Talk:Wack Pack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Radio (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

More complete list[edit]

There is a more complete list here [1]. There are a bunch of people missing from this page. The most obvious is Gary the Retard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.37.219 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sour Shoes image[edit]

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that the image posted in Sour Shoes' section isn't real. I was on Howardstern.com and there was a picture posted today (May, 17, 2007) that is attributed to Sour Shoes... Can I remove this link? 1337wesm 00:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


I know this is going on two years old, but I went back and checked out the image just for kicks. The image posted is most definitely Sour Shoes.

Cleanup[edit]

The Captain Catfucker entry is ridiculous. Who ever heard of him? What did he do, call in once or twice? I'd delete it but I'm not sure if that violates the rules.

I moved the contests content to its own section, it didn't seem to flow in the middle of the intro. I'd suggest we find ways to shorten this. Any former members we could take out, due to relative notability? Or within any member maybe remove some minor details about things they did on certain shows? --Bill.matthews 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that each member should have his or her own section. The article has become way to long and I think that there is much room for expansion for each member as the show progresses. It would probably be best if there is a quick summery of each member and a link to a full article about him or her. --Chris 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the purpose of wikipedia is simply to provide accurate non biased information, but do any of you feel the slightest bit of shame for helping to perpetuate indignity among human beings? I will not edit this article but I will say that there are some things in life that one can not be on the fence about. Exploiting people with various diseases and or disorders is a dispicable thing. Should Howard Stern be removed from the airwaves? Absolutely not, this is America and he has the right to say whatever he wishes. Even things that are uncomfortable. I simply felt the need to voice my dis satisfaction with an article that documents the people that are exploited. It doesn't appear to be in the public interest nor for the common social good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsh25 (talkcontribs) 21:03 8 February, 2007

Actually you do appear to have edited this talk page, if not the article itself. You changed Crackhead of Crackhead Bob, and lesbian of lesbian sisters to multiple series of ##### symbols. I would consider this editing of others comments as defined in Talk page behavior that is unacceptable. I've undone the editing of others' comments you made to this talk page. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored and refrain from editing others comments.(Optigan13 06:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

We shouldn't document the Wack Pack, but you have no problem with documenting mass murders and articles on rapists, or anything that isn't particularly savory (in your opinion)? Your comments are completely off-topic and have nothing to do with the use of Wikipedia, and essentially amount to suggesting censorship based on things that YOU don't like.1337wesm 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should remain because it discusses a well known group of people. It should be cleaned up and footnotes should exist but as a huge fan of The Howard Stern show, my opinion is that it is pretty accurate. The Howard Stern Show is controversial but the show does make stars out of stutterers, dwarfs, transvestites, maniacs, and truly grotesque people. Marsh25, I highly doubt that you actually care about the former mentioned. However, that anything exist on Wikipedia is irrelevant because it will always be composed by many and will never be 100% accurate. Wikipedia is a reference to lots of other mediums of knowledge.75.22.37.184 (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)May 28, 2008.

The Howard Stern show is daily broadcast to millions of listeners, and each day there are hundreds of new people that tune in to Howard Stern who have never heard his show before. These hundreds of new listeners regularly hear references to members of 'The Wack Pack', that they wish to research more about so they can be informed. As with anything in the world that people want to research about so they can be informed, more and more people are turning to Wikipedia. That's what makes Wikipedia such a great resource, is that people take time out of their day to upload information for those who seek it. While taking down an article about information on a show you find silly and immoral may make you sleep better at night, it prevents all these people who are looking for information from finding it, thus weakening Wikipedia's status as a site where you can find virtually any information you are looking for that has encyclopedic merit. Bottom line, if the Wack Pack with millions of "fans" deserves to be taken off of Wikipedia, then every last one of these Youtube celebrities with only thousands of "fans" deserve to be taken off as well. When you start picking and choosing which articles should stay based on your own personal wishes, that is where true bias happens. Supia (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Joey Boots[edit]

I think Boots is pathetic just like everybody else, however their is no need pointing out he'll be dead in a few months. Tofilmfan 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Regardless of how people feel about boots, but it is annoying when fansite members take to wikipedia to voice their opinion and disrupt valid efforts. Boots is currently not on the page after several waves of vandalism and reverting, which for right now might be the best until people cool down and he can be properly re-introduced.(Optigan13 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Frequent callers and wanna-bes should definitely not be on the whack pack list (Joey Boots, Double A, Zolar, Bobo, etc.).

At the same time, Riley Martin should be on the list.

Also, should it not be "Whack" pack?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.89.58.125 (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2007


I am removing the sentence that says the following: "This is widely accepted as a phony stunt to get air time as his character/act was getting very old." There is no wide acceptance, unless someone can provide such independent research. Artie believes that, but pretty much everyone on the show accepts Joey's orientation, especially after the porn star incident. Regardless, such statements either way are editorializing, potentially misleading, and don't belong.72.78.154.193 (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Zolar[edit]

Section for "Zolar" removed, no reliable sources and content written as advertisement for an online community. From my research I can also see that Zolar is NOT a member of the Wack Pack, please refrain from spamming advertisements on Wikipedia. Jiiin 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wood Yee[edit]

There's no entry for Wood Yee. I think he would be considered a member of the Wack Pack, but I don't remember enough about him to write an article. However, he should be added IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.147.144.242 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Wood-ye works there as an engineer, doesn't he? He's just a guy with a funny voice. They make him say all those things.72.78.155.165 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Wood Yee worked with the Howard Stern crew at KRock. He did not ever work at Sirius (except perhaps on a contract basis). He was recently downsized from KRock, as reported and discussed on the Howard Stern Show during the week beginning November 10, 2008. According to Scott the Engineer, Wood Yee was provided a package as part of his dismissal, but that is likely little solice for Wood Yee, who was only a couple of years away from retirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.3.21 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Eric the Midget[edit]

I have made several changes concerning the Eric the Midget entry, relating his sexual ambiguity (turning down advances from Tabitha Stevens) to his placing third on the all time midget list.

Both comments were succinct, and relevant. Anyone who knows the show can appreciate these references.

Both comments were subsequently edited out. I am wondering why these comments were deleted. If there is rationale from the person deleting the entry, I would appreciate knowing why.

69.71.79.166 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Members to be removed/included[edit]

This is an area to suggest Howard Stern Show related to guests to be included or removed from this list.

Remove:

King of All Blacks

Double A

Gay Ramon

Sal and Richard were unlikely ever considered Wack Packers. Even people like Captain Janks aren't referred to as wack packers.

Definition on the show of who is or isn't in the wack pack isn't 100% clear, but frequent callers or superfans who don't have some "comedic ailment" really aren't included. Gwynand 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually in the Private Parts book Captain Janks has his own section in the Wack Pack chapter. Although the book is old, I think being a wack packer is still fairly inclusive. Former Wack Packers King of all messengers and Vinnie Mazzeo are also included. I think if those are in there then a lot of the callers who are even somewhat odd would be considered Wack packers, including Gay Ramon, and possibly King of All Blacks and Double A. If Janks is a Wack Packer, then so were/are Sal and Richard. Even though they aren't nearly as odd as someone like Beetlejuice or Crackhead Bob, I think they are still considered Wack Packers. Optigan13 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Optigan is correct, we take our cues from the source material, not editor opinions. If this article followed Wikipedia's standards of Verifiability this conversation wouldn't be needed. Everything added to the encyclopedia should be verifiable. OcatecirT 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Irish John[edit]

I've been removing the Irish John additions as vandalism, as has another user. Now User:A2-computist is inserting the Irish John addition, claiming it is vandalism to remove it. Obviously we are in a vicious circle here!

I do not think Irish John is a wack packer. But let's face it: this article is a wreck anyway. I'd ask for a reference that cites Irish John as a wack packer, but that strikes me as incredibly silly and probably more than half of this article is not backed up by reliable sources anyhow.

That said, I guess I'm just noting this here for posterity, or for the person that may want to come along and clean this mess of an article up. daveh4h 06:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)



He is not a wackpacker. It is John himself editing himself back on everyday from different IP addresses. If there is someone else adding besides John, you in fact are vandalizing the page as well. The page was protected for a couple of weeks for the vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkil44 (talkcontribs) 10:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you don't believe Irish John to be a Wack Packer doesn't change the fact that he is. His section is in dire need of a re-write, as most of the article is. Howard has never clearly defined the criteria for inclusion in the Wack Pack, and has only named a few individuals (i.e., Bigfoot) as actual Wack Packers, so it could easily be argued that most of the names discussed in the article don't belong on the list. I will stop the reverts in the interest of settling this and perhaps getting a decent re-write. However, until the article is rewritten to include actual citations of individuals being named by Howard as Wack Packers, others will continue to re-add Irish John when you remove him. Judging from the article history, I'm not the only one who thinks he has a place in the article. Unless you can provide some reason Irish John isn't a WP'er? A2-computist (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


What are his physical or mental deformities? Zkil44 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If mental or physical deformities were a requirement, half the people listed in the article wouldn't qualify. (Crazy Alice, Captain Janks, Daniel Carver, Double A, etc, etc, etc.) You'll have to do better than that.A2-computist (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


All the people you just listed dont have something mentally wrong with them? Give it a rest John. Zkil44 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, obviously this is a personal problem you have with Irish John, which does make your continued edits vandalism. A2-computist (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I think the general consensus amongst real Stern fans is that he is not in any shape or form a wackpacker. Your feeble attempt at twisting this into me having something personal against him is ridiculous. Zkil44 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

General consensus, eh? That's why you're the only one consistently removing his paragraph... over and over and over and... well, you get the idea. The fact that you're willing to call anyone who re-adds the info "Irish John in disguise" pretty much sums up your mental state regarding him. I don't need to twist anything - you're doing the job nicely yourself. At any rate, I've spoken my peace about the situation -- and you -- and won't be responding further, as this has gone on long enough. As far as your removals, I'm sure plenty of other users more level-headed than I will continue to Undo your vandalism. Enjoy. A2-computist (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right that my opinion does not matter. However, if content is challenged, the person who is inserting is usually required to cite their addition to the article with a reliable source. daveh4h 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The addition of Irish John as a wack packer[edit]

An WP:RFC has been filed to get more comments about this. Here are my comments:

The addition of Irish John to the article does not include citations; therefore, I feel it reasonable to remove them, since it is being challenged. Furthermore, I have reason to believe that an IP range that is adding this material is used by Irish John—I do not know if this is relevant or not, but I figured that information may shed some light on this. here is one IP that obsessively adds the material. Others can be found in the history tab. daveh4h 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


        • I did my research and found that on October 28th 2005 on both Howard Stern dot com and Marksfriggin that Irish John was indeed pronounced a wack packer by Gary Dellabatte, producer.

I can not believe how serious this is being taken..But I will continue to validate what I believe as a long time listener and express this in a non vandalizing manner...I encourage others to do so and not get caught up in such an elitest cencorship portrayed by some.

Irish John is not a wack packer, he hangs out with wack packers, he has never contributed to the show, REMOVE HIM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.130.22 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Joe Cancer[edit]

The article presently reads:

Joe Cancer's passing was confirmed on the air before the Stern show moved to Sirius.[citation needed]

The last live (non-replay) appearance of Joe was on 4-23-03 as logged by Mark's Friggin. He stated that his cancer was back, and he had already outlived the expectancy of his doctors. Based on that and his disappearance from the show, it would appear that he is deceased. However, Mark's is very thorough and does not document the above statement. Any suggestions how it should read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stracci (talkcontribs) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When you change a heading...[edit]

Be mindful that if you change a heading (such as including the Wack Packer's real name in parentheses) that it will affect redirects. If you modify the heading please make sure you modify any redirects to that Wack Packer.Chris01720 (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Iris death[edit]

Can someone please add that Blue Iris passed away on April 23, 2009? I would add the link to an article about it, but apparently the post chronicle is blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.6.24 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

She's not dead yet... Her husband is keeping her on Life support for another week. Listen to the Stern Show today for more on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldOfJohnboy (talkcontribs) 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lisa G reported today (4/29/09) that Blue Iris remains on life support today and people are attempting to raise money for her funeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldOfJohnboy (talkcontribs) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lisa G again reported today (5/5/09) that Iris remains on life support and that they are still attempting to raise money for her funeral before they "pull the plug." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldOfJohnboy (talkcontribs) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Captain Janks[edit]

Why is Captain Janks (Thomas Cipriano) not considered a former member of the Wack Pack? He made many appearances on The Howard Stern Show contributing recordings of his irreverent brand of interruptions to various serious broadcasts. A good article about him was deleted. IMO, a future student doing sociology research should have access to that information in Wikipedia. David spector (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that he should be included here, as well as have his own article. I know Tom personally, and whilst he is a complete horse's ass, he is arguably the most legendary prank caller in history. The Jerky Boys have a page. ( And Johnny and Kamal each have their own respective page.) Tom's prank calls supercede The (very funny) Jerky Boys on many levels. Janks has pranked almost every major newscaster in the U.S. He has managed to get himself on the air during some of the nation's biggest breaking news stories. His ability to bypass network security, and pose as legitimate spokespersons is legendary.Mk5384 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know who the Jerky Boys are (or were) and they have a page? They sound like Janks copycats and/or wannabes and if the good Captain isn't listed at least as part of an article of a much bigger topic (it's fine if he doesn't get his own page), than they shouldn't be. Wikipedia is hypocritical as long as it stays that way. This is about notability, not the likely possibility that Janks' calls were awesome and the Jerky Boys were anything but. When every newscaster and talk show host knows who you are, not to mention a lot of the public, you are notable. 74.235.194.229 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Add George "Crackhead Bob" Harvey[edit]

I don't see the inclusion (under "Former" members) of Crackhead Bob, and don't have enough of an established account to add him. Here's what I would suggest putting:

Born August 29, 1959, Crackhead Bob was a regular guest on The Howard Stern Show (site Dates here). He is a recovering crack cocaine addict who is paralyzed on his right side due to drug induced strokes. As a result, he had a tremendous speech impediment and was used on many prank phone calls. He also "impersonated" Kirk Douglas on a bit that Richard and Sal did as a fake radio show.

Dr. Remulak[edit]

The section on Dr. Remulak is flawed. He frequently said many other things besides his name. He described how he came from the planet Remulak (or some other similar name) and would answer questions in really weird but interesting ways. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with HS to be able to edit this article authoritatively myself. David spector (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Despite the somewhat gonzo nature of the Howard Stern Show and those who appear on it, we are a encyclopedia here and one of our basic policies requires reliable sourcing for any allegations in relation to living people, and this applies whether they set themselves up as targets of ridicule, unwittingly or otherwise. I've been watching this article for too long to consider that neutrality might be achievable, but at least any information, from our point of view, should be reliably sourced. It hasn't been, in my experience, and I suggest that Wikipedia is not here to provide a gratuitous freakshow. That's why I've protected this article until properly sourced encyclopedic content becomes the norm. Rodhullandemu 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree on this. (LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

Article is missing Fred the Elephant Boy for some reason[edit]

Notice to the editors of this article[edit]

I stumbled upon this article, and saw that quite a lot of it was an unsourced BLP nightmare. Just giving the editors of this article a notice that I intend to go ahead and remove quite a lot of it in a few days time if it does not get sourced. NW (Talk) 17:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an editor of this article, but I am a long-time editor and am familiar with the Howard Stern show. I suggest to NuclearWarfare that he or she not proceed with the proposed deletions. Although the information in this article is not easily verifiable (since there are few, possibly no authoritative sources that discuss these details of the Howard Stern show), the accuracy of this material is well-known by Howard Stern fans by direct experience of listening to the show. In theory, one could listen to tapes of the show and verify the content of this article, although in practice this cannot yet be done.
As with other WP articles concerning pop culture, it is difficult to find acceptable citations. Does this mean that WP should not include pop culture? I say no. Today's pop culture will become tomorrow's academic study material. Further, today's pop culture is relevant to today's user of WP.
Not all articles are the same. WP is not homogeneous and is not limited to well-referenced material. WP standards need to be applied in differing degrees to various types of articles. When acceptable citations cannot be found, WP guidelines need to be relaxed, so reliable material can be presented on such topics. This can be indicated for an article by the appropriate WP notice at the beginning of the article (as has already been done for this article). David spector (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we repeal WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP for this, and similar articles? I doubt that will ever happen, because that would leave Wikipedia as a publisher of original research, which again, is not our purpose. Your proposal, if taken to it logical conclusion, would turn this encyclopedia into an anarchistic blog, and as long as there is breath in my body, I will not let that happen. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm also with NW here. Kevin (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Kevin, RH&E and NW. I've tried to work on this and related articles incrementally, and progress is slow and painful (cf the Sal the Stockbroker debacle). It needs to be stressed that claims in articles governed by BLP require reliable independent sourcing, and that blogs like marksfriggin.com fail the "reliable" criteria, and that "official" Stern promotional pages fail the "independent" criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of an answer i would expect from User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz see gaming the system he calls marksfriggin.com a blog, which it is not, i suggets user like this look at the soruces for more than 5 seconds. I feel that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not here to make sure sources are proper i feel he is trying to get the whole artical removed for some unknown reason98.117.34.180 (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
"When acceptable citations cannot be found, WP guidelines need to be relaxed" No. Absolutely not. Unsourced BLP violations should be removed. If anything, the editors of the article have been far too lax in allowing all kinds of negative unsourced material about living persons to remain unchallenged. Enigmamsg 06:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is Elliot Offen deleted, when "Goody Dickman" has been added to the article? And what about "Big Foot" Mark Shaw, Jr? Moderators are quick to delete "unreliable" sources, but I don't see them help contribute to the article, or add more, what they call "reliable", information. 92.11.99.125 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

About marksfriggin.com[edit]

Hi folks! I would like some clarification for citing from the MarksFriggin site. Is it fine to reference, say, the date of a particular event from the show? Like the debut of a Wack Packer or staff member? Although the site is run by a fan, doesn't it just summarise the events of each show as they happen? He doesn't put his own opinions in. If anyone can help with some info, much appreciated, and Happy New Year folks! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a self-published fansite (and describes itself that way), and as such is unacceptable as a source for BLP content. From WP:SPS: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So we can't reference it at all then? I still see sources from it in related articles.LowSelfEstidle (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ted![edit]

How is Ted the Janitor not included in this article?Mk5384 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP and unsourced material[edit]

If sources are not added to unsourced sections within a week, I'm going to delete them. This article has been tagged for improvement for long enough, without making any apparent headway. Rodhullandemu 22:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's time. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

two bigfoots??[edit]

there is a bigfoot right now who, as of last week, is not dead. they had two of them or is this article mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.200.98 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There was "Bigfoot" Matt McGrory and "Bigfoot" Mark Shaw, Jr., who joined the show in 2006. (LowSelfEstidle (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from 96.11.112.194, 15 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} What about the new Bigfoot, Gary and Wendy the Retard.. High Pitch Mike, Hillbilly Jack, Angry Black, Big Black, Daniel Carver. 96.11.112.194 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done You would need to cite reliable sources before any would be included. Rodhullandemu 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

howardstern.com[edit]

Is this a reliable, third-party (independent), published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Surely not. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Prior consensus from discussions on other Stern-related articles is that it clearly fails RS standards, particularly for BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm sick of all these low-brow sources being used as footnotes in this article. For fucks-sake, lets keep it classy, motherfuckers, this shit needs some mothuafockin' statistics and peer-reviewed research backin' it the fuck up!

Edit request from Justjoe61, 27 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

The addition of Hillbilly Jack as a Wack Pack member. He won the June 10th 2010 Wack Pack contest.


"Debbie the Amazing Pet Lady" is a current wack packer that isn't listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathiasRodriguez (talkcontribs) 23:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Justjoe61 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done You haven't provided a reliable source for this, but in any case, I'd be inclined to defer this until the outcome of the deletion proposal for this article is known. If kept, please renew this request, citing a source. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to provide a source URL that (I think) can be considered credible & that might be used for an inline reference pending the decision of deleting this item & incorporating it into the Howard Stern page: http://www.howardstern.com/rundown.hs?d=1276142400 96.255.159.29 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing packers[edit]

mark the bagger Medicated pete Asian pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.164.153 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Absolutely no mention of Melrose Larry Green? I thought he was a staple of the Wack Packers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.59.111 (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is BLP criteria appropriate for this topic?[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia so perhaps I am missing something, but couldn't this article be better handled if the subjects are viewed as characters on a radio show rather than actual individuals? The wack pack is a machination of the show rather than a collective existing independently of it and therefore should be treated as characters. Individual wack packer pages could be BLP and require proper sourcing but the wack pack article should only reflect the personas exhibited on the show. Dr.L.Jamf (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Dr. Jamf

Yes if they are referred to as fictional characters, but as you've said, some of the individual pages are BLPs not pages about characters so I don't know how that would be possible. Anything about the person, and not just about the character, is subject to BLP policy, and unfortunately it isn't clear at present which content that would be as the article is currently ambiguous on which of the personalities are characters that only exist on the show. Maybe the article should just be redirected as no sources are cited for the additional content about the history of the Wack Pack. Peter E. James (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012[edit]

Article length request removed. Dru of Id (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 76.18.14.20 (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Peter E. James (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Restored deleted refs, moved the brand-new ==More== above ==References==, so the citations are actually displayed without bright red error messages.

  • Why does ==More== exist, when the people listed actually need a small amount of detail on this page, next to their names?
  • Why did the Irene refs get deleted? Found no proof of her death on any HS resources, or her own website.

Let's not delete RS: those books can provide verification about many other people on this page. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the references because they really shouldn't be in a list article. Some pages should be broken out to their own pages. Most of the Wack Packers already have their own pages and those entries shouldn't have additional detail appended to them in the list. Dkendr (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a list article, it's an article about the Wack Pack, with quite a bit of prose, and some lists. The title does not contain the word "list". Citations of reliable sources are required to verify items in lists which lack their own articles, and which can be challenged.
It is normal, and expected, in an article like this, to add a small amount of detail about each person in a list, even if they have their own article. This is very frequently done, and is not out of character for this article about a group of people.
Please do not delete citations for unlinked items - that just makes the material vulnerable to deletion. Bluelinked items don't require citations, of course. --Lexein (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree on formatting and inline citations (for an example of what I'm talking about, see the Star Trek minor characters article), but I don't have the only vote on the matter so I'll defer to you. Agree on the citations. Dkendr (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Do you mean List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation? I'm fine with that when we have at least a sentence (sourced) for each person. Are you willing to wait/help? Separately, I'm tempted to do purely named refs to declutter the wikitext - next edit. --Lexein (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm in - happy to help out. That's why we're here, right? Please set one example of what you're looking for, and I'll backfill and source as many as I can. Dkendr (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable sources[edit]

Beyond the rage and hyperbole above, IMHO:

  • howardstern.com is a primary source about Howard, and a reliable primary source about appearances made by Wack Packers on the show, though not, by itself, about BLP details.
  • Any BLP claims about Wack Packers should be supported by (for example) a Wack Packer's own website (primary) or, preferably, independent reliable sources.
  • Deaths should only be listed under Deceased if confirmed by independent RS. If not confirmed, should be listed under ==Living former Wack Packers==
  • Howard Stern's book Private Parts should not be excluded as a source about appearances and activities on the show by Wack Packers, especially where its cited facts are supported by other sources not cited here.
  • Lucaire's book Howard Stern A To Z should not be excluded, when its cited facts are supported by other sources not cited here.

Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Marksfriggin.com? Sternfannetwork.com? The unauthorized biography? Other Web apocrypha? You know what we need? The Howard Stern Wikiproject, wherein canon sources can be defined and consensus reached. Dkendr (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Marksfriggin.com - is currently considered unreliable by someone at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102#MarksFriggin.com, sadly. IMHO, by IAR, it's reliable for limited use for uncontroversial, non-BLP, material. Mercer does opine, but it is easily discernable from his log. I wish he'd stop calling MF a superfan site, and start calling it a history site. Or maybe he'll eventually be considered reliable just for having done it so long.
  • Sternfannetwork.com - I have a doubt. We don't even know who anyone is there.
  • Answers.com - unless the answers have links to RS in them, I can't imagine citing this.
  • The unauthorized biography(ies), as books, are IMHO citable, where they agree with the Rundown and MF; independent is better than primary.
  • Apocrypha - says it all. I tagged two sources at Beetlejuice (entertainer) - check 'em out.

Oh, and why isn't Zolar listed? Not "really" a wackpacker?

--Lexein (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Zolar never qualified for Wack Packer status. He was just a caller with a funny nickname who had some sort of mentalist sway over Miss Howard Stern. Dkendr (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Debbie The Pet Lady[edit]

She's former now, not part of the current cast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.91.42 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Ruined[edit]

I guess somebody locked this and deleted all the content because there are no written sources on wack-packers (which is a preposterous notion if you can't "cite" "The Howard Stern Show," obviously.) Now it's skeletal and almost useless. I've never seen a clearer case of the Wikipedia hall-monitor squad (who have systematically murdered the grassroots involvement that launched Wikipedia[citation needed]) basically just killing a totally-valid article that would have been continually fact-checked and expanded via crowdsourcing--which used to be the fun of editing Wikipedia. There's info on Bigfoot because they happen to mention him in a Rolling Stone article? It's almost pathetic looking at this thing.

I used to write Wikipedia back in '06 when you could contribute information (many unsourced and correct facts I wrote were nicely grandfathered in and are still there.) Crowdsourced fact-checking can take care of accuracy issues on most articles pretty efficiently, due to the happy accident that people interested in and knowledgeable about topics tend to read those particular articles. As far as I could tell, this was the original engine of the phenomenon of Wikipedia, and why it now has articles that eclipse old-school encyclopedias.

It was a fine idea to add sources where applicable, but the other result was essentially murdering an article like this. There's no joy in adding things to Wikipedia anymore, obviously, and the rule-people have rendered it as dull and now static as any encyclopedia. In my opinion, editors disinterested in topics should not even read the pages, let alone destroy articles that contain accurate info. It's a really poor and impoverishing methodology essentially at war with what Wikipedia was. Even the appeal of Wikipedia was once "hey, there's a huge, detailed article on wack-packers." Shame on you. Urrrbrrr (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the old free-for-all trust-the-writer wild-west days are over, but our readers can have more faith in the reliability of WP articles, due to the sources we cite.
Your concerns are noted and understood. You're not alone. On the plus side, there are more reliable sources available online (Rolling Stone article, for example) and offline (books) with info about wack packers these days. That's how I was able to expand Celestine and, to a lesser extent, Jeff the drunk and others.
Note that the show itself is not an independent source the way we like, so we can't source much of the article from it. Many market papers (like in Philadelphia) reported on the show regularly.
As for verifying from the HSRS directly, don't blame Wikipedia: Howard made the the show unverifiable by not making all the show tapes or transcripts available anywhere, even for a fee. In my opinion Stern is well aware of the historical value (not to mention the value to fans) of tapes and transcripts, but he won't front the money to market them.
I hope you will continue to research and source facts which belong in the article. --Lexein (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 October 2013[edit]

Mark the Bagger is missing from the list. You can check out Howard saying he is a member as the first topic of his interview in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxbILeO1smE 2001:4898:80E8:EE31:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done yet. Yes, Howard says "Mark the Bagger who we initiated into the Wack Pack through the Bloodhound Gang". We'll need an independent prose source for this. That video is a copyvio of the official HS VOD channel, and THSS may very likely DMCA that YouTube channel. Plus, it's a primary source. So let's get one more source and it can go in. Discuss? --Lexein (talk)

please add Howard's requirements[edit]

Howard's requirements for being in the wack pack:

1. no job 2. denying that you are in the wack pack

-peace and love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.151.28 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We'll need an independent reliable source for that. --Lexein (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)