Talk:Shock jock/Archives/2013

Inclusion
Some of the 'Shock Jocks' listed need to be reviewed for NPOV. Some simply discuss controversial issues. Just because you don't agree with them does not make them a 'Shock Jock"

PoV
Hmm. This article sure sounds POV, but it's a really tricky arcticle to write NPOV. I'd like to fix it, but I'm at a loss myself. --Spikey 04:18, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say I've made improvements in the NPOV direction. Any thoughts? Mike Church 17:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (not the shock jock)

Shock jockery vs. ascerbic talk radio
I'm starting to rethink the inclusion of evocative and controversial political talk show hosts (such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Bill O'Reilly), who are mainly just outspoken, rude and narrow-minded, alongside radio deejays who employ offensive stunts and jokes to gain attention (e.g. Howard Stern, Mancow, Bubba the Love Sponge). They seem to be two different breeds, the latter being really what "shock jock" means.

On the other hand, the term "shock jock" is easily bandied about (by their political adversaries) to denigrate the former in the common practice -- whether or not it is accurate. How can this be addressed? - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  20:49, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know where to begin drawing the line between people who are offensive for offense's sake and those people who simply have provocative opinions/tastes. Howard Stern loathes the "shock jock" label because he claims he doesn't try to purposely offend anyone. He just doesn't care if people are offended. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter would describe themselves the same way. --Feitclub 00:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think shock jockery has more of a concentration on sex and personal relationships rather than politics. So Michael Savage would qualify (lots of gay bashing, racial humor), while Limbaugh, who has a more political host, would not qualify. 71.104.177.90


 * Omg, after reading this, i've got to say, Americans are kind of WEIRD people


 * As I mentioned in the edit summary for the edit I just made, I think all of the POV could be solved along with this issue by simply creating a separate page ("Shock jock (political)"?), moving all comments of (as you put it) "ascerbic" hosts to that page. It would be simple to create a link somewhere in the article stating something to the effect of "Some consider certain political hosts to also be shock jocks" and using the words shock jocks to link to the other article.  It could also be placed under the see also section.  That article would be brief, summarizing the belief that certain political commentators have become shock jocks through their controversial statements.  That, or simply remove all political reference altogether and add a note in Rush Limbaugh that his controversies have caused some to label him a Shock Jock (he seems to be the main target of the POV zones of this article). -- B.rusk48

Alphabetical order only?
Someone needs to alphabetize this list.

Chris Booker

Ron and Fez

Danny Bonaduce

Bubba the Love Sponge

Mike Church

Steve Dahl

Mancow

Morton Downey, Jr.

Tom Leykis

The Love Doctors

Larry Lujack

Opie and Anthony

Colin Quinn

The Regular Guys Larry and Eric

Elliot Segal

Star & Buc Wild

Howard Stern

Liz Wilde

Don and Mike

''Some idiot left this on the top of the article's main page. Fix it!!'': '''Some jerk-off Howie fan seems to have taken off all Opie and Anthony references. Fix this!'''

since when was chris booker a shock jock?? He is just a regular radio DJ just because he hosts a morning show does not make him a shock jock

Selena - Howard Stern
This is probably the most famous sort of shock jock incidents! A wikipedia user that happens to be stalking all my edits keep changing them.
 * I don't think you're being stalked--don't flatter yourself. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This same guy has appeared on several of my edits - undoing every one, just a strange coincidence, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:HOUND: you'd have to be able to indicate that they are doing this as a form of harassment. Looking at edits like this one, I think Hullabaloo is improving the encyclopedia with their reverts since you're inserting what appears to be fan cruft of no encyclopedic value. Sorry, but I call em as I see em. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me if you were the same guy. Every edit that I have done has had sources, I added the Robin Quivers fight with Linda Ronstadt WITH sources and he removed it. Yet someone else placed it on the Murder of Selena page and it's still there. Funny that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What may well be important in an article on Selena need not be important elsewhere. That Ronstadt thing, it's nothing, a blimp on the radar. The Selena case is different, considering how gross and disrespectful that stupid shit was--according to reliable sources. Note also that your addition wasn't really well written--it was obviously coming from a specific point of view. And I am not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz: it's way too long a name. Who says I'm a guy anyway? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)