit]

I was prepared to come in here and write a four page essay on how wrong this article was, but luckily I read the comments first. One of the cleverest articles on this site, I swear. Don't change a thing. After all, The Colbert Report does a job of fooling many republicans. Why shouldn't this article do the same to easily upset Colbert fans? 00:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea[edit]

if you come on the comments bitching an moaning about how shitty the article is, here's an idea.... REWRITE THE ARTICLE SO THAT IT'S FUNNY. 1. click the edit button, see it? it's a little to the left of the discussion buttog. 2. Write something funnier than what's already there.

On the other hand, if you delete what's there and don't write something funny, be prepared for the wrath of Deadpool. He will kill you for not being funny. Guess what guys im a total faggot this article sucks because the guy who wrote it just wants to get his opinion out,but wait it sucks and no one cares. I like colbert and hes richer than the guy who wrote this article so dude who wrote this article about colbert go kill yourself!

How dare he?[edit]

Yes, Stephen's style has changed over the years; and I agree that it is utterly unconscionable that he didn't check with us first.

Someone edit[edit]

This article sucks. It's just a bunch of bitching and moaning about someone's opinions. No humor involved at all.

No Ambiguously Gay Duo?[edit]

No Harvey Birdman? For shame.

His real name is Mr. McMoneyWhore.


If this article is intended to be an exercise in offending people for the sake of offending people with no serious intent at criticizing Colbert, I'm okay with that -- in fact, I could see it as being kind of brilliant, even as a Colbert fan. But if the goal is to sincerely change people's minds about Colbert and The Colbert Report, I take issue with it. As other people have mentioned, it's more mean-spirited than funny, at least when taken at face value.

Before someone tries to explain to me the definition of satire, let me say that I already get that part. But what exactly is this article satirizing? Satire is usually accompanied with some kind of goal, and I'm unclear as to what that goal is. Who is the butt of the joke? Is it Colbert himself? People who hate/love Colbert? The internet "cult of Colbert"? The reader of the article?

Yeah, I get it, but...[edit]

It's outdated. There are no more Bush jokes and the Writers' strike is years old. That kind of makes the satirical whining decidedly less satirical and more whiny, like an old blog post instead of a humorous article.