Talk:Mike's On

Let's not make this article a runaway train like Mike and the Maddog
90% of the Mike and the Maddog article is original research. Editors simply reported what they heard on the radio. Let's not turn this article into the same mess. Let's limit the article to information that can be found in reliable sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Every incident and/or controversy does not need to be repeated here unless it was of such significance and notability that it actually had some sort of long lasting effect. Hobbomock (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

pic from the television show or radio show?
The pic is from the television show and this article is specific to the radio show, so it should be removed. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Article sources (copy and paste from other talk pages)
Regarding this edit, according to Verifiability and No original research, which are both official policies of Wikipeida, information cannot be added to an article unless they are sourced with what are considered reliable sources (see Reliable sources). Truth and non-truth are of no relevance to these requirements. I am not disagreeing regarding the truth of the guests. As a matter of fact, I agree with you 100%. However, it cannot be added to the article unless a reliable source can be found. Me an you listening to the radio show are not good sources. When I find a media source that confirms that those are his official guests, I would immediately insert that information. However, it would an egregious and blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to add the information without a source. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So the fact that the host of the show himself states that the following guests have been contracted to appear regularly on the show is not a reliable source? I have to wait for Bob Raismann or Phil Mushnick to report it in their article first?  Who by the way get their material from listening to the show.  That doesn't make sense.  How about the fact that they are listed on the WFAN website in the Francesa audio files.  That should be a reliable source enough.  Hobbomock (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and it does make sense. There is a strict rule against original research. Contentious articles would be crazy if everyone added what they personally saw and heard. Although the rules' applicability doesn't seem to be correct when applied to this specific situation, we must abide by the original research rule, and can't decide that we will abide by the original research rule sometimes and sometimes we won't. If you can get a clip where he Mike states that they will be his guests, that, as a primary source, would be great. But clips of interviews don't establish that they are his official guests. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fhe latter part of the above statement is sort of correct. One does not need an online audio clip to source what was reported on the show anymore than one needs an online version of a print source to source an article. Is it harder to verify, yes, but there's no requirement, not should there be, for a source to be online for it to be valid.oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)