Talk:Jon Stewart

Category:The Daily Show

@Trivialist: You removed Jon Stewart from the Category:The Daily Show - twice now, since I restored it. You also removed current host Trevor Noah and previous host Craig Kilborn from that category, which I also challenge. Your argument, on removing it from Jon Stewart the second time, was "people aren't generally categorized under their works". But this isn’t a matter of somebody’s "work", as in a book they wrote. People who headlined a particular show, and for a time were synonymous with it, ARE categorized with that show. Please see Category:The Price Is Right, Category:The Tonight Show, Category:Jeopardy!, Category:Let's Make a Deal, etc., and you will see that such hosts ARE categorized under the show they hosted. And before you go removing any more such hosts, I want to see the basis for your assertion that hosts known for hosting particular shows are not categorized under those shows. Where is the consensus you are basing this on? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going by Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People associated with, specifically this part: Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers). Trivialist (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Appearance on Colbert/Lab leak comments

Should something be included? There's a lot of coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/15/jon-stewart-lab-leak-colbert/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jon-stewart-lab-leak-coronavirus-late-show-b1866024.html

https://slate.com/culture/2021/06/jon-stewart-stephen-colbert-lab-leak-theory-late-show.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/06/15/jon-stewart-faces-online-pushback-after-going-all-in-on-covid-19-lab-leak-theory/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/arts/television/colbert-jon-stewart.html

SmolBrane (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I made a BOLD edit on this. I chose to link to the origins of COVID rather than the misinformation page simply because Jon Stewart stated "This is not a conspiracy" during the interview and this is a BLP. Some sources(perhaps all?) do characterize his comments as reflective of the conspiracy theory. SmolBrane (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I just deleted the edit you made. It provided zero context, only said he made "controversial statements". We are not a news site. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. SmolBrane (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: (And other interested parties) This event has received additional coverage since, perhaps we can revisit notability/DUEness here. I agree that more context is likely needed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jon-stewart-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-china-covid-origin-11629755765

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/covid-19-lab-leak-hypothesis-proves-it-matters-what-and-who-defines-conspiracy

(edit: third source found) https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-finally-calls-for-serious-investigation-into-covid-origins

-SmolBrane (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I remain 100% opposed to adding any mention of this. It's WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fox News wrote another article on this after Hollywood Reporter had an interview with Stewart. Paul Waldman also wrote an opinion article on this back in June. He said that “[Jon] has every right to go on as many talk shows as he wants and explain his coronavirus theories. But his attack on expertise reminds us why expertise is so important.“ In the New Statesman article above, the author states that “public sentiment in the West is shifting. This started to become clear when the comedian Jon Stewart – the former host of The Daily Show, a comedic institution for progressive America – appeared on a talk show in June this year and expressed his support for the lab leak hypothesis.” While these are opinions, perhaps these strong statements would contribute to DUEness. If not, I'd love to hear what DUEness would be, since I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it would look like. I've read the NPOV policy.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jon-stewart-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/15/jon-stewarts-rant-is-reminder-dont-rely-celebrities-covid-19-theories/ -SmolBrane (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source for American politics or science. An opinion piece from June is nothing new. The Fox News piece itself acknowledges that he was doing a bit. Comedians do bits. There is no story here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is adequately political or scientific to exclude Fox on that basis. Mostly this is a conversation between two media personalities on a media show, about an issue that is also political and scientific in nature. Is Fox reliable for bits? Is it a noteworthy bit? If I see another perennial source write an article on it in a month, will it be noteworthy then? Asking honestly here. SmolBrane (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Intercept(Sharon Lerner) mentioned Jon Stewart's comments in an investigative report, from Oct 6: “There was also, I think, pretty early on a recognition that as — Jon Stewart has famously called attention to — that there was a lab in Wuhan, the very city that was the place where the pandemic began, that was looking into the very viruses that were similar to the one that had caused the pandemic.”

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/06/intercepted-covid-origins-lab-leak/

Salon observed on Oct 9 that Alina Chan paraphrased Jon Stewart: “The coincidence suggested by Bloom was pushed even harder by Alina Chan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute and co-author of a book called "Viral: Search for the Origin of Covid-19." Chan, who spent much of the debate criticizing the Chinese government's unwillingness to cooperate with researchers and investigators, described her position by paraphrasing a quote from the comedian Jon Stewart.

"In 2019, a novel SARS coronavirus, with a novel genetic modification, appeared in a city where there's a lab studying novel SARS coronaviruses with novel genetic modifications," she said.”

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/09/lab-leak-or-natural-spillover-leading-scientists-debate-19s-origins/

Both Salon and The Intercept have their biases noted on the perennial sources list, but both these articles seem reasonably written and I'm not seeing reasons to dismiss them. NPOV policy would suggest that we should include content on this: “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.”

There is little evidence that this commentary is an extreme enough minority to exclude on the basis of NPOV. Many of these articles recognize the notability of Stewart's comments, as you can see from the quotes I have provided. @Muboshgu: I would appreciate a more substantive response, if for no other reason than for my education as an editor—I do not see the objections that you seem to regard as obvious given the subjective nature of NPOV and DUE. Also, you did not comment on the notability of the non-Fox sources, of which there are now at least ten. SmolBrane (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Which conspiracy theory specifically are you talking about? I think it's weird you're sitting here saying "THE CONSPIRACY theory" kinda implies you don't like his theory. Seems weird, just let a schizo speculate, don't need to try so hard to make their theory seem like it is fact brother, you are a creep. 2600:1702:3B40:40E0:C960:217D:1E96:DD55 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Lab leak comments are still NOTNEWS?

Another reliable source, from three days ago... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/03/jon-stewart-new-show-514924 "Stewart might be holding back some of his more unpopular, potentially cancel-worthy thoughts — especially after a high-profile tiff with Colbert and his liberal viewers, after endorsing the coronavirus lab-leak theory on Colbert’s program. " -SmolBrane (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Muboshgu: out of courtesy since I opened a NPOV noticeboard discussion on this. SmolBrane (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Found another source, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-coronavirus-wuhan-lab_n_60c835ace4b07e543bbd50fe, still from last year. Perhaps in time this content will become LASTING but I'm not making an addition at this time. SmolBrane (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting Lab Leak comments

Sorry for the delay but I've gotten better at finding sources. Here are four more reliable sources on the matter:

https://www.vulture.com/2021/06/jon-stewart-on-stephen-colbert-lab-leak-theory.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/559265-jon-stewart-shows-late-night-conformity-cabal-how-political-comedy-is-done

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/08/30/jon-stewarts-apple-tv-series-to-premiere-in-september/?sh=607f823c259b

https://www.menshealth.com/health/a36749251/lab-leak-theory-wuhan-covid-19-explained-doctor-mike-hansen/

I'm seeing coverage here from June to October of last year, I think this is lasting enough, and the sourcing is definitely sufficient. @Muboshgu: you didn't reply last time I replied to you with additional sources, do you still object to inclusion here? SmolBrane (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This again? I didn't realize that you were still trying to include a joke bit from a late night talk show in this page. You have found many sources, but yes I object to adding this. People have moved on, now it's about him defending Joe Rogan on his podcast, or whatever he actually said.

Since nobody is participating in any discussion on this topic but you and me, creating a stalemate, you can seek more input with a Request For Comment that will bring people in to weigh in. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Not again, still. I'm a parttime editor, what can I say. Your last objection was that FOXNEWS isn't a good enough source, so I found more, then you didn't reply to my ping. This two minute bit generated an awful lot of noise in reliable sources for four months, so the significant coverage in reliable sources seems adequate. I may pursue an RfC or perhaps wait for the lab leak business to shake out and see if this incident gets revisited by an RS, thus proving its LASTING nature. Thank you for clarifying nonetheless. SmolBrane (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit

In June 2021, Stewart made an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where he made controversial statements suggesting a possible lab leak origin for COVID-19. -SmolBrane (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

@Animalparty: On including Stewart in a “conspiracy theorist” category: only The Independent actually characterizes Jon Stewart's statements as a conspiracy theory, the other sources are much less critical. This BLP doesn't include any content explicitly calling him a conspiracy theorist, and Stewart denied it. I believe it is inappropriate to categorize Jon Stewart this way. SmolBrane (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I came here to initiate a conversation on this user, good to see it has already begun. Also note that AnimalParty is arguing at Talk:Ricky Schroder#Anti-Vaccination activist that the covid conspiracy theorist is not defining and wants it removed, despite reliable sources covering multiple of Schroder's anti-mask activities. Here, the category appears to have been added due to coverage for answers Stewart gave in an interview. One could easily draw the conclusion here that the tagging or not-tagging is being done according to a political bias, but, hopefully AnimalParty can clear that up. Zaathras (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no political bias, just as no editors have any bias whatsoever. The deliberate spreading of misinformation is a cornerstone of being a conspiracy theorist. I'm just trying to be fair. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim that you (or any other editor) have no political bias is prima facie absurd. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, the BLP does not contain content suggesting that Stewart is a conspiracy theorist. I would suggest that you include The Independent's claims in the article before we categorize him as such. And Stewart specifically stated “this is not a conspiracy” so there could be a larger BLP issue at hand. Ultimately though, this category may get deleted as per its talk page in the coming days. SmolBrane (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You guys are too smart for me. This was a joke to illustrate the subjectivity and capriciousness of categorizing people as "conspiracy theorists" or "activists" based on isolated recent events. I apologize. It was ill-advised. If you're interested, please see the discussions at Categories for discussion:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Just so we're crystal-clear here; you added the "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" category to the Jon Stewart article not because you actually feel he should be categorized as such, but rather to make a point about the category. Yes? Zaathras (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like someone asking to have his editing privileges suspended. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

...Maybe work on your set-ups a bit. SmolBrane (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak comments remain due, lasting coverage

I encourage editors to reflect on the lab leak comments by Stewart, as this received lasting coverage [1] [2] just a couple sources there, but there are many from the past year. SmolBrane (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Occupation

The opening sentence stating his occupation has grown way too long. There's a tendency to stuff this sentence with a listing of every thing they ever did, in a kind of breathless adoration of how they "did it all" or to list each of their credits like IMDB. That's not what the lede is supposed to do. Our goal should be to be brief and direct as we can, to explain to the reader "why is this person noteworthy?" MOS:ROLEBIO says (emphasis added) "The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."

With that in mind: Stewart has worn a number of hats over the course of his career, but he's famous for only a few of them. For example, being an actor is not one of them. He's mostly famous for The Daily Show, and the roles he's played in connection with it: comedian, show host, political commentator. Every other job he did for the show (writing, producing, directing) was either in support of that or a spin-off of that, or it was a side gig that isn't what makes him notable. And an "activist" is just a political commentator who gets results. Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this opening sentence got too long, and I cut it. It's not just the lead paragraph: MOS:FIRST Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Career 1986–1992: Standup and early career

In the last paragraph of the section it states: "Stewart said that his career did not take off until his March 6, 1992, appearance on NBC's Late Night with David Letterman. He was considered to take over the show when Letterman left it, but it was given to relatively unknown Conan O'Brien." The citation is unreliable. Late Night with David Letterman was not on NBC, but CBS. Letterman didn't leave until 2015. Also, Conan O'Brien did not replace Letterman. That was Stephen Colbert. O'Brien replaced Jay Leno on The Tonight Show for seven months then was replaced by Leno who came back. 172.254.183.68 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Late Night with David Letterman was on NBC from 1982 to 1993. Late Show with David Letterman was on CBS from 1993 to 2015. Conan O'Brien took over 'Late Night' after Letterman left.

That said, the source here is completely unreliable; I'll replace it with a valid one. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

I just read this article about Stewart bad attitude with people from his team https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2015/09/remembering-jon-stewarts-nasty-side

I can't believe there's not a word about it on Wikipedia. There should be a "Criticism" section added. 66.46.197.40 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION for an explanation on why we shouldn't add criticism / controversy sections.

And there are words about this. The Wyatt Cenac episode that Current Affairs details is in our article. (And the Current Affairs author shows his bias in that, leaving out how Stewart talked about his Jewish impressions.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy status

Confirmed by every single source, the subject is a renowned advocate for health problems in New York. Please consider this before engaging in an edit war. Beach00 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As we've told you in edit summaries and as is discussed on this talk page already, we don't include this. MOS:ROLEBIO: do not overload the intro with every possible thing that can be said about the subject. WP:SD40: the short description is to be concise, preferably 40 characters or less. And you're the one who is edit warring on this, so please stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)