Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-27 Howard Stern Show Article Relevance Debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Howard Stern Show State: Closed Requested By: Payneos Other Parties: Payneos, LilDice Mediated By: Markovich292 Comments: Case Closed

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-9-27 Howard Stern Show Article Relevance Debate 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-9-27 Howard Stern Show Article Relevance Debate

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Payneos 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The Howard Stern Show Article.

Who's involved?

Myself and LilDice mainly.

What's going on?

I wrote an article concerning a controversy between that show and a rival show, however it is being interpreted as "non-notable" and "advertising" for this other show. Repeatedly I have debated successfully to the contrary, but they insist on restating the same arguments on the matter.

What would you like to change about that?

I have tried to make many compromises to keep my work in the article, but they continually make more demands. I would like my work to be kept in the article in it's present state, and any more watered down and it would not be notable. If possible, I would also like an opinion on expanding the section to include other controversies involving the rival shows and a case made for its' relevance as well as it did garner news attention, which was rejected throughly as relevant by the opposing party involved, despite being properly cited.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, I think direct mediation would be better in this case.

[edit] Mediator response

Hi, I have reviewed the talk page as well as your comments here and am willing to pick up this case. I believe that you both have done a good job at stating your respective sides of the argument here, but I may try to elicit further information from both of you if need be. Most of my efforts, however, will be focused on brokering a compromize between both of you, based on what I know of your arguments made already. Each of you please tell me below if this is acceptable and if you want me to mediate this case. Thank you. Markovich292 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(Please note that starting next week, I can not guarantee checking this page every day but I will see this mediation through to the end)

---

Responses: Sounds great to me. I would just like the information to be presented on the proper scale. LilDice 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with LilDice. Just want the problem resolved. Payneos 05:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Compromises have already been made on the subject, so I think further compromising may be out of the question. Payneos 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea -- Add sentences sans out-of-context censorship quotes to the 90's radio show section, this way it fits more inline with the rest of the article since I don't believe this situation warrants it's own section of the article. LilDice 14:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how they're out-of-context, however. It warrants its own section based on several factors, and the quotes confirm this. A conflict belongs in this section, and these quotes help support all the claims of the conflict. Payneos 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They're out of context because they were said in jest in the interview, if you read them literally the one sentance, "I believe in censorship when it benefits me." contradicts the man's earlier actions as someone who has been forced to battle against *government censorship* in the past and does make Stern sound like a hypocrite. LilDice 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Aah, so you do admit his actions and his words are contradictory! We make progress. Payneos 05:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope that further compromising isn't totally out of the question, thats what I am here to help you with :)

At this time, I would like to ask a couple of questions that haven't been fully brought out. They do not have to do with content per se, but hopefully I can get a better idea of where to go with this once both of you have said where you stand. First, I was wondering what both of you feel would be gained from including this section in the article, and why it would be detrimental to keep it out. If you would, please include both viewpoints (pros and cons of the section) in your responses.

Secondly, please let me know a few goals that you have for this section...that is, if you could write this article on your own, what are two or three main things you want changed (or kept the same) from the current version? Markovich292 23:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Keeping Section.

Pros A general a 'Conflicts with O&A' section would worth having it showed the true nature of the conflict. To me the real notable thing about this conflict is that the O&A fans and O&A have a large amount of dislike for Stern. While Stern rarely comments about O&A, and when he does it's not with his usual Venomous approach (personal attacks) reserved for other DJ's like Don Imus.

Now specifically this passage with regards to Viacom's censorship of O&A at Stern's request. It is something that happened on the show, and is fact. So on a pure sense it would be beneficial to make note of a fact related to the Stern show.

Cons A general 'Conflicts with O&A' section is not notable to the Howard Stern Show is. Stern rarely mentions them on the air compared to other rival DJ's. He has in fact wished them well in their endeavors and overall kept a low tone when discussing O&A. It really gives O&A more weight then they deserve in the article and in general is just not all that important.

Specifically the censorship passage: The fact that a rival DJ does not like Howard Stern and that Stern once requested they stop personally attacking his show and his family while employed at the same station is not notable.

My Ideal Stern Show Article I would remove all if not most of the easily outdated things like frequent soundclips, specific easily dated bits like 'Staff Revelations'. Things sorley missed are factual lists of FCC fines. Timelines of every radio station the show was broadcasted at. Criticals looks at the fact that the Stern Show revolutionized (for better or worse) the way radio shows were syndicated. Critical looks at how the Howard Stern show changed the business of terrestrial radio and Sattelite radio. What did the telecom act of 1996 do to aid the Stern Show's influence? More about the show's battle with the FCC and what it meant. Looks at how the show effected popular culture. What is the interview style of Howard Stern, why is he so underrated as an interviewer?

I would also like to say, it is particularly frustrating as an editor of this article. Stern gets very,very,very little positive or even fair press. The fact is, his name sells copy and only the most 'shocking' things are published about him and his show and often mistruths are published just to sell newspapers. It is also a bit early for Telecom/Media Journals to publish studies.

ProsThe Radio Conflict section is a good way to inform those who have no real idea of what the Howard Stern Show is about as to some of the people he does not get along with and why. Don Imus is a good example, as is Opie and Anthony. Stern does not "rarely" comment on Opie & Anthony from what I've surmised, he just does it in different ways, referring to them as "imitators" and "those guys across the street" rather than by name, leaving an ambiguousness, but implied meaning to what he's said in context. This is backed up by the article from FMQB I cited to originally be able to include the article in the first place.

As to the censorship passage, I believe this is notable as a sort of criticism. There don't appear to be many on his biography page or Show page other than Stern himself being shocking, which really isn't all that... shocking or new. When something out of the ordinary comes up, a hypocracy of words and actions, I feel that is notable because it is out of character for Stern.

Cons Vandalism. Radio show fans seem to have a tendency to be very... opinionated. In so far, I've had to fight very hard to get to this point and hold a case because people believe these to be opinions rather than fact. Stern certainly mentions O&A enough to have their Wikipedia article vandalized whenever mentioned with some of his lines "Dopie and Aintfunny or Opie and Dopie" as well as other Stern show references.

I don't have an ideal Stern article, I'm just trying to get some relevant information added into the article. I think LilDice's ideas for a better article are all good, except for Radio Conflicts. That should stay in and be expanded to include other famous rivalries Stern has participated in. Payneos 16:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I definately think that what both of you said is very sensible, and it looks like there could be some common ground between both positions to work off of. I have taken another look at Wikipedia:Notability (although not official policy, it surely is a good indicator of what information is suitable for inclusion) and to me, I think certain parts of both arguments are supported.

I have to mention that wikipedia is not paper, so information like that presented in the "Conflicts with Opie and Anthony" section is "fair game" for wikipedia. This particular article, though, is specifically about the Howard Stern Show. As such, it seems that an entire subsection devoted to other radio personalities is somewhat off-topic. What do both of you think about taking information from the "Conflicts with Opie and Anthony" section and placing it in more appropriate areas? Between the both of you, it seems that you have enough knowledge to create a short "Conflicts with other radio personalies" section on the Howard Stern Show page, and O&A can be mentioned in it. Also, the censorship passage that you mentioned, Payneos, does seem very relevant to Stern since he has historically been known for battles in censorship, so it could even be moved to Howard Stern if an appropriate "Howard Stern and Censorship" issue were brought up there. LilDice, you also brought up a good point about "Viacom's censorship of O&A at Stern's request," which is indeed a fact and is probably notable enough to be mentioned in the "2000s" section above. Ideally, merging the excess content of the current section into other areas will even contribute to making an article with some of the things that both of you seem to think would make this a better article.

So, what do you guys think? Please, by all means, let me know if there is something more that you are concerned about, if this solution is unacceptable to you, or if you have something to add. Markovich292 05:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds fine to me. I'm all for moving the information to the 2000's section. Also vandalism of the section will go down, as casual watchers of the article won't get fired up whenever they see an edit to an 'Opie and Anthony' section of the Howard Stern Show article. LilDice 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds good. I think that's a reasonable middle ground, so long as there is mention of it in it's entirety, a seperate article is fine to go if it fits better somewhere else that makes sense. Payneos 00:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah excellent, I'm glad you both agree. I am not intimately familiar with the material, so I think it is best for both of you to use this page to work out the specifics of what can go in each section (if what we have above isn't detailed enough for your liking). The best way to continue after that is probably just to go ahead with making the changes, while making sure to discuss major changes on the talk pages of the articles that are affected.

I will leave this mediation officially open for a few more days just in case you find that there is a small issue that crops up and needs resolving, if you find more info and need to further discuss where to put it (but I encourage you to try the individual article talk pages first, so that other editors can weigh in as well), etc. Let me know if there is anything further you need from me, as I am always willing to help you guys out! Markovich292 19:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

My main argument if I might put it out there. I do not believe the incident is notable in the scale of the article. No mainstream media outlets picked up the story, only an *FM Radio* trade magazine. A little back story though -- I believe the reason why other editors continue to revert the section is that they are hard-core listeners to the show and don't understand why there would be a section of the article titled 'Conflicts with Opie and Anthony' since if you listen to the Howard Stern Show there is hardly a mention of Opie and Anthony. Now listeners to the 'Opie and Anthony' show know that O&A are quite focused on Howard Stern and mention him all the time, so Payneos cannot understand why O&A would not have a section on the Howard Stern Show's page. Now I know this is all OR so i won't go into it more than that, but I feel it's relevant to realize that since I think it's tainting Payenos' view of Notability in this case.

Another misconception is that this incident is so notable because it exposes Howard Stern as a hypocrite. I have to disagree. O&A was trashing Howard and his family while working for the same company. Howard asked management to tell them to stop it, and they did so. This does not make Stern a hypocrite since this situation has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment which Stern has battled for in the past, it's simply an intercompany issue.

To summarize, I am certainly not against critical views of the Show in this article, and I understand how Payneos wants an entire section devoted to Radio Conflicts on the page. However, until we see a good primary source discuss _actual_ radio feuds involving The Howard Stern Show; I don't think we should crow bar in any incident that gets mentioned in a trade magazine just for the sake of mentioning a rival DJ's name. LilDice 12:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To summarize my argument, LilDice always opens seems to be blinded by the fact that I like both shows but have found a flaw in the one he likes. What this has to do with my liking Opie & anthony, however, is zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. And I have stated this many times to which I have recieved no good faith for it, despite having taken much action to the contrary. It is not tainting my view, despite what LilDice likes to believe. I can tell the difference between Wikipedia and a fan site.

While it's nice that LilDice likes to say that because you work for the same company it is not censorship, it is. It's called Corporate censorship and it derives from the main Censorship article which also fits the bill in this case. Censorship is censorship, no matter which form it takes, it still has the same name.

LilDice is committed to making Wikipedia a success, however so am I. And I think by belittling such things lik ethis conflict and the source I cited in this conflict, he is not doing Wikipedia or this article justice. A lot of relevant and pertinent information have come from this website, and it has not been questioned as good information now. There are many radio conflicts, and this is just the beginning of that section. There are plento of ways to *expand it* but instead LilDice has taken the destructive role of *reducing it.* Something I could not stand by and watch. Payneos 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my censorship argument on the discussion page many times, however you can't/don't want to understand the difference. There is such a thing as addition by subtraction. The paragraph you want to add sticks out in the article, it doesn't portray an accurate picture of the 'Conflict with Opie & Anthony' , an accurate picture of this conflict would be it's one-sidedness, however until there is a primary source that goes into the true nature of it we are stuck with incomplete one-sided barbs. LilDice 14:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And you can't/won't understand that there isn't. You do not believe there is a conflict with Opie & Anthony because Howard simply tells you there isn't. He throws you a backhanded "I wish them well" and you believe it is the word of God. FMQB is a primary source and has been used several times as such. It isn't a one-sided conflict just because Howard says so to his listeners. Opie and Anthony stated the conflict was there directly because of something that originated behind the scenes. Something Howard affirmed. In context, I might add. It was a direct question with a direct answer. Payneos 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one-sided because O&A are constantly talking about Stern -- you don't hear Stern do an O&A impression when he is on Letterman. You don't hear Stern play clips from the O&A show. Yet with Stern's real radio feuds Stern goes on and on and on about how much he hates somebody. And yes it is a one-sided conflict because Howard says so to his listeners, I either believe what he says or come up with a conveluded theory out of thin-air. I'll take the words out of his mouth. Thanks. LilDice 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we then have proven that you DO have a bias. No matter what logic I use, you have admitted to being a Stern fan who will believe whatever he says, no matter how illogical it may be. If you listen to O&A, you would know that Stern is brought up when any other major celebrity is brought up. When they're in the news. THat's what O&A do, they comment on what's the daily headlines. Howard made headlines again on September 20th (which I might add you included in the article) for the rumors of him returning to terrestrial radio. He's only been brought up since by callers. As to Anthony doing a Howard impression, let's look at the facts. It's tough to break out into your own spotlight when Howard dominated the business for many years. Letterman had asked about Howard and the conflict between the two shows and how there was "no love lost" between them. Rather than just sit back and take it, O&A did a strategic move that they were doing many years ago when they made fun of Howard and his family then, they went on the attack. The audience and critics loved it, and it seemed to have paid off big dividends. What did you expect them to do, sit there and nod while Letterman questioned them about somebody they clearly don't like and Howard does not like as well? They saw a chance and they took it. Two sides to every coin, two sides to every conflict. Payneos 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I better hang up my hat. I am a Stern fan, as for the bias, prove it. My point of bringing up the Letterman is to prove it's one sided. Letterman doesn't ask Stern about O&A because Stern doesn't focus on them like O&A focus on Stern. They are really not a big deal in the Stern Show universe... LilDice 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, Stern has not been on Letterman since all this came to light. O&A focus on Stern when he makes headlines like any other major celebrity would be ripped on should that be the case. I already ascertained your bias in your strong language, condescending tone taken toward the article, O&A fans, and myself. Letterman asked them originally to gauge their reaction and tried to make them admit that Stern revolutionized radio, which they did, but then cracked on how he claims to have invented everything, followed by ripping on Letterman a little for taking the whole thing too seriously. Payneos 17:17, 28 September 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. I vote to remove the section. - TerrestrialSux 17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)