Talk:Jon Stewart

Why do we have to mention Half Baked in his introductory sentence?

I remembered he had only a very small part in that movie. A really small part. In fact, even Wikipedia's article about Half Baked said he only had a "cameo" appearance. It is not worth mentioning in his introductory sentence which is an important part of an encyclopedia article. The first thing that comes people's mind about when the hear/read the named: "Jon Stewart" is of course only The Daily Show. Half Baked is a cult movie but not that huge of a cult movie like Star Wars and 2001: Space Odyssey. I want to get rid of that line: "and for his role in the cult film Half Baked." It is like putting Colin Powell was a board member of Time Warner in his introductory sentence when he is not best remembered for that position. If there is no objections on why we should keep in his introductory sentence then I will delete within a week.--Anonymous Cow 05:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) ----

Good call; I always wondered about that. Thanks! Drernie 17:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quick comment: I doubt anyone would consider Star Wars and 2001: Space Odyssey, "cult movies". Those were major blockbusters, not unlike Jaws or Back to the Future. Half Baked is probably even just a tad too popular to be considered "cult". A cult movie would be something more like The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Heavy Metal (movie), or the Evil Dead series. (In this last example, Army of Darkness was pretty popular and may not be considered a "cult" movie, however there's a large number of fans who have no idea that it was the third installment in a series. The series as a whole only has a small cult following, though Evil Dead 2 has had an enormous influence on modern horror films, as most horror movie-makers today were cult-horror addicts in their youths.)

Okay, that wasn't so quick. --Corvun 09:04, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy

Stewart's role in the movie Big Daddy was far more significant than his role in Half Baked.

Crossfire cancellation

An anon has added a bit that Jonathan Klein has stated that he decided to cancel Crossfire 6 months before Jon Stewart's appearance. This is the first I've heard of this, and in fact, is the opposite of all news stories I've read. Could someone provide a source for this? Bbatsell 18:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I made the change based on the entry on Tucker Carlson's wikipedia page, which is not disputed there. All trustworthy media sources I could find only report that Jonathan Klein mentioned Jon's criticism in his press release and said he agrees with his point of view; they don't mention whether or not it had any influence on his plans for Crossfire. If nobody else can find any non-wikipedia confirmation of Klein saying his decision predated Jon's appearance on Crossfire I think we should change both texts to say it's uncertain whether his appearance was a direct cause of the cancellation. Vampyre 18:16, 13 October 2005 (GMT +1) (I was not logged in when I made the change)

Baby

Today the Colbert report stated that Stewart had a baby. Being the Colbert report, we need a confirmation before we add it to WP.

Yes, he had one. His nephew goes to my school and confirmed it.

Stewart also confirmed it on his show the day after. 128.118.128.175 18:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

needs an update

"Still, many people believe that when Letterman does retire, Stewart (a fellow Viacom employee) will replace him"

CBS is now a separate company from Viacom, therefore, Letterman and Stewart now have different employers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.210.33 (talk • contribs) .

• Good call, I'm going to remove it. -- MisterHand 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show Going Hollywood?

This isn't directly related to his bio, just an opinion question in general. Is anyone worried that since he's gotten so popular, and the gig with the Oscars, the Daily Show is going to get a little more like Access Hollywood? I know, I know, it isn't directly a political show to begin with, but I still appreciate the Washington satire as opposed to jokes about Brad and Angelina. I can get that on Letterman... Poisonouslizzie 18:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

nah, no way in hell. Jon's comedy is motivated by political passion and convictions. Besides, Entertaiment jokes get real stale real quickly because they're just fluff news sotries that raise ratings but provide no service to normal people. Walk0nwalls 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As we observed with the Oscars, it is more Jon bringing the politics to Hollywood, then entertainment taking on Jon. He did a really good job too.Dapoloplayer 05:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscars

The following comment by 204.101.196.17 in the article under bibliography may better fit here:

"John Stewart's Oscar performance was not well received. Are these articles written before the event occurs?"

And it's Jon, not John.

Avw 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen mixed reviews of the performance, however the comment has correctly portrayed the ABC post-Oscar anaylsis. Dapoloplayer 17:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Not related to the article: what is up with the mixed reviews? What do people look for in an Oscar host? 128.195.94.157 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO there's now too much on this oscar-thing in the article. On the other hand almost nothing on the book. Are these the right priorities? Avw 15:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Give it time, we're still in the midst of "Oscar Mania". In a couple weeks when things have cooled down it'll be easier to seperate what's truly important and notable. -- MisterHand 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well the Oscars section is definitely going to need some culling, as the article is ridiculously weighted in this aspect of Stewart's life (for example the "quotes" is far too big, and 6 or 7 different accounts of his performance in detail are too much. That whole section needs to be compressed down to about a paragraph or so Thethinredline 13:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There, i reduced the six paragraphs of Oscar aftermath to two. Thethinredline 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And somebody's already put it all back. Which is why I recommended we wait until the hoopla has died down a bit. -- MisterHand 14:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No... I only edited down the aftermath, what followed the quotes, and that's still there Thethinredline 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fraternity

It keeps getting added that he left the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity after six months. One of our open mottos is Once a Pike, Always a Pike. Therefore, since he simply dropped out of his chapter and not the actual fraternity, he is still a Pike member. All he has had to do is request his name be stricken from the national records and it would have been done, yet he never has. Perhaps he has no present "allegiance" to the fraternity, but the fact of the matter is, he is a Pike member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlk17 (talk • contribs)

Whether he officially gave notice through bureaucratic means isn't denied, what the article says is that he feels no allegiance, and felt they serve no purpose. It seems you have a bias towards the fraternity. For the purposes of objectivity I've added that he never officially withdrew. --TM 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for all this? We shouldn't be guessing how Jon Stewart "feels". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterHand (talk • contribs)

Mentions him leaving after 6 months (search for "fraternity"), Mentions how he felt, Same info. --TM 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether members of PKA have some motto or other is irrelevant. Wikipedia is only concerned with whether Jon Stewart chose to leave the organization, or not. If you like, we can have both claims: that Jon Stewart left the organization, and that PKA claims he has not. Then the reader can decide what they will believe. -Kasreyn 06:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)