Talk:The Howard Stern Show/Archive 2

Sybian device
How come the sybian device is not mentioned at all in the whole article? 5 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.202.54 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No Sanjaya Mention?
Somebody post something about this in the main article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.59.62 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Fridays
Howard does not work on Fridays. According to MarksFriggin.com Howard told a caller that they do not work Fridays. http://www.marksfriggin.com/news07/1-15.htm

"Howard took a call from a guy who asked to get $50,000 if he's a good caller and then asked if Howard is working on Friday. Howard said they are not working on Friday, they don't work Fridays."

-SOME GUY

Common Sayings
In an effort to shorten the article I took out a few of the common sayings. I don't think we need a list that long. If anybody else sees any that are not notable, feel free to remove. Likewise if I removed a critical one, feel free to add it back. --Center4499 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a pretty silly list to have. If it was up to me it'd just be gone completely. LilDice 14:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

O&A Conflicts section Resolution
This issue went to mediation, and all the cowards who keep anon reverting the section never spoke up about it in mediation. I did my best to argue what I felt is right for the article and we reached a compromise. What we need to do now is integrate the section in question into the 2000s section and then we will remove the current section. Please see Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-09-27_Howard_Stern_Show_Article_Relevance_Debate if you're interested in how the mediation went down.
 * My solution:
 * In 2000 Stern asked his Infinity Broadcasting bosses to stop Opie and Anthony, who were also employed at Infinity, from attacking him and his family on their radio show. Infinity agreed and a gag order was placed on the two DJ's.
 * Looks like it's on the right track to me. Only objection would be the quote 'from attacking him and his family'.  The article and the interview don't say what Stern specifically asked for, and doesn't mention his family.  So I guess I object to the word attacking.  Perhaps we could say "from talking about him and his family on their radio show".   I also think the quote about censorship would be relevant.  It came from his mouth, and I think it sums up his position pretty clearly?  --Bill.matthews 23:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I assumed that would be in the FMQB article, but I don't see it. That's fine changing it to talking about his family. As for the censorship quote, I think it's just Howard being sensational for Hannity. I don't think it's his real position. I don't want to get in to a whole censorship argument again. But, Howard's actual position has been that he didn't want people who he felt were stealing his act to have free reign to disparage him and his family while working for the same company. In the interest of getting this thing done, let's just leave the I believe in censorship quote out for now and let the reader decide if Howard is hypocritical or not. Sound fair?LilDice 23:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, that works for me! --Bill.matthews 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was agreed that the quotes be left in because they were important to the article, and provided some insight into the conflict. The parts aboot his family, however, become OR because they're not mentioned in the article, but I still believe that part should be in as well. But I also feel that in the way it was said and who it was directed at, it was not *just* because of Stern's family. As a side, a double hypocracy is this cretainly did not stop Howard from trash talking the families of others, including Don Imus and Opie. Payneos 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this "conflict" really rate a section on this article? A tiny mention perhaps, but certainly not an entire section. Opie & Anthony are hardly consequential to Stern's career or his fans. - TerrestrialSux 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read the mediation case the compromise was to remove the section and place in the 2000's section and give it a mention which we are trying to work out above. LilDice 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added this to the 2000's section -- didn't know when you'd turn up again Payneos. I don't remember agreeing that the quotes were necessary. I mean, the users can get a good idea of what actually occured and draw their own conclusion POV-wise.I really don't want to argue about this anymore... LilDice 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mind you moving it, I think it's a good idea. We never agreed on the quotes, because it wasn't the quotes themselves we argued aboot, but the relevancy of the whole article. The quotes are a major part of the article, and the article has relevance. I think it has credence. I don't ,uch want to argue either, but I feel it needs to be expanded upon more than one sentence. Payneos 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to rehash Opie and Anthony's rebuttal or Stern's specific remarks to the caller in the article. I did remove the part about his family (it isn't sourced, my mistake) and added an extra sentance about it being contraversial and Stern not admitting it until 2006. LilDice 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's fairly written, can be cited, and is not POV either way. Very well done LilDice *thumbs up* =) Payneos 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now that we're done with this - how bout u spend some energy on the todo list for the article ;) LilDice 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, I think that's a fair deal. I will go ahead and do that next time I'm on and around. Which should be late tomorrow night. Payneos 07:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please fix once unlocked
Please change to. Thanks, Cacophony 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Common Show Sayings
This was a non encyclopedic non-notable list. I think it's fine for someone's fan page, but it's not encylopedic. LilDice 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD notice
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Added FCC Fines Section
I added a section on the FCC fines complete with table listing all the fines he's received. If you can help clean the table or wording up I'd appreciate it. Please cite your sources when adding information. Thanks LilDice 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Project and Rating
I changed the todo box to the updated style, including marking as priority 1 since at least 500 pages come up on the what links here page. I was wondering why the page is still showing unasessed for the radio wiki project, or at least why we haven't requested it assessed yet? Once we close out the issues on the todo list should we have it assessed? Also are there any other projects out there that this article may apply to?(Optigan13 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I have been wondering also, I wasn't really sure about how to get involved in the radio project, but the Howard Stern Show has got to be THE most influential radio show, yet the project radio people seem to be ignoring it. I confess I'm ignorant on how wikipedia projects work so I just haven't done anything as far as elevating it within the project. LilDice 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You can join the project by adding your name to the member list on the project page. In addition, there is a todo list and a talk page that can be watched. Also, tag radio articles that don't have a WikiProject Radio tag. By the way, I recommend requesting a peer review when the article has been proofread a bit more. --PhantomS 06:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'm adding section placeholders below to discuss the issues brought up. I was wondering if we want to add the Howard Stern individual page for review to radio, or should we wait until  biography project does it's peer review first. (Optigan13 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Copy-editing
For me this will probably come last, and will probably involve just re-reading the article over and over looking for issues.(Optigan13 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Layout & Structure
The 1990's and 2000's sections feel a bit long and could probably stand to have subsections added to break it up. I'm also thinking maybe trying to add a List for Stern Show Staff & Regulars to help tie all those articles in better. There are several stubs out there for staffers that will probably never grow past that, but they don't need to be in here. That way we can also move people to and from the regulars section. (Optigan13 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Added subsections to 90's and 2000's. As far as staffers and regulars, are you suggesting taking some staffers/regulars from their own page to this article? I'm not sure I agree with that. LilDice 14:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With the staffers and regulars I'm thinking break them out to their own list style page, similar to the wack pack. The regulars section is too big for this page, but we already have a  celebrity guests page, a  wack pack page, and if we added a Staff and Regulars page we could split them out into useful sections. Several of the staffers are too small for their own article and have only warranted stubs, including J._D._Harmeyer, Ronnie_Mund, Jason_Kaplan, Will_Murray, Benjy_Bronk, Shuli, and Scott_Salem. The others that would be tied to it, but have enough to get their own page are Robin_Quivers, Fred_Norris, Gary Dell'Abate, Artie_Lange, John_Melendez, Sal the Stockbroker, Richard Christy, and Jon Hein (because of Jump the Shark). I'd also like to split the TV show out, since we have at least a few TV show stubs floating around inlcuding Stupid bowl, Howard Stern's New Year's Rotten Eve, and the bits about the film festival could get their own page to pull them together. I just think there are a lot of articles that link to this page, but are tough to find from here. (Optigan13 04:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Recommended improvements (clean-up) for this article

 * My suggestion concerning this article is one basic to all great articles: the overall article is defined by at least two reliable sources in a sources section. Granted, the article is fairly well referenced, how do I as a reader know that the rest of the article was not something made up one day in school?
 * There are several http references that appear in the article. Clean them and incorporate them into the reference section for ease of reading. Ronbo76 13:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you on the at least two reliable sources, we certainly have that: New Yorker, Salon, CNN, Boston Globe, and various other National newspapers. I agree we can always use new sources, some http sources like the FMQB ones have been crow-barred in through mediation with Opie & Anthony fans who insist on notability of certain events. LilDice 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See California Gold Rush for a Feature Article (FA) that is well referenced and has multiple sources in addition to the references. Normally a sources section is a header like the first one in this FA which is called Overview and has the two equal marks to create its header. This FA uses two sources sections called Further reading and External links. I do not suggest the Howard Stern Show article (HSS) go this deep. My recommendation in a nutshell is to find just two reliable sources that can reside in sources section which is more common than the two used by the cited FA. Ronbo76 14:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying add a Further Reading section? I guess i'm confused on the 'References' vs 'Notes' headings, I always thought you didn't need a References section if you had good foot-notes. LilDice 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, a separate sources section called sources. Getting back to the thought,  not something made up one day in school, a separate sources section almost precludes additional requests for citation (the fact template). Again, this is just a recommendation. If you or other editors feel that the article is well grounded, then dismiss it. You seem to be on a good track in improving the article. Don't let this recommendation be a stumbling block that precludes you from doing your valued service. Ronbo76 14:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, been reading up. Looks like we could have a section called References listing sources used in constructing the article, I added both Stern's books since they were definitely used as reference, however I can't find if I should list things like specific magazine articles that were heavily used. 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the Notes section as we have it is the same as if we had called it references. I changed it to Notes and References for now, since we don't seem to have any footnotes. We are using footnote style references, but footnotes are something that if we put in the main text would throw off the flow of the article if it was included, take a look at this  mixed footnote and reference page for an example of both. So for this article footnotes would be useful in distinguishing where the private parts book and movie differ from the real experience (pig vomit v. pig virus or that the b movie star is a composite) but aren't essential to the article. I've used APA style which looks like the  Harvard Referencing mentioned with the (Author, YYYY) format which makes it difficult to read for a general audience. I think the confusion might also be that we need to cite specific pages in both books and articles. We can't just say I saw it in the Private Parts book, we have to say we saw it in the Private Parts book, on page xx.(Optigan13 08:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be, just leave it we don't need mixed footnotes and citations. LilDice 11:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ronbo76 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, at this point I don't see anything that needs to be footnoted, and I'm not sure how to use seperate footnotes yet anyway. I was just trying to help explain references. (Optigan13 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Fan Sites & other External Links
I've started a thread over at the Bubba page about the fan site postings and reverts that keep going on. That one seems to be the main one that gets hit, but so does this one and the SFN one. It's something I hope will be rational and reasoned out, but seriously doubt it.(Optigan13 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Move Howard Stern Show to The Howard Stern Show
The full name is The Howard Stern Show. It’s the way it’s said on the radio and in articles (even on wikipedia). It's even how it is said in the beginning of this article. Redd Dragon 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I'm for a move. I don't know if that many other Ed's besides you and I care Dragon... LilDice 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, I think the first step would be to change the redirect on The Howard Stern Show, it redirects to Howard's page and not the show. And the correct full name of the show is as you said "The Howard Stern Show". I'll add the template to match on the main page for this discussion.(Optigan13 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorry that move tag doesn't belong since it isn't a controversial move. And the page I used that redirect to Howard's personal was "The howard stern show" without caps.(Optigan13 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Requested move
Howard Stern Show → The Howard Stern Show — I have no opinion on this, just completing an incomplete move request. TJ Spyke 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support - It's the full show name. Pretty straight forward. Crumbsucker 08:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - no reason not to. LilDice 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Correct title of program includes "The" as mentioned. (Optigan13 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
 * 4) Support as per Crumbsucker. Olessi 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - The correct name includes the “The.” The show has never been mentioned without the “The.” Redd Dragon 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Oppose — "It's the full show name." Yes, and the full name of Bangkok is Krungthep Mahanakhon Amonrattanakosin Mahintharayutthaya Mahadilokphop Noppharatratchathani Burirom-udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amonphiman Awatansathit Sakkathattiya Witsanu Kamprasit.  The stretching of WP:NCD is getting out of hand. —   AjaxSmack     09:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ....yea this is clearly the same thing. I think you just have an agenda about naming in general. LilDice 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ajax, you aren't serious are you? Totally different issues. The link you gave is very clear on this issue: include the definite or indefinite article if it's in the title of a film/show/book etc. (The Dick Van Dyke Show). Bangkok, on the other hand, is the common name of a city. Crumbsucker 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire article needs to be cleaned up. It reads like a cross between a fanzine and an advertisement. To be appropriate for the Wikipedia it should read like a biography. Thomasfromla 08:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The biography is at Howard Stern. Please let me know what you think is so bad, or better yet do it yourself. I've been working hard over the last 6 months cleaning the article.LilDice 12:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Fan bulletin boards
This is a dispute about the inclusion of fan bulletin boards in the external links. &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * The Howard Stern, The Howard Stern Show, and Bubba the Love Sponge articles have been the source of much edit warring over what fan sites are included in the external links. The inclusion of internet forums in the external links is recommended against by WP:EL (#10 under "Links normally to be avoided") and is a source of strife for competing fan sites. These internet forums have no process for fact checking or reputation for consistently reliable information. These sites (such as Stern Fan Network) also feature extensive advertising and their presence is incentive for other owners of fan sites to include their sites to increase their traffic and ad revenue. To avoid edit warring and to protect the integrity of Wikipedia as a source of reliable information and not as a depository of links, I wish all references to fan sites be removed from these articles. &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Arguments have been made that Howard has referenced the Stern Fan Network in his show and that the site acts as an unofficial official bulletin board for the show. This is not enough to warrant inclusion as Howard has mentioned other fansites as well such as howardshrine.net and robinswrong.com, neither of which deserve inclusion in the external links either. Also, the official site for Howard Stern and the Howard Stern show is HowardStern.com. When information is disseminated on the internet by Howard Stern, he does so through his official website, not through a bulletin board. HowardStern.com used to have a bulletin board but Howard opted to remove it, signaling his wish to not have an official bulletin board.&mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for actually using the talk page. I think it's worth keeping this link, it does include photo galleries which are useful as well as being as close to an official 'fan club' as you can get. The owner of the site is employed by Sirius and hosts a site. That being said, I do get sick of the edit warring with owners of other bulletin boards (User:bobdavis4). For now I say keep it though. LilDice 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the DMOZ link to the page since going by guidelines we should try to minimize links and instead link to places like DMOZ to hold most links. This strikes me as at odds with many featured articles since they contain anywhere from 2 - 8+ (See Marine Corps or Boy Scouts). Right now I am for the official site, the on demand site, The Open Directory site, and Mark's Friggin. All without subheadings beneath the external links header. I know people love their various fan sites, but in order to keep it neutral. I submitted the two that weren't on there already(Stern Fan Network(SFN) and Howard TV), so those should show up shortly eventually. Once there would it be agreeable to everyone remove the SFN link? If the SFN link is loaded into open directory then pull it. The other problem with keeping the SFN link is that I think a significant minority of users genuinely perceive a bias affecting content on the site because of either the site itself and it's admins (see Wack Pack-Joey Boots), or because of it's odd semi-official connection to the show. With both this and the other fan sites leaving one in while not including others creates a sense of bias and not following WP:NPOV. As with LilDice, I too get sick of edit warring with what I believe was that same user, as well as reverting pure vandalism from various fans who appear to confuse wikipedia for a fan site. For the record I am not a member of any stern or bubba related fan sites, and have visited SFN on a very limited number of times (<10). - Optigan13 06:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable solution to me. And for the record, I also amd not a member of any Stern related forum. LilDice 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright I don't think open directory (DMOZ) is taking the links. They ask that you only submit them once, so that was my one try, but anyone else is welcome to try to submit the links to dmoz. Would it be acceptable to link to the yahoo directory of the show, which contains what appears to be the most up to date info out of yahoo, open directory, and google? At the same time we would pull the Stern Fan Network link, since that is the fourth link on yahoo directory page. I'm also thinking that pulling Howard TV should be OK, it isn't on the yahoo list, but it does already have a section at the top of howardstern.com. I'm going off of the links to be considered section of external link policy. Which does say that is should be an appropriate web directory category, and that open directory is only often a neutral choice, but does not specify it as the only allowed one. Optigan13 05:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good solution. Go for it. &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  06:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead Air Dave
I've created a stub on Dead Air Dave. Not sure how it might relate to this article. Link in as needed. -- Kendrick7talk 01:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure Dead Air Dave is even notable enough for an article? Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 01:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Artie Announces he is leaving the show
I think this section either has to be rewritten, or should be removed entirely. The section comes off as Artie releasing some sort of official statement on the show, then going on to make a somewhat definitive conclusion that he'll leave next year. In the aftermath of the Stern/Artie argument, there has been numerous references to the unlikelihood that he will actually leave the show. While it is certainly a possibility, presenting this "announcement" in wiki seems to be outside the realm of encyclopedic information. The bigger and more notable definitive event of that day was the first real argument between Stern and Artie. I think the whole thing is not noteworthy to be included.204.117.78.97 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabbie and the O&A Show
The blurb about Cabbie appearing on the O&A show is misleading thats why I am removing it. He was not banned for appearing on the O&A show at all. There are no references that say he was banned for appearing on the O&A show. Payneos' assertion that he just wants to show what he's been up to after the ban is ridiculous. Cabbie going on the O&A show is not notable at all, and has nothing to do with why he was banned leaving it in there only makes the section read as if he was banned for going on their show which is not true. Lil' Dice (yeah, I said it!) - talk 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to be reading it wrong then, but once again your crusade to keep their name out of Howard Stern's article come to light, even if it is relevant to the discussion. I am not asserting Cabbie was banned for appearing on O&A (though behind closed doors it is possible for that whole Arthur Chi'en stunt from long long ago, but that cannot be proven, nor is it the assertion I am making here.) Now listen to my face, Dice. Listen to my face. OTHER Wack Pack members have blurbs listing what they did after leaving the show after the reason they have left, whether they are deceased, refuse to appear, or are banned. I am adding it back as it fits under that category. If the section reads wrong to you, fix it so it reads right, but keeps the constructive ideals of the article in play, instead of doing what I see you did with my O&A Controversy blurb from a long time ago, even after we struck a compromise. Deleting it. Payneos 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The line as it is currently written matches Chaunce Hayden's reason for being banned more than it does Adam Carolla's hosting on the other show, or what other celebrity guests did after the show. If you include his appearance on Opie &Anthony(O&A) without explaining his ban, readers are going to presume that the O&A appearance was the cause of the ban. Only the hosting on other radio shows section gives information on what they are doing now. All the other mentions are a brief reason why they no longer appear. I tried to clean it up but it still has problems(see below). It is too lengthy a section, and I couldn't find a source for most of the contentious material. It also takes a lot longer to explain all the possible causes of why he is banned from the show, before you even get to the O&A appearance, and the only reason that is closely linked to the ban is the lawsuit, and even then it isn't directly mentioned. I also think the entire regular guests section is nearly ready to be broken off into separate articles as mentioned in the split tag which has been in place for months. This information even if it is notable and could be referenced would be included in the celebrity guests article. - Optigan13 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is more like the full story, thanks Optigan. I'm really sick of these O&A pests trying to ruin wikipedia pages, it's ridiculous. <font color="#d7003a">Lil' Dice <font color="#e95295">(yeah, I said it!) - talk 14:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You insult me now, Dice. I haven't heard an O&A show for months because I wake up too late, nor have I ever really considered myself a "Pest" in more than one activity. There's a difference between Wikipedia and other mediums of information, I get it. As far as Optigan13's work goes, I think that's a fair and accurate representation of all the information gathered, so I have no problems with how it is now. Payneos 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

References in other media
Howard Stern's show has been sent up/spoofed in a number of other shows, off the top of my head Family Guy, The Simpsons and Brasseye have all made allusions to it. Would a small section detailing these references be appropriate? Bluskins 12:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, I don't want to junk up the article with it -- this one already has enough h of that, but if you can reference everything and do it in a non-list format then go fir it. <font color="#d7003a">Lil' Dice <font color="#e95295">(yeah, I said it!) - talk 01:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blumpkin redirects to The Howard Stern Show?
I know it is a sexual act, but I came to Wikipedia for information on what it is and was redirected to The Howard Stern Show. There is no explanation in the article on what a blumpkin is and it is never mentioned in the article. Also the redirect is protected. Why does it redirect here in the first place, and what the heck is a blumpkin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.52.143 (talk) 22:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Stern was fined for the use of the term Blumpkin on-air. The term itself has now been moved to wiktionaryblumpkin(Wiktonary). I'm not sure what the best way is to update the redirect at this point. It may need to be added into the Criticism/Fines section, or perhaps just point to the Wiktionary entry. Optigan13 05:12 28 August 2007


 * If it redirects here, we must address it on this page. Otherwise we should either have an article for it, or the redirect should be deleted. If the redirect page wasn't protected I'd nominate it for deletion. - Rainwarrior (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dahl reference in the 80's radio section
As I am new to Wikipedia I would like to find out why the section about Steve Dahl leaving WWWW, which is important to the history of Howard Stern, has been deleted. I don't want to be a rude newbie, and what I added was not disparaging to Howard, I just want to know why something that has been an important part of the history of The Howard Stern Show would be deleted almost immediately after being posted. Any help would be appreciated. I did re-edit the page to reflect the original comment that I added, but I don't want to get into an 'editing' war with someone simply because they may not like that particular part of the shows history. I posted only truth as well as a reference to the author of the information. Again, any help is appreciated and I am enjoying the site very much. Thanks. Joe Destruction 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because it was unsourced, and contains weasel words. I don't see how it's an important part of the show. Someone in a dubious book claims that Howard Stern was influenced by someone. How would he know what Stern was influenced by? Stern has given many interviews as to his influences and Steve Dahl has never come up besides that unauthorized biography. That's why I deleted it. It's not a matter of me or another editor "liking it", it's just that it's dubiously sourced. <font color="#d7003a">Lil' Dice <font color="#e95295">(yeah, I said it!) - talk 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no offense to you, but I didn't see anything in the way of 'weasel words', and if you don't realize that the Steve Dahl and Howard Stern controversy is an important part of the history of The Howard Stern Show than you just don't have a comprehensive or objective view of the shows history. Would it be different if I had referenced the book, the author, and the person that told the author that information? I am new to the site and if that is the main objection then I will certainly do so. I have listened to, and enjoyed both Howard and Steve for many years, and I can assure you, without question, that there is a long history attached to these two and the controversy therein. Thanks for the reply and please let me know about the references, etc. Joe Destruction 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The line "There is controversy over who was the original shock jock, though Dahl was clearly doing free form radio before Howard, Howard eventually brought it to a new level." is what I think is the weasel part. It sounds like you are saying Stern ripped off Dahl, but he did a good job ripping him off. The word "clearly" is the weasel word there. Also you are putting this in the body of the history section. Putting that Stern replaced Dahl on WWWW is fine, but the criticism that he lifted material from other performers is best reserved for the controversy and criticism section. Also yes please cite the book, including using citation templates. I find magnus' citation generator helpful in filling the fields out. Take a look at the weasel word guideline, and Weasel word article for examples of weasel words. Optigan13 03:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the response. I probably should have read more on how things work around here before posting, though I do still think it is an important part of the history of The Howard Stern Show, as well as Steve Dahl, obviously it was just misplaced or worded poorly. I do know that Steve was first, just a look at time lines verifies that, I'm not trying to be prejudiced towards one or the other, that is just the entry in the book and from what I know. I am just a talk radio junkie with way too much information and thought it would add to the Howard Stern Show entry. I will continue to read what I should know about how things work around here and I will go find the book again so that I can properly quote and attribute that information. Thanks again. Joe Destruction 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Unclean Beaver and Crucified by the FCC albums!
Subject pretty much says it all. These were 2 comedy/biographical albums that were big news in the world of Stern when they came out. They should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivand67 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H100logofist.jpg
Image:H100logofist.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-organising article content
Shouldn't the show history be organised into the radio station "eras" instead of 1970s, 2000s etc? I think this makes it much easier to navigate and read through, as well to add extra information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.68.176 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Painting Howard Out to be a liberal
This is not what Howard is, he has swung both ways and this article paints him as being far left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidblue8388 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does "The Howard Stern Radio Show" direct here?
...Because "The Howard Stern Radio Show" was a separate TV entity that ran on CBS from 1998-2001. It wasn't incredibly successful. At any rate, there should be a separate article for that TV show. Wikipedia pretends that show never existed, but it ran for 84 episodes. Bill shannon (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It would therefore be good if a "TV shows" section be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.175.4 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Howard back on terrestrial?
Heard Howard yesterday afternoon over low-freq. Balto. FM station while driving thru downtown Washington, DC. Exchange betw. Robin & Howard lasted all of one block before the FM station came back. "How"ard is this possible? Is someone recording the sat. broadcasts & then sending them out over low-freq. transmitter? Over local college station? What's more, I haven't heard this bleeding of frequencies for years, since I used to drive cross country under the AM sway. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dana Plato suicide after the show
I can't believe there's nothing written about Dana Plato's suicide the next day after the show. — Cannot (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No Merge w/ Wack Pack
Really, The page is important —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBully101 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to merge. The Wack Packers are not paid members of the Stern show staff, and in fact many of them make paid appearances that have no connection to the Stern Show. They are, although "created" by Howard Stern, their own entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.174.91 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this as i have just signed up, but, Kenneth Keith Kallenbach was a very early wackpacker who is missing from the list. He is also a deceased wackpacker. Here is an article about him http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-04-25/gossip/29431096_1_fay-kallenbach-cystic-fibrosis-lungs-and-digestive-system    Thanks, Bradyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradynAustin (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)