Talk:The Howard Stern Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radio Portal

This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

To-do list for The Howard Stern Show:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

Wikify: standarize citations (eliminate/incorporate http type references).
Merge: Split Sections up to reduce size.
Verify: Fix missing citations, add fact tag when needed (You may find some good sources in the Private Parts book.)
Expand: 1980's section needs fixing up, contains Biographical info. Really we need the starting date for the show listed there and other early history.
Disambiguation: Make sure all subpages and linked pages point to The Howard Stern Show from Howard Stern Show
NPOV: provide at least two reliable sources for the overall general article.

Priority 1 (top)

Archives Archive 1 - August 2006 - October 2006

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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.^[1]

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)

[edit] Please fix once unlocked

Please change [[Category:Howard Stern Show]] to [[Category:Howard Stern Show| ]]. Thanks, Cacophony 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] CFD notice

The related Category:Howard Stern Show has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] References

I added the reference for the getting stations back after clear channel dropped him, and I'll see if I can get something for the Mel Gibson. I'll also start making some passes through the article looking for stuff that needs a cite and add the fact tag.(Optigan13 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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))

[edit] Fan Sites

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))

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

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

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Howard_Stern_Show_8c88.html"