Talk:The Howard Stern Show/Archive 1

Error in Common Show Sayings and Soundbites

The line that says "He's a f-a-a-a-g" (from James Gandolfini's character 'Tony Soprano' in the series The Sopranos) is actually incorrect. The soundbite is from Michael Imperioli's character of Christopher Moltisanti on the Sopranos. I am a new user so unable to edit it myself, but hopefully someone else can.

Split Howard Stern and Howard Stern Show?

I started the split. Needs fixing up. Redd Dragon ^{talk contributions}

O&A lettermangate not notable

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)

If it makes one major news outlet, that's justifiable enough. If it makes two, there's something here. I'm going to put it up over there as well, but the section is now sub-titled "Conflicts with Opie and Anthony." This is a conflict with Opie and Anthony. Feel free to edit the language however, I think I might have made it too biased anyways. Payneos 19:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

O&A and their faux-controversies don't merit mention at all in this Wikipedia article. O&A's attempts to attach themselves to Howard should not spill into this forum. --69.34.89.56 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)TerrestrialSux

Just so we are clear... this is not a forum. Payneos 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant forum as in venue/place. LilDice 22:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

O&A Gag Order - please observe 3 revert rule

Ok, please let's not get into a revert war here. Here's the problem as I see it:

The censorship quote was put in by Payneos to highlight a perceived hypocracy. Redd_Dragon and myself feel that this quote is taken out of context.

How about we remove the jokingly part (this would be original research rather than POV). I do think we should note that Howard has never been for Government censorship and perhaps cite the Free Speech Award he recently one. Now I can hear the cries of POV already, however part of being NPOV is not to overly represent a criticism, even if you can back up the criticisim with a source. LilDice 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for that. There could be a section of the show where it mentions "Awards Won" or something to that nature and it could be included there. My only problem is the "Jokingly" part, it can be taken either way if you hear audio, but again, that's original research, and it can't be inferred by reading alone. Payneos 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to show both points of view. Fans of Stern seeing it as a joke while saying what Opie & Anthony say. Redd Dragon ^{talk contributions} 15:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as long as it's either fair by no commentating, or both sides. Payneos 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

O&A and their faux-controversies don't merit mention at all in this Wikipedia article. O&A's attempts to attach themselves to Howard should not spill into this forum. --69.34.89.56 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)TerrestrialSux

Granted, they bring attention to themselves-like almost every other radio host attempting to attract publicity-and I can attest to the fact that they and their supporters attempt to glom off of the popularity of Stern, having witnessed their XM media-swarm in Union Square during one of Stern's promotional events.

However, to completely exclude this controversy-even if it is in part generated by Opie & Anthony themselves-seems wrong, in my opinion.

The issue of Opie & Anthony being prevented from mentioning a more popular, presumably more powerful, host on the Infinity Network merits mention, although I would agree that Howard Stern's against campaign against censorship extends only to the realm of government intervention, which explains his repeated denunciations of the FCC.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with Opie & Anthony

I don’t know when this popped up, but it needs to stop. I was fine with the gag order because Opie & Anthony have been complaining about it daily for years. However, if we are going to start adding in every little comment Howard makes about the duo we will be defeating the purpose of the article. Claming that you saw it on two local news stations as a story is not reason enough. It will appear on local news numerous times because if Howard mentions them they will respond. Local news stations look for any kind of conflict, even if it not notable, to get their dismal ratings up. Let’s keep this section short please. Redd Dragon ^talk 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

However, it wasn't on a local news startion, it was reported in many news outlets including two I have provided sufficent citation for. You'd have a point if I did not have any source to cite, but in this case, I have at least two, more as the situation develops. I think it qualifies as noteworthy. Payneos 22:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is about the Howard Stern Show and not Opie & Anthony’s hatred for Howard. Howard spent less then two minutes on the subject out of a five and a half hour show. To me it is not notable. Opie & Anthony made it notable when they decided to comment. So it should be on their Wikipedia article rather then here. Redd Dragon ^talk 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As it well is. However, I have to disagree, it is newsworthy enough for media outlets to take the story and run with it. It's not aboot hatred, it's more aboot accountability. He is being called out on, more or less, his power and influence in the business, and as I see it, his title as "The King of All Media." He laid the claim, the media picked it up, the challengers picked up the gauntlets, now it's time for the results. That seems relevant to both shows to me. Payneos 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I am not going to argue with you over the issue. The discussion page is not meant for that. I am arguing with you over the fact that it should not be here. If you feel that this is such a huge issue to Opie & Anthony it should be on THEIR page. Not here. Redd Dragon ^talk 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A discussion page is made for just that. Discussion. The way you're seeing it, it would not be relevant, but the way I see it, there is. It is on their page, but since it involves Howard immensely, I feel it should be here too. Payneos 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is not made for a fan of Opie & Anthony and a fan of Howard Stern to argue over whether Howard was lying or telling the truth. That is irrelevant to the article. It was not on their page. A POV sentence was on their page. It wasn’t on their page until I added it. It doesn’t need to be on both pages, since Opie & Anthony are the only ones who have this one sided rivalry going. It is obvious you don’t want it here because of the story. You want it here because you want to smother the article with Opie & Anthony’s name. If it was Mancow instead of Opie & Anthony we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Redd Dragon ^talk 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See my above topic, but this is just not noteable, it was reported in the New York Daily News and Billboard Radio Monitor, 2 media outlets. That's all. It's just not notable in the scale of the article. LilDice 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It should be kept on Opie & Anthony’s article since their fans feel so strongly about it. Redd Dragon ^talk 23:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Logically, that doesn't make sense. "Feeling strongly" aboot something one way or another does not justify why it should not be here. The title of the section is "Conflicts with Opie and Anthony" and that's exactly what this is. A conflict. I've already proven it's a relevant and important news article, as at least *two* outlets have picked it up, which is at least one more than most of the article's cited features. Which indicates, logically to me at least, this is something big.

What we're arguing about is wether it is notable or not. Bilboard Radio Monitor is a biased source (towards FM radio). There have been plenty of articles written about Howard that are not sourced here because they're not notable. The reason you want it included is you feel it's notable, however I think you only feel that way because you have been shown to only have an interest in this article when something about Opie and Anthony comes up (not that this is a bad thing) but don't sit there and pretend you're simply trying to keep the article up to date with notable information. LilDice 23:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I contribute where I can when I hear something aboot Howard. Since I'm not as avid a fan of his as others may be, I don't know as much else to contribute with, but I would if I knew more. That's what I do. Billboard Radio Monitor may be biased toward FM, but this isn't an FM/Satellite issue, it's inter-show issue. I write aboot what I know aboot. If I didn't, I would expect my edits be reverted immedately, as I'd just be being an idiot. Payneos 00:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as this being a non-issue if it was Mancow and Opie and Anthony, that's a pretty irrelevant statement right there. If it was Mancow, I'd be fighting for it's inclusion on Mancow's page, rather then Stern's, because, after all, it involves claims made by Howard Stern. Criticism is a natural inclusion in many articles, which is partly what this is. There is no reason for it not to be included. Payneos 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you have us by the balls as usual. I suppose the best we can do is balance it out with articles that are not slanted against Stern...oh wait. And please dont make everyone laugh by saying you are a Stern fan, and please spell about correctly. Everyone else stop reverting it, or we'll just get the article locked like the O&A page... LilDice 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as having you guys by the balls, it's not a contest. I like working with other authors, and having a reasonable debate is fine. the concerns you fine gentlemen raised are valid, and I feel they should be addressed. If semi-protection is necessary, I'll hop over and ask for it. As far as Stern goes, I used to hate him for reasons unrelated to O&A, but I heard him in the recent, and he's just being a decent, funny guy. There's no reason I couldn't be a fan of both, I just happen to like O&A more. And on my spelling of "about", I do that to poke fun at Canadians. It's a habit I'll have forever. --Payneos 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So let's address the concerns. The concern is a fluffy peice in the Daily News does not make this incident noteable to add to the page yet. If you look at the sources most of the articles are quoting O&A (who have made this a big deal in order to gain publicity for their appearance). Go ahead and add this to the O&A page if you would like since it's more in scale there, however as of now as it relates to the Stern show Howard has made one small comment, if he responds to O&A and another article is written then I would say it would warrant inclusion. LilDice 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that they're trying to gain publicity does not take away from the fact that they raise a valid point. But with that aside, you do have a point that they're quoting O&A more, because O&A have said more. I'll tell ya what, I'll switch opinions for now. I'll go and remove it, if you agree that if I can cite it one or two more times between now and the Letterman appearance, it goes back in. That way, you get more notability. --Payneos 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this section about these other disc jockeys. If people want to find out about them, I'm sure they have their own wikipedia page.

Vegasjon 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed and settled. Please do not remove the information aboot Opie and Anthony. A consensus was reached long ago that the information is factual and NPOV. I will replace the information now. Payneos 04:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A conflict requires at least two combatants. At the very least, the other party should acknowledge some type of conflict. I don't like Motely Crue, should there be a section about their conflicts with me on their page? No. I’m removing this again. Feel free to keep discussing it if you feel like it though.Vegasjon 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you notice, in at least the first section of the article, Howard openly acknowledges it on Sean Hannity. the second half is debatable, and I, myself, will not debate it, but the first half should remain constant. Payneos 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Vegasjon, this does not warrant mentioning on the Howard Stern Show page. This issue has never been discussed on the show. Please feel free to post this on the Opie and Anthony page as this issue appears to be very important to them. Again, Howard Stern very rarely speaks of these dj's. References to them do not belong on the Howard Stern pages. I am new to Wikipedia, if you claim this issue has been discussed and settled I strongly disagree. Judging by your obsession with making certain these 2 dj's are mentioned on the Howard Stern page honestly reeks of an agenda. I vote for deletion of this section, since it is already referenced on other pages. Bodaman 04:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entry, it has never been mentioned on the Howard Stern show. This Wikipedia article is about the Howard Stern Show. If you are going to add this, I want a citation of these comments made by Howard Stern on the Howard Stern Show.Bodaman 04:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned on the show to have relevance TO the show. Not all show goings-on necessarily happen when the show is on the air. The issue was settled and a consensus was reached long ago by ReddDragon, LilDice, and myself. See above discussion. Just as Howard Stern should be referenced on O&A's Page (and it is), Howard Stern's page should reference O&A when a conflict of notable nature comes to fruition. Payneos 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this again. Not liking Howard Stern does not make you notable. I heard that Joe Smith hates Stern. Where is his page? The fact that you reached a consensus with other wikipedians is irrelevant. This is obviously a case of someone trying to associate lesser known DJs with a more well known one. If you happen to like the other DJs you're referencing, that's fine. I'm sure they are very talented. However, they are not notable on the Howard Stern Show article. Sorry. It stays off.Vegasjon 23:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To which I added this again. It's not a matter of not liking Howard Stern, or did you not read the article? This has to do with claims Howard Stern made while on Sean Hannity's show in reference to the Opie and Anthony show which are in direct conflict with his claims of being for free speech. It's a small criticism/information piece, every good article has them. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like Stern, O&A, or any other agenda-notioning idea you could conjure up, as soon I will have to defend other Howard Stern pages, like Wack Pack which may come under fire for not being notable enough for Wikipedia. There's no need for your condescension, just disagree and be done with it. However, I disagree, and once again, feel the need to defend this a second time. A consensus was reached last time, and while you may not agree with it, it has stood the test of the article for some time now, and will continue to. Payneos 00:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Payneos, please stay out of the OR game. You wrongly make the connection that the censoring of O&A by Viacom because of stern is in direct conflict with his 'claims' of being for free speech. There is a very large difference between Government censorship and private censorship in a business environment. I'm not going to explain it to you, but if you think real hard you might understand it one day. LilDice 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship is censorship. A rose by any other name still hurts when you're pricked by it. That's just the way it is. Payneos 15:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Astounding logic. Thanks for that, you sound like the next Bill O'Reilly. LilDice 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of room in the article for criticim. In fact, it should be full of it considering how controversial Stern is. Honestly, this isn't relevant to the Stern show. It involves another show and other DJs. Again, I don't doubt that all of these other DJs are very talented and very good at what they do. Unfortunately, they are not involved with the Stern show. Perhaps if they had a notable appearance on the show, or if there was some kind of back and forth conversation or if they used to work on the show and now dislike it. I don't see any evidence of this. Many DJs don't like Howard Stern, that's understandable. It doesn’t, however, earn them a section on his page. If everyone who didn’t like Howard Stern got a section on his Article, it would be gigantic. He is a controversial figure. Stern has to either reciprocate the dislike or actually acknowledge the other person. Don Imus hates Stern. Stern hates Imus. They both talk about it. That is a conflict. BTW, I see no evidence of a consensus after reviewing the posts. It seems you are the only person that is convinced this should be here. I'm interested in the accuracy of Wikipedia. I am not interested in promoting a one-sided farcical rivalry between radio personalities.Vegasjon 03:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're saying the same things over and over and over, what do you not get here? It's not aboot another show liking or NOT liking Stern. Whether or not they are talented has nothing to do with it either, and saying that I know is a line of typical Stern listeners, as he says the *exact same thing.* But throwing that all aside, the conflict is there and it is real, just because it is not acknowledged on teh show does not mean it didn't happen because OF his show and didn't affect his show, or will effect it in the future. Actually read what you're deleting first. Payneos 04:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say in your posts. However, you are the only person that believes this should be on here. Your insistence on using an encyclopedia article to advertise a radio show is baffling and not entirely dissimilar from vandalism. I have actually read your entry. It is not notable. I am removing it. This doesn't mean that I'm intentionally trying to hurt your feelings. Please understand that by removing your entry I'm not attacking you personally.Vegasjon 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I can tell the difference, I believe you're trying to do what's best for Wikipedia. However, so am I, which is why I'm readding it. It's relevant important information, and LilDice/ReddDragon have let it sit for a long time until you stirred up a hornets' nest. I'm not using it to advertise a radio show, which I think is the stemming of why you're not getting why I'm adding it. It has *nothing*, nothing, as in zero, nada, zilch, zero, the absence of anything, to do with how good or how bad Opie and Anthony are, or that I'm trying to advertise them here. It has everything to do with it being relevant with the Howard Stern Show, and belonging under this page as it is a notable conflict. I'll revert it, eventually. I'm lazy tonight. Payneos 03:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have returned from a trip and once again find Vegasjon to be a voice of reason and neutrality. Wikipedia is an evolution. I see very weak evidence of a concession, nor do I feel that 3 people can be the sole voices for this article. No hornets nest has been stirred up. As more people discover Wikipedia, more people will be involved in its evolution. It appears the consesus you refer to was a compromise by Redd Dragon and LilDice to stop you from constantly adding material to this article that is irrelevant to the Stern Show.Bodaman 07:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I insist and implore better judgement. Please stop your one man revert war. References to 2 dj's issues with Howard Stern do not belong here.Bodaman 07:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony recently admitted that due to indiscretion on their part (talking about Howard's daughter) led them into a meeting with their boss...not Howard. They were told to shut up or be fired. Please feel free to add this to the O&A article so that their article about their many "enemies" can be accurate. This warning to them seems to be a very important moment in THEIR careers...not Howards.Bodaman 07:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I find repeated debates with no line of listening or reason splashed with slight condesencionary tone. What the point of the article and the entire conflict was aboot is a conflict that appeared out of six years ago when Howard went *behind the scenes* and had them gagged, rather than attacked them on air, which was his traditional MO (See: Don Imus). This is a stark contrast to his "Freedom of Speech" motif as well, since he has been a strong supporter of said right. The article can already be found in O&A's "enemy" section, so can we all drop that argument? With that aside, they do not "spin music," these are not DJs we're talking aboot. If they were, I would probably have to agree, but again, you miss the point. THese are rival shock jocks who have had a long standing conflict with Stern, and Stern confirmed it on his show that he tried to have them silenced due to this conflict. If I recall, isn't Howard the one who laughed when Opie's father died in 2005? Or did you miss THAT show? I'd call that a bit of an on-air conflict. It's also not a one man revert war, I'm simply adding information I feel is relevant to Wikipedia in it's proper places. I respect your right to disagree, but I will defend my belief that it belongs here by adding it back. Payneos 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's debatable wether it is notable number one. Secondly, this has nothing to do about Freedom Of Speech. I know it's been very hard for you to understand that, but I'll say it again. Freedom of Speech only applies to GOVERNMENT censorship. So the whole 'hypocritical' business is POV (something you are very poor at recognizing in your own righting by your own admission in previous edits). Also I could care less about your OR concerning a show in 2005 when Howard Laughed about Opie's Dad dyinng since you could care less about the multitude of editors who say they have heard Howard say multiple times he could care less about O&A and that it is a one-sided conflict. As far as your comment about banning anon IP's I think that'd be great it would stop all the oh so clever O&A 'Pests' from their vandalism, which oh what a surprise the kind-hearted neutral editor Payneos never worries about or reverts. LilDice 13:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you said got anything accomplished, except that you're more unwilling to work with me now then you were in the past, which is regrettable, and that you're still arguing the same things as well. Censorship is censorship, no matter *how* you slice it. There is no difference, whether you believe so or not. My bringing up of the "OR" spiel aboot Opie's Father was to indicate acknowledgement of the show (Which you say does not happen) and that there is true hatred there. You don't laugh at someone's dead parent unless you have a strong loathing for them. As far as the hypocritical thing being POV, that's why we have the final phrase which indicates that some Howard fans believe all of what he said on Sean Hannity on the topic may have been in jest (which seems highly unlikely by the tone of his voice and the quickness of the admission.) And if I recall, I've more than once reverted vandalism, thank you. If I catch it, I do not stand for it, and more than once I know I can cite examples. Why don't you search all my edits, I promise you you will find some. Payneos 14:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you noticed I said that although I think this incident is notable though now that I read the last sentence I think that it seems a bit POV-ish, since we reference 'stern fans believe'. I would just skip the O&A quotes about it being hypocritical and let the reader draw their own ideas. You seem to think it is, but I have confidence that a more intelligent person knows the difference between censorship in a private company and government censorship. LilDice 15:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise, if it means my work stays in some form in the article. I'll gladly remove it now, to promote the idea. Payneos 15:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to commend Payneos for removing the section in dispute. I was going to contribute some ideas, but I clearly see that we have a revert addict with an agenda. I took the opportunity to review your selective censorship on the O & A pages. I believe your "work" belongs in chat forums and fan sites and not in Wikipedia. Please refrain from editing this article.Bodaman 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have nothing to contribute but attacks and claims of an agenda. If you continue insisting on doing nothing but bringing my contributions to Wikipedia down, I will ask for moderation on the topic. I will continue to edit this article, as it is my job as an editor of Wikipedia. You have the right to delete it, but I have the right to disagree with your actions and revert it back on. Payneos 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed this section again. I'm also thinking about getting rid of this talk section. I think it is crushing the debate on more relevant issues and looks to be more important and controversial than I believe it to be. Payneos, I would like to hear your thoughts before I make any more changes.Vegasjon 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding it again when this debate is finished. So far, I have not noticed much else you've done with the Howard Stern Show article other than oppose the inclusion of this one paragraph under it being "Not notable" which it's been shown to be otherwise, as was the claims by Howard of keeping O&A off of their Letterman appearance, however, that was resolved for the time being. It is also against typical Wiki policy to remove sections of talk pages, rather, it's good to keep debates open and presentable, as I will continue to fight for what I feel is right. You have also say there are more important, relevant, and controversial topics, please, if you have any of those to present, that is what this talk page is for. Or you could be bold and add them yourself. Payneos 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to admit it I agree with Payneos, it is notable as is, just leave it and stop the reverts. Or else you'll have a protected page constantly like the animals on the O&A page. If you think it's getting too much attention in the article, then get off your ass and add some more content, jesus. LilDice 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more going on with the show now, including a writer of The New York Post claiming Howard Stern had had him fired for writing the latest claim that Howard will return to Terrestrial Radio, Artie Lange's new movie, it's not like there's a shortage of anything to write on the show. Reverting it one more time for the day. Payneos 22:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping the discussion open and having other editors come in with ideas to resolve this dispute, I have tagged the section with the Relevance Template. That should keep reverts to a minimum, assuming Vegasjon cooperates and discusses things here, rather than continually reverting. Payneos 23:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to discuss the matter here if you like. The dispute is this: You are a fan of another radio show that, according to what I've read, seeks to have itself associated with the Howard Stern Show. Your edits are not in good faith but instead are an attempt to have your radio show listed in the Howard Stern article. I find it silly to have to discus the article with you because it only serves your interests of garnering attention for DJs that you like. It is not notable. With that said, I'm sick of reverting your vandalism. Go ahead and plaster your favorite DJ's names all over the Stern page. There is really no reasoning with you because your agenda is clear. I really want to give up and just let someone else try to stop you but it will have to be me for now. And yes, I am reverting it. If you're serious about keeping reverts to a minimum than leave my revision alone while we discuss it. You're not though, and you won't.Vegasjon 01:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the dispute however. If you have a problem with me, take it to MY talk page. But this has nothing to do with who I like, don't like, who you assume I like, don't like, and what you think of me at all. You consistently call them DJs in what can only be percieved as being in a condesecending tone as it's clear both shows fit in the category of shock jock and not DJs. It's already been noted that this article also has attention on the Opie and Anthony Enemies page, so the argument that I was not fair in information placement goes out the window. If you continue, the only percieved recourse would be moderation. As far as leaving your deletion of my addition to the page out, I left it out for a few days and no discussion commenced on your side. Only when I readded it did you come back and say anything. Therefore, by leaving it in the article with the Disputed Tag, it allows other editors (who may or may not agree with it's relevance, notability, and NPOVness) to join the debate and make it worth being on this page. If you're serious about trying to make this a better page, you will listen and talk to me directly about this issue. Payneos 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You win. You've worn me down. Feel free to paste the names of all your favorite shock jocks all over this article. I'm going to head over to the article on George Washington and put a big picture of myself on it, on account of our heated rivalry.Vegasjon 02:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous and has become a waste of my valuable time. Payneos is not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. You did not allow any time window for a dialogue. You did not leave the section out for a few days, look at the time tags. I attempted to engage in discussion but obviously you were unwilling to respect the fact that many of us can't sit by the computer day and night.

My interest in the whole Wikipedia experience has waned.

My final thoughts are that the references to Opie and Anthony are irrelevent to the Howard Stern Show article. It is something that happened over 6 years ago and belongs in the O & A section because they are obsessed with it. Howard has stated that he could care less about the duo and has wished them success. I now could care less as well. That being said, I am punching out. Payneos take over the article, report your victory to your leaders...you winBodaman 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on this the more I think of it. It is much more notable as concerned with O&A rather than Stern. There are no other parts about any other feuds that were much larger in this article? What makes this one so much more notable? I think the only editor who thinks this is truly relevant so far has been Payneos, and he wants to fight to the death to include it...LilDice 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article would be far longer if you would have allowed the inclusion of the Letterman Denial feud to be included. It was properly cited by more sources that were legitimate than this particular conflict was, yet you did not allow it in. If you want more conflict, I can give it to you, but you have to be willing to accept that despite what Howard may say outwardly, inwardly there still is one. For example, I'm sure George Bush and John Kerry wished each other well in the 2004 Presidental Election, however do you really think they wanted the other side to win? It's a backhanded compliment. Payneos 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Letterman thing was even more minor than this and even LESS notable. Now I don't care to speculate on Howard's most inner feelings. I am only trying to make this article FA worthy, many editors have agreed that the 'O&A Conflict' is not notable. I think that is the important thing. LilDice 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

George Bush and John Kerry may have mentioned each other many times during their campaign, however I don't think every one of those times is mentioned on their pages. only the times that are really relevant. this is something that would probably be better mentioned on the Opie and Anthony page, or even the Howard Stern page. this is hardly relevant to The Howard Stern Show. It's great that you enjoy Opie and Anthony, but this page is clearly not about their show. --BillSpike 02:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of people using the same arguments, and it's getting frustrating havint to restate my points over and over again to have them ignored and not properly addressed. The Letterman ordeal was clearly *more* notable by the press coverage being at least three times as large as compared to the gag order conflict, however, the gag order was the only one allowed to stay. Once again, it *is* mentioned on the Opie and Anthony Enemies page, and while it has something more to do with Howard Stern himself, I doubt it would fly as the argument would be more of an uphill climb. THis is something he did for his show to prevent competition (As he stated, "imitators".) It has zero, zilch, zip, nada in regard to whether or not I enjoy Opie and ANthony or Howard Stern, and should you have read over what I've said before, you would understaind that. The page may not be aboot their show exclusively, but where there is a heading for "Radio Conflicts" and there is this, it should be there. I think another great radio conflict would be Don Imus, but I don't know enough to write a proper article. But that too belongs here. Payneos 09:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how it's relevant. even in the terms of a radio conflict. you seem to be the only editor that thinks so. prehapes some impartial should be called in. Stern's radio conflict with Don Imus would be because it has occured on the Howard Stern Show. this did not (nor does it involve the Stern Show in any way). coming from the same place, I'm not sure Stern's feud with Imus would merit mention on the Don Imus page. Since Imus did not participate in it publicly that much. the quote, however, really seems to involve Sterns stance on censorship and free speech more. so it would be probably be better placed on the Howard Stern (person) page in that context. however since you seem to think it isn't relevant there, I'm not sure why you think it is here. I would love to see the Radio Conflicts section expanded, but this clearly wouldn't belong there. it's probably time it was removed. --BillSpike 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's even less relevant to his Biography, this situation has not a thing to do with his stance on free speech also. LilDice 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see a lot of the same old hot air blown around again. This is where it belongs and I have given the reasons. You have not given one reason that it does not belong here that I have not successfully addressed, yet you continue to insist in illogical reasons. It belongs here because it involves a *Radio Conflict* between two shows, that was admitted by Stern in the context of *promoting his radio show* ON the radio. Don Imus also belongs here, but that is not my field of expertise, but if one of you guys would like to add it, please do. LilDice, censorship is censorship, a rose by any other name still hurts. Whether by the government or by a company, having someone shut up still goes against freedom of speech. I think if this drags on longer, moderation would be a good idea. Payneos 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's notable because it's Howard 'censoring' someone then you have no case. Let me try to explain the difference between different types of censorship. Let's say that you and I work for the same company. We're both salesman and I want to gain an advantage over you. So when I see your clients I make fun of your family and say disparaging remarks about you. You then go to your boss and ask her to force me to stop it. Sure you have censored me, but you have a valid right to -- we both work for the same company! That situation has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. If you defend the first amendment it doesn't make you a hypocrite. This is the same thing that happened with O&A and Stern. It was NOT a notable event in the Howard Stern Show. It is simply not notable. Bring in moderation, I have no problem with it. LilDice 14:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If stated event happens, I guarantee the ACLU would make a federal case out of it (quite literally) because it infringes on his *free speech.* I'm not going to whine to my boss aboot you trying to be a good salesman, I'm going to come after you directly and talk aboot the problem to YOU. What has Howard done in the past when someone started a problem with him? He attacked them ON THE AIR. This is something HE STARTED. It was a revolution in radio. Yet, when it came time that he and his own was attacked, he goes for the censorship angle, because what was being said offended him, yet, the things he said to others offended them. Laughing at Opie's dead father, egging Don Imus on consistently, these things are offensive, yet they're allowed because of the first amendment. Nobody tried to shut him up for those particular things using any means, particularly the company they worked for, instead they tried to overtake him. It is a notable event, and I have proven so. I'm off to the mediation cabal to call in the neutral party. Payneos 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Payneos, you're confused. The first amendment does not give you an unrestricted liscence to speak whenever you want. It gives you the right to express your opinion in the proper public forum. Private forums are not subject to the first amendment. That's why you could be fired from a job answering phones if you don't follow the script and that is not illegal. Consider this - if you invite someone to your house for a party, and he starts cussing and speaking racial slurs, you can call tell him to shut up or the police and have him removed, because it's YOUR house not a Public Forum. And even though a radio show is broadcasting to the public using public airways it is a private business operating. If what you said is true a DJ could sue a company for not letting him play whatever record he wanted. And we haven't seen that happen have we? So this article being notable because it somehow exposes Stern as a hypocrite is a false contention. LilDice 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

However, they did express their opinion in a public forum, they were not competing, and it was *not his house.* I think you're confused about the first amendment as well. You ARE allowed to speak whenever and whatever you want as long as it does not incite rebellion against the government or another person. Threats are not protected, but the right to be an asshole is. Radio is not a private forum. It is a public forum, using public airways. It's not JUST aboot Stern being a hypocrite, it IS a radio conflict, as it happened on air. That's two problems you can't address, not just one. Payneos 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused at all, if what you said is true a DJ could play whatever he wanted on the air and not be fired. Which is obviously not the case. And my point is that since it's not hypocritcal of Stern it makes it less notable. LilDice 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And he can, however he's subjected to two things. Law and company playlists. You have not addressed either. It is hypocritical, it is a conflict, it is notable. Payneos 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Right from the first paragraph of Wikipedia's explination of Censorship...

"Censorship is the control of speech and other forms of human expression. In many (but not all) cases, it is exercised by governing bodies. The visible motive of censorship is often to stabilize or improve the society that the government would have control over. It is most commonly applied to acts that occur in public circumstances, and most formally involves the suppression of ideas by criminalizing or regulating expression." Payneos 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also from Wikipedia... "

Corporate censorship is a term used to denote either censorship through legal challenges, through refusal to sell a product, or refusal to advertise or allow air time." Air time, as in, a show being fired, which Opie and Anthony would have been should they have spoke of Howard as per article. Payneos 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what censorship is. What you don't understand is that not all censorship is ILLEGAL. Stern has rallied against GOVERNMENT censorship. There is nothing illegal about what Viacom did to O&A. The reason a DJ can't sue for being fired due to playing whatever he wants on the radio is that the company is not breaking any laws by regulating what is said over their airways. Really you're wrong in your logic, sorry! LilDice 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about it being illegal, did I? I said it was hypocritical because it is still a form of censorship which I successfully proved. It is also a radio conflict as it happened over the air. That's two checks, which makes it fully notable under the section it is placed. Anything else you have to address? Payneos 03:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did say it was illegal, you said that if my outlined scenario happened the 'ACLU would make a federal case out of it'. My point is that Howard was not promoting government censorship, he was promoting private censorship for the good of his employer. Secondly, just because you classify it as a 'conflict' doesn't make it notable. If it was cited that Howard had eggs for breakfest this morning and I added a section 'Howard's Breakfast on Sep. 28, 2006' that doesn't make it notable. The crux of my argument is that I don't think this 'conflict' warrants it's own section, it just doesn't fit the scale of the rest of the article. LilDice 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Said they'd make a federal case of it, never said that case was right or that they'd win it. How is stopping two "rivals" he acknowledged as competition (who were not even in his demographic OR the same time slot) good for his company? It's not, competition promotes growth and the betterment of what we're given in the marketplace. Now you're getting ridiculous with your arguments. Eggs are not citable, but we're not talking about eggs, are we? Nothing I say will make you even reconsider. I've tried to negotiate with you, I've made concessions, and you still want more. It's like appeasing Palestine for god's sake. I can only hope moderation will solve this. Payneos 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, not all forms of censorship are illegal, but they are still forms of censorship. And that is my point. Whether from the government or from a private employer, censorship is censorship. Trying to pass off there being a significant difference has not done your argument any justice or held any water because it is what it is. Conflict --> Censorship --> Hypocracy --> Notable. Payneos 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Howard was not trying to "stop" O&A, he never asked that they be taken off the air. His viewpoint was just hey, we both work for the same company so why should these guys disrespect me? So O&A trying to take down Howard's ratings by badmouthing him is NOT good for the company. The hypocacy/censorship part of your argument for notability is pure POV. So you can't count that towards notability. LilDice 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, it's come back to PoV when I prove it IS censorship, so you claim it's about the company. Howard was being trash talked. Normally when this happens, he goes after people. We've all seen it, we all enjoy it. What makes Opie and Anthony different? Howard has gone after other jocks under the same banner as him. It's not hypocracy if the facts show him saying one thing then admitting to do the exact opposite. "I oppose censorship! Freedom of speech!" Censorship, in all its forms, however, is a supression of free speech. For right reasons or wrong reasons, it is a supression of it and I have cited WIkipedia itself to prove that point, but you simply ignored it and insisted that was not the case. It still fits all the qualifications. Payneos 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what makes it different. THEY WORK FOR THE SAME COMPANY. When he goes after a DJ it's because they are on a different station so that is the only recourse. You've proven absolutely not proven that Howard has surpressed Free Speech. You have an incomplete understanding of what the first amendment protects as shown by your posts! LilDice 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact maybe O&A should be angry at Viacom rather than Howard, since Viacom ultimately enforced the decision. Not Stern. LilDice 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You continually dodge the issue at every turn. Saying it is not free speech in your opinion does not make it fact. I have shown you fact. I have proven Howard did supress free speech by taking action to shut them up. Whether or not they work for the same company is relevant only in the form of censorship used, but it is, in fact a form of censorship. Which makes it censorship. You refuse to admit it is censorship when I have clearly shown otherwise. Censorship, hypocracy, conflict, notability. Payneos 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that it is not supression of Free Speech, it's the facts. If O&A's free speech was infringed on then they have a lawsuit -- but wait they dont, because there is no constitutional right being violated, you just don't get it. Sorry! FACT. No hypocracy, very little conflict, very little notability. LilDice 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's almost ridiculous to argue with you anymore, you're not even looking at the facts. You think this is a legal issue, and that's why it's notable. Just because it's not illegal does not mean it's NOT censorship. It is a form of censorship, censorship is NOT always attributed to the government and Wikipedia has backed this notion as true by creating articles that have forms of censorship that are outside the realm of government interference. Just to be condescending like you, Sorry! You just don't get it. FACT. Arguing with you in this circle has become a waste, I'm waiting on moderation now. Payneos 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Same feelings here! LilDice 17:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversy centers on you, Payneos, the lone editor who will stop at nothing to plaster the names of shock jocks who are not related to the Howard stern show, all over the stern article. You are alone in your “opinion” and it is not genuine. You say it’s pointless to talk to other editors. Well, you’re right. But it’s only pointless because you’re only trying to make a pretense of a discussion. Let me lift the veil on your point. “I, Payneos, am a rabid fan of a radio show that encourages it’s listeners to help manufacture a conflict with Howard Stern so that the show may gain fame by association. I am not interested in the accuracy of this article and am only here because I’ve been conditioned to dislike Howard Stern”. I’ve looked at your talk comments on other pages and this is absolutely obvious, so denying it will do no good. I know what you’re up to and it’s silly. I want to try to reason with you but it is almost completely futile. Here, I’ll try an analogy. You editing this page is like a KKK member trying to be impartial while editing the article on Jesse Jackson. It’s ridiculous. Vegasjon 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this step by step. You first decide to point out that because I am the only editor with this point of view (that is editing this article) I must be wrong. There are people who would agree with me, but if I called anyone in at this point for a second opinion, you would jump down their throats and accuse me of cronyism. Catch 22, and I'm not falling for it. You then decide to throw words down my throat which does little to serve either of our purposes other then you blatently insisting that you don't take my edits in good faith, which is the complete contrary of what holds Wikipedia together. To address it, if I wasn't interested in accuracy, I wouldn't bother citing anything because it wouldn't be worth my time. I'm not conditioned to dislike Howard Stern, unfortunately for you I'm not some brainwashed uberfan like you seem to be approaching yourself as now. Despite what I may say, I'm doing this because I believe it is in the best interest in Wikipedia, and for you to immedately assume otherwise does your argument no good. Argue with facts, not with what I've done in the past. Lemme put it this way. KKK members may edit Jesse Jackson's Wikpedia, and it may be biased because they're editing it a certain way, but if it's still true and *presented* fairly, because he's a KKK member does not immedately discredit whatever his edit may be. Payneos 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this should go on the Viacom page, because 'The Howard Stern Show' has no power to do anything to O&A, Viacom/Infinity is the one who did it. Is it notable there? LilDice 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

At the behest of Howard Stern's influence and power in the company. While notable there, it's not really about Viacom/Infinity. It's between these two shows as was reported. Payneos 01:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea we all saw what power Howard had with infinity as they fined him and sued him. LilDice 02:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're speaking of a future event when his power was waining. Payneos 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Payneos, stop your speculation about Howard Stern's perceived power at the company. LilDice 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is naieve to a fault to think based on the nature of this gag order that he does not have power in the company. Was he not a close friend of Mel Karmazin? Who was in a position of athourity to hand down such an order? As the cited article confirmed? Payneos 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR LilDice 18:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE Payneos 23:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE + WP:OR + Wikipedia:POV_pushing LilDice 00:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What you listed is not actual Wikipedia policy. It does not necessarily need to be followed, nor should it nesseraily always be observed. Much like WP:CRUFT which was soundly rejected in the O&A Army Debate. Payneos 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So you admit to [[Wikipedia:POV_pushing] ?? LilDice 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I specifically state I did? No. Did you assume and try to ram it down my throat? Yes. Payneos 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

This article has many grammatical errors, including comma splices. I suggest that whoever did the last major edit go over these errors. Azlib77

Article title

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

Ad Info

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)

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)