Talk:The Howard Stern Show/Archive 1

message: I don't think the whole Stern keeping O&A off letterman is not yet notable. You have a comment made by Stern in passing, O&A going off on him (hardly notable). If it turns into a major thing with Stern issuing a press conf. I think it should be noted but until then, I don't see why the show's page should be updated whenever O&A make a stink over Howard. If anything put it on the O&A page since in the context of that show it's a larger issue. Thoughts?LilDice 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd have to read more about Notability. Let me give you an example: The New York Post writes a story about a celebrity, should that celebrity's bio be updated to include the story, even if it's not notable? Also if you know something you write is POV put it on the discussion page before you add it.LilDice 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he meant forum as in venue/place. LilDice 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Are you sure that last cited source I gave was a blog that's not reputable? It seems to be respected enough to be a good source, much like MarksFriggin, FoundryMusic, and The New York Message Boards, all of which have been used in articles. Foundry, in particular, I was a bit suprised is allowed for sourcing, but I wouldn't use it here, you guys would find it biased. Payneos 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marksfriggin has not been ruled acceptable as a source until a primary source references the site, in fact you yourself argued against using marksfriggin as a source.  Anyway, no more major media outlets picked up the story, the incident pretty clearly does not fit the scale of an already large article. LilDice 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Being picked up by at least three seems to be better than the one that the terrestial radio controversl/Sean Hannity Show conflict has been. I disagree with MarksFriggin as a source, but it has been used, as has FoundryMusic (which I assume would have a bit of an O&A Bias due to being run by Producer Steve Carlesi) but is still acceptable. Payneos 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just dont see how it's notable enough on the grand scheme of things. Frankly I dont think the O&A gag order is all that notable either, but that's another issue. This Letterman thing boils down to this. Howard mentioned something that happened to him on the show. O&A called Howard a liar, a gossip columnist picked up the story. I dont see how that is notable enough to be listed on the main show page. It really has no consequence at all on the Howard Stern Show. That said, it may have some consequence on the Opie and Anthony show, since they seem to have made a big deal about it. Howard hasn't even mentioned it since. LilDice 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're deflecting the point. More then just *one* (indicated by your use of *a*) source picked up the story, and those that did were not *gossip columnists.* It does not need to have consequence, but is a noteworthy event. Just because it hasn't been mentioned again doesn't stop that fact, it was a recorded event between the two shows, and it has been noted many times. Payneos 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but it was reported by one *newspaper* , in a light peice in the entertainment section. That does not make it notable. Notability is subjective and there is no formal policy, however the offical wikipedia policy is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Can you not see how such a minor incident does not fit the general scale of the article? LilDice 11:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're excused. A newspaper is not the ONLY citable source, so get that notion out of your head. It is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", but I still have verifiability on at least three counts by respected sources, four by at least one questionable one, and I'm still holding back to make it four solid sources just to make you happy, while the Terrestial Radio and Gag Order conflict has ONE. You were right before when you said I had you by the balls, just let it go for now because I still haven't put it in while I wait patiently to make *you* happy. It follows WP:Verify, doesn't violate WP:OR, and would not violate WP:NPOV. So, please. Calmo. I'm doing the best I can to please your one simple demand, but you won't change my mind. It belongs here. Payneos 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get rude. I never accused you of violating WP:Verify,WP:OR,WP:NPOV. The disagreement is on the subjective term notability. Surely the quality of the sources and the amount of sources has some bearing on notability. Please drop the passive-aggressive shtick. Everyone knows your agenda is to put as many O&A references in this article as possible, wether they are notable or not. Many editors have expressed their opinion that it is not notable, yet you want to go to the mat on it. As an aside, the notability between this and the Hannity thing is greater because the magnitude of what occured is greater. In the Hannity case you have Stern asking his boss to censor a co-worker. This is obviously interesting and notable. Now, in this case you have O&A calling Stern a liar about a conversation Stern had with someone from the Letterman show. Clearly the notability is much less. Even if more articles have been written about the second issue. I think most of the editors have been shown to be impartial, no one objected to the Hannity thing being listed as long as it was sourced. We just do not want to end up with a long messy article. LilDice 17:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, let's not be silly here. You can yell "Agenda" all you want, but at the end of the day, I try to keep it as fair as possible, and work with you rather than against you. At one point, you had already agreed to it being in the article, but when I cut you some slack, you suddenly get emboldened and try to call all the shots. Random IPs and Redd Dragon a consensus does not make. O&A were not calling Stern a liar, so much as asking/demanding he be held accountable for all the accused lies he has told over the years to his listeners. Rather than let him get away with it, they called him out. Much like when Clinton was caught with Monica Lewinsky, only on a smaller scale. Everyone called him out, and in the end he confessed. The article will not end up long and messy if it's put under the proper context, presented fairly, notably sourced, and under the proper heading (Conflicts with Opie and Anthony). I noticed in many articles the lack of O&A mentioning, especially where they are indeed notable. Because I am decently knowledged in O&A matters, I go and add it and cite it where possible. It's not an agenda, it's simply being an editor of Wikipedia. I'm not going to add to a quantam physics article because I don't know crap aboot Quantam Physics. I add what I know. And this is what I know. Payneos 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O&A lettermangate not notable

message: Shouldn't the title of the article and catergory be The Howard Stern Show ? Crumbsucker 14:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The section about the ad prices seems relevant to me?  It's not a criticism of Stern, but rather the nature of his show moving to satellite.   Let's discuss before it is removed.  --Bill.matthews 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a non-story they are comparing the top ad dollars the show recieved on FM radio to what an average quote on Sirius is. Also you are comparing the sole revenue maker to the partial revenue maker. I'd be fine with it if you mention all of that, but in the end that's alot of stuff to mention something that is outdaded in a few months. LilDice 21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad Info