Talk:Huell Howser

Twentynine Palms House
Any info?138.162.140.54 (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

He had one: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/15/magazine/tm-home37

Death reported by OC Weekly
OC Weekly reporting he's passed away. Awaiting more confirmation. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also reported by KPCC here. 72Dino (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * His death has been reported today (Jan. 7), but I have not seen any reports if he died on Jan. 6 or Jan. 7. Any references on that? 72Dino (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sunday night." Who knows if before or after midnight Calif time. — WylieCoyote 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw Sunday night too, but I have the same question as you. I'm sure more information will be available soon. 72Dino (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This reference states he died at 2:35 am, so it appears to be Jan. 7. 72Dino (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LAist has reported 2:35am Monday, so that also suggests 1/7/13. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The latest from the LA Times (more reliable than LAist) is Sunday evening, and undisclosed cause: "Howser, 67, an iconic figure in public television, died at home Sunday night, his assistant Ryan Morris said. The cause of death was not released." . Given that, I've changed the date to 1/6/13. --Drmargi (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No argument from me. Time will clarify any potential conflict.  :)  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)KPCC reports with its latest update that the death was early Monday. 72Dino (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Better we err on the side of the stated day; the LA Times style manual would probably dictate use of "early Monday morning" were it 1/7. KPCC is picking the story up from the wire services and last updated around 5:30pm (four hours ago as of this writing); LAT will do its own research and is more current. --Drmargi (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What the articles say is that the Sheriff's office was notified at 2:35 a.m., and the Coroner's office says TOD was 2:45 a.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisurfer61 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That just indicates when he was pronounced, not when he actually died, which can be some time earlier. Under CA law, any unattended death requires that notification and an autopsy.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The KFWB story explictly says, "Howser died in Palm Springs at 2:35 a.m. of natural causes." At minimum the article should be note that the sources are unclear about the date of death. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

His spokesman clearly says that he died Monday morning, AFTER midnight, so it would be the 7th. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/01/huell_howser_dead.php?page=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisurfer61 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Claims of political affiliation unsubstantiated
The article claims he was a conservative Republican, but there's nothing backing up that claim. The closest I could find was this from - "Born on Oct. 18, 1945, in Gallatin, Tenn., Howser graduated with a history degree from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. After a stint in the Marines -- where he served on the staff of Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn., a future Senate Majority Leader". However, that was decades ago and it's not even clear that he chose to be on the staff or whether it was part of his military duties. claims he was a fan of the left-wing OC Weekly and opposed Republicans. Such claims, combined with his affinity for PBS, would rather indicate if anything a liberal Democrat. 76.126.172.127 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the Conservative Republican claims were trolled in and reversed. The reference that was used to link Huell to a sentiment for immigrants was a dead link, so I deleted that.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard anything to suggest any particular political or religious affiliation. I'd remove it until there's a cast-iron source for it.  --Drmargi (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: No one is ever involuntarily assigned to a Congressional staff as a junior military member. Both Howser and Baker were from East Tennessee, Howser by adoption as he was born in Democratic Sumner County but stayed in contact with the area after his attendance at UT, and at a time when essentially "everyone" from East Tennessee was assumed to be a Republican until/unless they proved differently, sort of the opposite of the rest of the South at the time.  I think that research will readily show that his Congressionl staff service was separate from his time in the USMC.  Howser being on Baker's staff in that era meant only that he was not an active Democrat at that time in his life, not necessarily that he was an active Republican at that or any other time, as some staffers are involved in minimally political work such as constituent service.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B103:2067:5071:D5B:4F0A:8A48 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a very simple reading comprehension error here; military officers also have a staff at the battalion level and above. There will be any number of captains and majors and senior enlisted, directly beneath a Lieutenant colonel responsible for logistics, intelligence, planning etc.  The syntax of the article seems to imply that Howser served on Howard Baker's staff when they were in the Marine Corps, not congress.  In which case, yes, he would be assigned as a staff officer.

Category:Travel broadcasters
Do you think that Huell belongs in that category, or not? p b  p  00:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the other people in the category and considering his shows, I would say yes. 72Dino (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added it p  b  p  00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013
Died date should be January 7.

72.130.74.236 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The sources say he died on Sunday, which is the 6th. RudolfRed (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourses who would know say that it was Monday: His spokesman clearly says that he died Monday morning, AFTER midnight, so it would be the 7th. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/01/huell_howser_dead.php?page=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisurfer61 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisurfer61 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm in agreement that it is reasonable to change the date. Here are other references: Huffington Post, SCPR.org - "early Monday", KPBS, Citrus Heights  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013
Please change "The digitalized online Huell Howser Achive has been established at Chapman University." to "The digitalized online Huell Howser Achive has been established at Chapman University as well as a showcase of his artifacts on the Chapman campus." Andyanderson9595 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by Cyphoidbomb --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Special thanks to whomever removed the non-word 'digitalized' from the pageWikisurfer61 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Or is that 'whoever'?Wikisurfer61 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would have been me, although I made sure to look it up and sure enough, "digitalized" is an accepted form. However, since I wasn't brought up in the stone age, I went with the more commonly used "digitized".  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Digitized is grammatically correct and the more common usage. I'd stick with it.  (And it's whomever, just for the record.) --Drmargi (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Validity of TMZ as a source?
I've had complaints that TMZ is not credible as it is a "tabloid" but it clearly is not, evidenced by reading even Wikipedia's web page on TMZ, and Wikipeida's rules on properly sourcing articles. It is an entertainment news source, and is known for conscientiously vetting and verifying its stories. The recent complaint about it on this page started when TMZ obtained from the county recorder and posted a valid copy of Howser's death certificate. How is a news source obtaining this information and posting it not valid?

Further evidence of this is that the Los Angeles Times, CBS News, the Orange County Register, and on and on... used TMZ's report as a source for their own stories on Howser's cause of death. CBS misquoted TMZ which caused some confusion, and a couple of other 'legitimate' news sources that clearly got their information from TMZ didn't bother to give any sort of attribution for the information, but both of those are issues with the news sources that misquoted and didn't properly attribute, not with TMZ. (One editor removed the TMZ reference because the secondary source had misquoted TMZ, and then misquoted the CBS article herself, which was very odd.)

So, they sourced the information properly, other news organizations which are considered to be legitimate used them as a primary source, and then the reference was removed as being invalid. Puzzling...Wikisurfer61 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Wikisurfer61, Drmargi objected to the use of TMZ because TMZ is a tabloid. I can totally understand Drmargi's objection, because it's not clear what proper editorial rules the great Harvey Levin insists upon for his "journalists".  However, I also respectfully disagreed with Drmargi on this issue because TMZ did provide a photocopy of the cert, and as you pointed out, other reputable agencies reported the news and gave TMZ credit for the scoop.  Whatevs, I've found a better source for the cause of death: the Riverside-based Press-Enterprise.  Riverside County is where Huell died, so it's not unreasonable to expect that they've performed due-diligence on the facts.   I'm hopeful that we're all sorted on the issue of reliability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: as I'm sure you've noticed, Drmargi was correct to remove the CBSlocal link, because it erroneously claimed LA County was the issuing county for the death cert, when it was Riverside County. I didn't realize that earlier when I suggested we keep the CBSlocal link. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The result is the same, but she removed it because she said that TMZ had their facts wrong, as proved by the CBS report, but it was CBS's error, as they had made the Los Angeles/Riverside mistake. She used it to justify removing TMZ, but should have removed CBS instead, and left TMZ alone.Wikisurfer61 (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're going to discuss me, please do me the courtesy of notifying me in future. The established protocol is to discuss the source, not the editor.  TMZ is a tabloid, and Wikipedia has a pretty firm policy regarding tabloid sources being unreliable. Once a source is challenged, it should not be returned to the article until there is consensus it is reliable (a tough sell with a tabloid), and the burden lies with the editor providing it to establish it is reliable.  Moverover, the death certificate is heavily redacted by TMZ (in addition to what Riverside Cty did) without explanation, and that causes me to question its validity -- reputable news sources will note the reason for redactions.  TMZ has a reputation for failure to fact-check, for publishing rumor and for other questionable practices associated with tabloids; I've never seen it used as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing.  Once it was challenged as a source, it should not have been restored to the article; I simply improperly removed it and the CBS source when I made my last edits, then went back to fix them later when I saw what I'd done.  The CBS Local source was a tertiary source, citing TMZ, making it unreliable twice over (we use secondary, not tertiary sources.)  The CBS Local made the error it did meant it didn't do some very basic fact-checking, a critical criterion for being a reliable source.  Frankly, there's no need for either of them now there is a reliable local source for the edit; the Press-Enterprise is the local newspaper and would fact-check before publishing.  --Drmargi (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand Drmargi's concern about TMZ, but I think that in this case it is demonstrably a reliable source, cited by numerous others; moreover, by omitting it in this case, where it was actually the original source that broke the story and was cited by multiple other sources, we would do a disservice to our readers and incompletely represent the basis for the assertion. On the broader question of TMZ's reliability, according to the archives at WP:RS/N, TMZ is often found to be a reliable source, though it should be used with caution. See, e.g., Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 72; Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115. In this case, I think the footnote should be restored, along with the Press-Enterprise cite.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll go with the Press-Enterprise then, even though they also have factual errors in their report (and I suspect that they also borrowed from TMZ, who broke the story). The redaction of a person's home address does not really call the validity of the document into question... that's pretty standard practice, and for an obvious reason. His sister's address, and the signature of the doctor were also removed... as well as the name of the funeral home, not too surprising either. I think that while I wouldn't normally use TMZ, they did the work here, and were quoting the original source, the Riverside County Department of Health. Credit where credit is due.76.173.107.38 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Children?
I've seen some sources that claim Huell Howser had two children, boys. Most mainline sources say he had no children. Does anybody have any info on this? Opus131 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Haven't seen reliable info on this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality
If there are any confirmed sources on the subject, does Howser's sexuality need to be discussed, if in fact he was a homosexual? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean about being gay? Why is that off-topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornbelt888 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Huell Howser was a deeply private person off screen. I am unaware of any reliable sources discussing his sexual orientation, and will vigorously oppose any discussion of it based on rumor and gossip. So, if you think you have something that meets WP:RS, link to it here, and we can discuss it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cmguy777 - I don't see the value in discussing whether or not to include hypothetical information from hypothetical reliable sources. Let's cross that bridge "if" we come to it.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was an open secret that he was gay, but you'll never find a reliable source to confirm it because he was so private. Let it go. --Drmargi (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't like being bullied by other editors. However, I can take a hint from such open hostility towards even mentioning the subject. Rather then looking at the subject openly other editors have shown their POV on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "hostility" - it's just a fact that there are no known reliable sources that unequivocally discuss his sexuality. Ergo, we can't include a discussion of it. He was gay, but we can't verify that and what we cannot verify, we cannot include.
 * If that changes in the future (biographer, etc.) then the issue should be revisited. polarscribe (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, what is wrong with editors these days? This is the third or fourth editor I've seen recently who, the minute someone disagrees with them, cries bullying.  No one is trying to bully you, nor is anything said even remotely bullying.  You're attempting to make a highly controversial edit based on rumor and innuendo where the standing policy is verifiable content.  Howser's sexual orientation was never truly known, he never came out and no source claiming he was gay will ever be reliable.  Far better to let it go and find something productive to edit.  --Drmargi (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, I apologize. I didn't mean to convey hostility.  "Bullying," is a bit of a stretch, though.  My earnest, bare-bones answer to your hypothetical question is this: if Howser had been gay, and if that could be backed with reliable sources, why would that information be notable?  If he was straight, we wouldn't go out of our way to mention that he was heterosexual, so why would we mention that he was gay?  Simply because his sexuality might have been different from established social tradition?  It's not like he was an A-list macho Hollywood actor known for being a lady's man; he was a human interest reporter who made celebrities out of the regular people he interviewed.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I found an extremely good article on Hugh Howser, This Is Amazing Brott (2003). The article states that there was a rumor Huell Howser was gay in 1975 when he was going to run for Congress (p. 194). This was a traumatic experience for Howser and may by why he never came out being gay. Please read the article. Howser was at the height of popularity in 2003 and practically owned the PBS airwaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The (apparent) fact that there were rumors about him being gay in the 1970s is unencyclopedic. The idea that it has anything to do with why he chose not to publicly discuss his sexuality appears nowhere in the article and would be original research. polarscribe (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a deadline. I hope at some point that Huell gets a great biographer and we get to find out more about him - Huell was an icon of my childhood in California and I know his shows by heart. But until that happens, we just don't know much or anything about his personal life, and he was very much a private man. It is an open secret that he was gay, and as a gay man myself, I think that makes him even more awesome. But until there are reliable sources that discuss that side of his life, we cannot include it. polarscribe (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the old LA Magazine article, I'll bet. It verifies nothing, just comments on the rumors of the day, which were rife, based in no small part by his marital status and where he lived.  Nothing new here, nothing to add to the article.  And he never owned the PBS airwaves; little of what he produced ever left California.  He's a far more local figure, albeit a beloved one.  --Drmargi (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is one of the best and in depth articles ever written on Huell Howser. The article stated that rumor he was gay in Tennessee on the verge of him running for Congress was a traumatic experience for Howser. The article stated Howser was extremely private concerning his personal life. Brott, as far as I know, is a solid source. The article was made at the height of Howser's popularity in Califorina. Why is there such open hostility to LA Magazine? Howser certainly owned the PBS airwaves in California. There is definate POV by certain editors. Not allowing a solid source into the article is against Wikipedia policy. This is not a Howser blog. Noboby owns the Howser article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to learn to gauge editors' responses better. There is no hostility to the magazine, but the article was controversial at the time and remains so. I remembered it well enough 10 years later to recognize what it was from the date and title alone.  The operative word in the article is rumor.  Wikipedia does not deal in rumors, and we do not include them in articles.  Find a source that can verify he was gay, or his sexuality cannot be included.  Moreover, Howser's ownership of PBS airwaves is your WP:POV hyperbole; see WP:PEACOCK.  And while you're at it, drop by WP:BLP.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Without reading the article, it looks like it can verify the rumor that he was gay, nothing more. "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value..." WP:NEWSORG. (I think the comment about "owning the airwaves" was done in a figurative sense.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Worse, the article doesn't report rumors of the day; it reports that unidentified "other people" claimed that he dropped out because of rumors at the time that he was gay; Howser himself refused to say why, only to comment on the experience in the abstract. That's what, third hand innuendo at best?  There's no encyclopedic value at all.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I echo Cullen328 and Drmargi comments, Let's find a reliable source for his sexual orientation and go from there. I also would like to say to Cmguy777, please rethink your definition of Bullying and Hostility, I see none of these here, and your statement of "The article states that there was a rumor Huell Howser was gay" is exactly why this discussion is here, Rumors are not encyclopedic. Also, please review Indentation.   Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 16:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not find that the article was controversial. The article stated there was a rumor Huell was gay and that is why he dropped out of the race for Congress. Wikipedia goes by sources. Brott is a source. Please provide evidence that Brott was making up this rumor. That would be slander, and Huell never sued LA Magazine for libel. That Brott article is the closest Wikipedia has as a biography for Huell Howser. The fact is if Brott is correct, he is simply stating that in 1975 any rumor of being gay would be considered controversial in Tennessee. Wikipedia, can't of course state Howser was gay. I am not for that since he never publically acknowlledged being gay, if he was. In my opinion there has been open hostility towards me and even the Brott magazine article for bringing up sexuality in the article. The Bott article covers allot of Howser's life and I believe is a good source. The best approach is to put that Bott stated Howser decided not to run for Congress because their were rumors in Tennesse he was gay. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't traffic in anonymous 40-year-old rumors reported third-hand. That would be salacious without being informative. Bott does not even directly draw that conclusion - instead, he sources anonymous, unknown "people who knew him at the time." This is all just so totally stretching to try and include some little tidbit of something that we don't have good, solid reliable sources for. polarscribe (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The current article size is a paltry 17214 bytes. Huell deserves allot better then the current article. To have a hang up over a reliable source such as Brott is knit picking. Huell deserves a larger article. You can't avoid controversy in any public figure. Keep protecting Huell's legacy, but suppressing information from the readers in my opinion is censorship. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "protecting his legacy" here, because being gay is not something that anyone needs to be "protected" from. There is no "controversy" over his sexuality. He just kept it private. polarscribe (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Cmguy, the article reports second-hand statements by others that he dropped out because of rumors he was gay. But regardless, you're missing the point.  The article reports RUMORS, not that he was gay.  We do not put rumors in articles.  End of story.  Find a source that states unequivocally that he's gay AND that satisfies WP:RS, and you're good to go.  Otherwise, it's time to move on.  And frankly, if you think this is hostile (and what you're actually implying is homophobic) you need to find another place to edit.  This discussion has been calm, polite and reasonable; four editors have attempted to explain why the edit can't go in more than once, and you're taking it all far too personally.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer focused on improving the article. Time to give it a hat. – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You want to do it, or should we ask someone uninvolved? --Drmargi (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone trashing the Brott (2003) article? That is where I got my information from. Any yet everyone pounces on me like a cat on a mouse for bringing up the Brott article. I going by what Brott had to state concerning Howser. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is trashing the article. We are challenging the encyclopedic value of the section you brought to the discussion, nothing more. Please, please try to read with some measure of reasonable comprehension, and not overstate our intentions.  And please follow the protocol for indenting your posts.  --Drmargi (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

LA Magazine as source
Is the LA Magazine a good source? The article is titled, This Is Amazing, by Tamar Brott (November, 2003). I believe this article will enhance the Wikipedia article and give a better understanding of Huell Howser. The article is reliable in my opinion. I know there was controversy over Brott's contention that Huell did not run for Congress because of rumors Howser was gay. However, other parts of the article are less controversial and can be used in the article. Any objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please link to the Brott article again, for the convenience of other editors. In my opinion, there are many non-controversial statements of fact in that article, which can be used in our biography of Howser. Let's be clear, though, that consensus is firmly against discussing reports of rumors about sexual orientation. Facts, yes. Rumors, no.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cullen and Cmguy, the discussion yesterday was hatted. Once it is, we don't reopen it.  Let's keep focus on the issue at hand, the reliability of Los Angeles Magazine.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This article captures Huell at the height of his popularity in California in 2003. That is why I believe the article is important and give a candid look at Howser. Source: That is amazing! Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence that he was less popular in, say 1998 or 2008?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  17:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Howser's popularity is irrelevant. The real issue here is the article and its value as a source.  In the previous discussion no one questioned the reliability of the article you cited, much less Los Angeles Magazine.  Four editors attempted to help you understand that the issue was a rumor you were attempting to add to the Howser article using the Brott article as a source.  Unfortunately, you were unwilling or unable to grasp that point, and the discussion was closed as fruitless.


 * Let's get this straight: Los Angeles Magazine in general and the article in particular are perfectly reliable sources, as long as they are used to source content of encyclopedic value and no one ever stated otherwise.  That said, try use it or any other source to add rumor or innuendo to the article, and we're back where we were yesterday, and if you're not capable of understanding the difference, I'm at the point where I have to question whether you're competent to edit here.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not plan to or ever have planned to use any article out of context for this article. I am all for improving and expanding this article. The Brott article seems to stress that Howser's popularity was at his height in 2003. I did not state that his popularity declined. In some respects I believe I took for granite that Huell would always have a television program. Drmargi stated that the article and magazine are "perfectly reliable sources." There is allot of good in the article that can be used in this article for expansion and improvement. Is the article a go? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh my GAWD. Do you read what we're saying to you?  No one said you were using Brott out of context.  Likewise, no one said anything about the decline of Howser's popularity, if it ever did decline. Howser's popularity in 2003 isn't even germane to this discussion, so who cares?  Read what we say to you and stick to the point.  The Brott article always was reliable, as was the magazine, as long as they're used in compliance with Wikipedia policy to source notable content of encyclopedic value.  That and that alone will govern whether the content you add stays in the article.  Stick to facts that the article can source, and you're fine.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for raising the side issue of Houser's popularity over time, and realize that we've reached consensus for now on the previous issue. My request to Cmguy777 is to describe in general terms here on the talk page the planned expansion of the article based on the Brott source.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent idea, Cullen. Given the direction of these two discussions, Cmguy's edits will need some oversight until he gets on his feet as an editor.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Until he gets on his feet as an editor"? I have started five articles on Wikipedia. Please refer to my user page talk page for the articles I have started. Howser's polularity is noteworthy, in my opinion, if there are any sources as to ratings of his California shows. All I planned for the Brott article is to establish where Hugh was in 2003. The article lists his shows and even had direct quotes from Howser. For example, Howser described himself as a complicated person and was well educated. I have yet to read the full article, but Brott also mentions different opinions of Howser's personality, especially in the first part of Brott's article. The main focus from what I get of Brott is that Howser was an intensly private individual who thought highly of himself. Remember, the article is for all editors to use in the Wikipedia article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You've demonstrated a worrying lack of comprehension of what was written here, and have been unable to differentiate a challenge to content from a challenge to a source. Consequently, editors have demonstrated reasonable concern about your ability to differentiate encyclopedic content from rumor and innuendo.  You're unable to adhere to the simple indentation procedure used in discussions; I've fixed the placement of your comments half a dozen times.  That you have started five articles is no indicator of anything.  Most troubling?  His first name is HUELL not Hugh.  So be prepared for other editors to scrutinize your work; it's the normal process on Wikipedia.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Drmargi, you continue to insult my intentions and character and have created a hostile environment for this talk page. Excuse me. Huell. I can't edit in such a hostile environment as this right now. Good luck with your article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No one, least of all me, is insulting you in any fashion. We have justifiable reservations regarding your ability to make appropriate choices regarding encyclopedic content, as demonstrated here.  If you care to interpret my comment another way rather than use them as an indicator of where you need to grow as an editor, fine.  You've accused us of hostility and implied homophobia repeatedly with no foundation for doing so; if anyone created the hostile environment, you did.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that the editor who previously described the Brott article as "extremely good" now says "I have yet to read the full article". By the way, I read the whole article. All this discussion without reading the source? Unusual, I think.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My reputation as an editor has been belittled by personal commentary in this talk page. I did not ever accuse anyone or any editor implied or direct of being "homophobic". I believed there was resistance in discussing the subject of sexuality in the article. Treating me like a child does create a friendly environment for any editing. I respect Drmargi and Cullen for their respected intelligence and integrity. I do not believe that justifies in making negative personal commentary that has nothing to do with the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors?
This article is extensively sourced. If there are errors they should be described here so that other can fix them. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think that major changes like this one (the third or so of several contested edits) adds any strength to the article if it, like the others precedent, lack references. When exactly did Howser become a comedian, as asserted? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor did catch a few small errors that needed attention, nut they're lost in a morass of garbage edits. I've reverted yet again.  --Drmargi (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC) ETA:  Aaaaand, he's blocked.  --Drmargi (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned up some of the good corrections he made. The sections on California's Gold and Videolog need a lot of expanding, since they're the corpus of his work. --Drmargi (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What he did in Nashville
Howser while at WSM-TV in Nashville (now WSMV-DT) produced "happy talk" news feature stories, a then-new concept when the station first expanded its local news coverage, not full-length programs but rather segments. Certainly this was a precursor to his later work in NYC and California. He might never have left Nashville had it not been for his interest in preventing the destruction of a former Tennessee Governor's Mansion, which was slated for demolition in order to locate a Popeye's Fried Chicken on the site in the summer of 1979. He continued to mention this on the air after being told by station management not to, and was suspended for 30 days, during which time he lined up his NYC gig. It would be great for someone who has access to either The Tennessean or the old Nashville Banner archives to document this and put it into the article, as it provides lots of insight into his personality. 2600:1004:B103:2067:5071:D5B:4F0A:8A48 (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea. I'd like to encourage you to consider opening a request at our Reference Desk. Some folks there work in libraries or have access to such archives and may be able to dig something up. I'm not sure what section would be most appropriate, but perhaps Humanities or Entertainment? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

U. of Tennessee grad year, major
Did a search of their archives of commencement programs by entering "Huell" and three different programs with his name popped up. Shows in three programs from December 1975, March 1976 and June 1976. All show him as majoring in Education. Maybe that includes the major of "History", as listed here. I guess he left school, maybe for the Marines, and returned to graduate. Also, maybe he got his diploma in December but hung around for the traditional June ceremony. https://digital.lib.utk.edu/collections/islandora/object/utkcomm%3A18142#page/10/mode/1up/search/huell (12/75) https://digital.lib.utk.edu/collections/islandora/object/utkcomm%3A18517#page/10/mode/1up/search/huell (3/76) https://digital.lib.utk.edu/collections/islandora/object/utkcomm%3A18391#page/16/mode/1up/search/huell (6/76) I didn't know where to squeeze this in, so I'm leaving it here.BillVol (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

HUELL Howser
should add that Huell was a United States Marine from 1961 to 1966. He was proud of his service. 2603:8000:CC41:F200:4C11:5B7:3DA3:15C5 (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you give any reliable sources that back up your claims? A09 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)