Talk:Howard Stern

need to correct the "bigoted" attribution

The entry says, near the top: "Some of his commentaries are perceived by many to include bigoted and misogynistic remarks about various religious and ethnic groups and women." It should more accurately read: "Some of his commentaries are perceived by many to include bigoted and misogynistic remarks about various religious and ethnic groups, women, and men." Howard has declared countless times that men are scumbags, men are pigs, men only want one thing, etc. It is important to note how non-discriminatory he is with the targets of his satire and caricature because many critiques of Howard Stern rely on ignoring the irony in his speeches and tirades. It also makes it much more telling to note who and what he, on principle, refuses to lampoon, such as certain political figures (e.g. Christie Todd Whitman and Rudy Giuliani), certain aspects of the private lives of even the most notoriously celebrated public figures, and the private lives of children who are not thrust into the public eye by their parents.

Private Parts

Um, Private Parts was not a "pretend" autobiography. Howard Stern wrote the book, and the events depicted in the book and movie did happen. -- goatasaur 02:16 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, kind of... Except he lies like hell about the size of his private parts, and, if I went to the trouble to dig it all up, a lot of other things. So it is a pretend autobiography, more like an autohagiography. Actually, he takes autobiography to a new level, so what should we call it? :) -- Howard Stern contributor

"Loosely autobiographical"? -- Salsa Shark 02:33 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I like that better. -- goatasaur

"Fanciful" works for me as well. Moving along, I don't remember the movie making that much (forgive the pun) of Stern's equipment. Did that only come up much in the book?

The name Private Parts was intended as a double entendre - in that it referred to both his genitals and the areas of his life not mentioned on the air.

Lenny Bruce comparison

Lenny Bruce was highly political in his content. Howard Stern was/is not. It is in inaccurate to make such a comparision. I recommend removing the Lenny Bruce comparison. Kingturtle 00:23 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

If you've only seen his movies or his TV shows, that view would be understandable, but on his radio show he can be VERY political and incisive. Jordan Langelier

Agreed, but he's one of those rare Americans, like Hugo Black, whose politics defy conventional labels. That is why I dropped the "left-wing" modifier in the header para. I can't really see putting him in the same class with, say, Al Franken. Ellsworth 12:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lenny Bruce was funny. Howard's not.

NYC station not obscure

The page says:

He originally started as a disc jockey for an obscure New York City station playing rock music.

How obscure can a radio station in New York be? Is the station WNBC? If it is, it's not obscure.

From biography.com After graduating magna cum laude, Stern took radio jobs first in the suburbs of Manhattan, then in Connecticut, Detroit, Washington, and finally New York City.

He went to WNBC after his Washington gig. Jordan Langelier

TV show

I see no mention in this article of Howard Stern's TV show. However short-lived it was, I think it deserves mentioning, although I don't know the details of it. —Pacific1982

Fanmail

I just wanna say, Air Florida joke apart, Howard Stern's da man!! He rules, hes got wacky ideas just like me.

• Antonio boyfriend, girlfriend and mother in law with me Martin

POV paragraphs

Howard Stern's brand of humor is satirical. For example a statmement like "Don't blacks like chicken?", is meant to reveal and poke fun at the ridiculous nature of racist remarks. It certainly does not mean that Howard Stern feels that African-Americans are inferior in any way to any other group.

Referring to his language as crude and obscene is a way of categorizing his humor as it fits nowhere else. However, what lies beneath his ironic, sarcastic humor is a real understanding of social problems such as racism, crime, politics and hedonism. Although Stern does not "spell out" his intent on every show, his point is obvious when one spends the time to listen carefully.

It has been said that Stern's audience one of the highest per-capita income of any radio program. He is a lighting rod for first ammendment rights and educated individuals (aside from typical politicians) support his right to speak freely over public air waves.

While these points have merit and bear exploring (and I certainly agree with the last paragraph), as written now it's a POV analysis rather than a presentation of facts, and is unsuitable for an encyclopedic article.

I'm not currently in a position to rewrite it, but might be in a few weeks. I'd rather have someone that actually listens to his show on a regular basis do it, though. -- nknight 01:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

ARGH, this whole article is saturated with POV. I'll take a crack at trying to erase the more egregious bits. Ellsworth 16:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What Stern hater wrote this article? It stinks of POV from miles away.

Use of the N-word

Howard didn't use the n-word in the Rick Saloman show, a caller did! JMR

During the Rick Soloman interview, a caller used the word nigger, not Howard, nor did he incite the comment.

Removed from see also section

• Seven dirty words
• Michael Moore
• Al Franken
• Arianna Huffington
• Moron - POV, probably should not be in the article
• Racism

I removed the following from the "See also" section. Most of them should be added back into the article, but not in see also. A casual reader would not see the connection between Stern and the following, as they are not mentioned in the article except as links! Add them back into the main text, devoting at least a full sentence to each. • Benc • 01:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picture

We need that sexy stern's foto in here somewhere. Lockeownzj00 19:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who is this 'we,' Kemosabe? Jordan Langelier

Stuttering John

Since John has left the show, I see no need to link to his official site on this page at all. It no longer is of any relevance. His Wikipedia article, sure, but not his off-site page. --Feitclub 04:27, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a regular listener of his show, but how come John appeared on the show in october/november 2004 on that las vegas special when they played the "hollyweird squares" game - is he back on or what's going on? I saw it on E! in the last week of december 2004... Alex (Jan 16 2005)

• No, John is not back on the show. The time line for the E! show and the radio show usually dont line off, for the most part new eppisodes are shown within a couple of week. If i recall right i think Howard was last in vegas over the last spring or early summer. --Boothy443 06:37, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Organization

I think this article needs a general overhaul. The 90's/2000's thing doesn't make a lot of sense because he's been on the air since the 80's. Does it make sense to create a separate article for his show, like Tom Green and Conan O'Brien? Then we could create a brief recap of the show here, while going into a more in-depth, chronological analysis of The Howard Stern Show. And what of his television work? --Feitclub 21:13, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Air Florida Flight 90

I was listening to DC101 when Stern did this crap. It was the last time I listened to him. He was very new to the DC station when he did it. I found the guys he replaced had moved over to another station and started listening to them over there. RickK 09:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

That stunt was the main reason why he had to get his worthless ass out of DC. He and the management of DC101 were getting death threats.

Source cited for assertion regarding presidential election of 2004

The source cited for the proposition that Stern influenced the latest presidential election is clearly a biased one. (It is a conservative weblog.) I'll therefore erase the link to the source, along with the sentence it supports, since within the "source" the sentence would be unsupported. Moreover, the sentence makes a conclusory reference to "many celebrities," which is unsupported even by the "source" cited. Hydriotaphia 00:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

A comment I made elsewhere, but appropriate to add here as well:

Old Right, the evidence that even Franklog provides is not, in my opinion, considerable. It doesn't even show that there is a correlation—let alone causation—between where Stern is heard and how many votes Bush got in the two elections. To show even a correlation, you would have to show that where Stern isn't heard, Bush's votes stayed the same or decreased. If you can show that, then we can begin to consider whether the statement should be included in the article. However, since you have linked to a weblog that doesn't do anything of the sort, then I don't think it's appropriate to include the statement or the reference. Further, even if the evidence you linked to did show a correlation, the reference to "one of the many celebrities" would still be POV and unsupported (how do you know that "many" celebrities alienated people?). I'm sincerely sorry if what I say seems harsh, but what you linked to is simply insufficient support for the statement. It is of course "possible" that there is a correlation. But since you have not provided any affirmative evidence for that correlation, the alleged correlation is unsupported and hence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 19:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hydriotaphia 02:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Left wing?

Can Stern's politics really be accurately described as "left-wing"? I have my doubts. Hydriotaphia 06:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Stern was a very vocal supporter of John Kerry and the Democrats during the 2004 elections. He also heavily promoted Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, and Al Franken. He attack President Bush from virtually every liberal argument there is - taxes, environment, gay marriage, more government-funded embryonic stem cell experiments, the war in Iraq, abortion, etc. In 2000 he was a staunch supporter of Al Gore and of Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. He's pretty blatanly Left-wing, with a capital L. -- Old Right 07:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not nearly that blatant. Howard Stern was completely behind the "War on Terror" as well as the Invasion of Iraq. He has supported Republicans in the past, including Christie Todd Whitman, Al D'Amato, Rudy Guiliani, and current NY governor George Pataki. He is also a staunch supporter of the death penalty which he campaigned on when he ran for governor (as a Libertarian). I would also argue that he supports smaller government (starting with the FCC, I imagine). But he definitely leans to the Left on most issues. --Feitclub 04:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern is apparently a libertarian. He was going to run as a Libertarian in some political race, but decided not too because he would have to reveal too much of his private/financial information to do so. --emb021

That's correct. Stern did announce his candidacy for governor of new york on the libertarian ticket, though he withdrew because he did not want to reveal his finances. As libertarianism is on the right side of the political spectrum, that is presumably where Stern lies. However, it should be noted that libertarians and liberals do agree on most social issues, albeit for different reasons. ---jonasaurus 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure your last statement is true. Libertarians oppose hate speech laws, hate crimes laws, affirmative action, excessive gun-related regulations, and much of what the feminist movement stands for (anti-pornography, special privileges for women, et al). -- Gerkinstock 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not on the "right side of the political spectrum", by any means, and any Libertarian would quickly disabuse you of this misconception.

it should also be noted that Stern only ran as a libertarian because they were the only party that would endorse his campaign. although at the time he admited to supporting many of their platforms. many of the members of the new york libertarian part described his nomination as “hostile takeover" because so many of his fans packed the hall where they were holding the nominations.--BillSpike 06:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Howard has recently attacked the Religious Right for opposing affirmative action, which libertarianism is stauchly against. So he is partially, though not fully, libertarian in his views. -- Gerkinstock 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead Links?

Why are so many users in love with dead links? Closing them doesn't prevent anyone from writing a new page. They just take up wiki memory for no reason. 155 / 13 Apr 05

Go ahead and remove them. --jonasaurus 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Measuring the Howard Stern Effect

I'm puting the line about Stern possible costing John Kerry votes back in because it's not POV at all, it's simply factual information about a legitimate speculation. -- Old Right 06:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And thats why it will be removed, it's speculation not based in any kind of fact what so ever other then the corolation between voting numbers and whp people voted for in a select "few" states in which Stern is syndicated to. Their is no evidence that any action of these voters was in part to Sterns views or opinions. Basedd on the same info i could insert say Limbaughs name, a person who is supporter of Bush and is also herd in all the listed states, and come to the same conlusions, or i could beaisl instert anyons name instead of Sterns that is herd or seen in all of the states listed and come so the same if not similar conclusions. Also the "blogger" has this listed at the bottom:<blockquote>UPDATE 11/5/04: I guess humorlessness should never surprise me, but I don't see how people like David don't get that, while the numbers above are accurate, the premise that Howard Stern could cause anything to happen related to this election (let alone be the sole cause of Bush gaining electoral ground) was more than a little tongue in cheek. In other words, Stern's a blowhard who has no effect on anything other than possibly the self-esteem of various strippers and midgets across America. which baslicaly discredits your reason for the link and supporting phrase to be on the page as well as discredditing the conclsuion of the article. Whn you find some real evidence, let us know. Untill then speculation like this has no room in this article. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat something I said about a month ago to Old Right. He has not responded to this comment yet, so I'll give him yet another chance to do so.

Old Right, the evidence that even Franklog provides is not, in my opinion, considerable. It doesn't even show that there is a correlation—let alone causation—between where Stern is heard and how many votes Bush got in the two elections. To show even a correlation, you would have to show that where Stern isn't heard, Bush's votes stayed the same or decreased. If you can show that, then we can begin to consider whether the statement should be included in the article. However, since you have linked to a weblog that doesn't do anything of the sort, then I don't think it's appropriate to include the statement or the reference. Further, even if the evidence you linked to did show a correlation, the reference to "one of the many celebrities" would still be POV and unsupported (how do you know that "many" celebrities alienated people?). I'm sincerely sorry if what I say seems harsh, but what you linked to is simply insufficient support for the statement. It is of course "possible" that there is a correlation. But since you have not provided any affirmative evidence for that correlation, the alleged correlation is unsupported and hence does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Hydriotaphia 19:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Book on back pain

What Is the book called?

The author would be Dr. John Sarno.

http://tinyurl.com/8h2qp has a list of Dr. Sarno's books.

Repeated vandalism source

http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php?t=32765

Judging from their wiki entry, 'Opie & Anthony' are the XM version of Howard Stern. It looks like XM had to drop the $2 fee per month for their show after low ratings though.

What about restricting edits to registered users, at least fo some pages. It would stop much vandalism Gtoomey 06:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

They're from wackbag.. I'm an O&A pest as well, however, I do not screw with wikipedia articles. If you read those threads on wackbag, I am trying to tell them not to screw with wikipedia. I personally think wikipedia transcends morning show radio wars.. I already told the wackbaggers many times that it takes 4 clicks to revert their bullshit, and dont waste your time.. some of them will continue, but they will grow tired eventually. they just dont realize how wikipedia works.. --Kvuo 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, satellite radio doesn't have "ratings" as stated above so this doesn't matter. XM chose to change their pricing structure to include O&A and online streaming. anon dec12 05

Columbine massacre reference

For the record, Howard didn't initially make reference to there being attactive girls at Columbine High School - a caller did. I remember the show and still have it on tape. It was only after that that he added sex as a rationale for committing crime (in saying that the massacre had no apparent rationale - sex, power, monetary gain, etc.) --66.189.64.41 07:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Infinity rights

I removed the phrase about infinty holding the rights to the show. Considering that none of us are parties, at least to my knowledge, to the contract that Stern and or his production company has with infinty/WXRK, i think we are jumping the gin with infinity holding the rights. This is also in consideration to the in-demand deal, which will span sterns time at both infinity and sirius, and the rebrodacts of those programs. Plus at the most infinity can only hold the right to rebrodcast programs aired while at infinty, and not creative control, or something of the like. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

New Book

I remember him saying about a year ago, he had a new book planned. Is anything happening with that? --Richy 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

he's mentioned WANTING to write a new book about his life from Miss America-to-Present but he's always said he's currently too busy - anon

David Simon

I dont think Allisons new husband is the same dude who produces the wire. can someone confirm this? I think they have the same names but are different people.

It's not. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The Last Show

Ugh - they chopped up Howard's speech quite a bit. His speech was too long and too many "last of a dying breed"s. I also noticed at the very end that he said "F Jackie". Did anyone else catch that? What was that about? Jeff schiller 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I think it was just a joke on him for leaving early on thurs.. I listened on WBCN in Boston -- where were you? I was wondering about that choppiness. I organized the satellite section under its own new header, and added a subheader about the last show. this should get some more attention. Funny enough, today is the annoversary of the boston tea party. some other revolutionary guys with something to say about the government acted out 232 years ago today. -Kether83 12/16/2005 17:47 UTC and wondering where everyone gets those nifty timestamps from

In Wikipedia, sign all your entries with 4 tildes (~) which will insert your username with a link and the timestamp. Anyway, I was in Chicago and caught most of Thursday's show with Jackie and all of today's broadcast. Interestingly, I caught all of the cast members final speeches on the Yahoo internet broadcast, where I also noticed that Fred also signed off with "F Jackie". So why did Jackie leave early Thursday? Or do you mean because he left the show in 2001? I took Thursday's interview as a "no hard feelings" from the cast towards Jackie, that's why I was surprised by Fred and Howard's parting shot. Jeff schiller 22:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Nevermind. Kether83 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stern is Not a Shock Jock

There are many shock-jocks on radio but Howard Stern is not one of them. Jock in the radio industry assumes disk–jockey and he is definitely not one of those. Probably the only correct label is “radio-comedian” or “comedian of all media”. :-)

As for the person above who made the comparison between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh let me say that you are comparing apples to oranges; Stern is a comedian; Limbaugh is a idealistic promoter of the political right.

--Neilrieck 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, comedians are funny.

Language Issues

No, not vulgarity. There is a reference to "shoving kielbasa down chick's throats during the September 11, 2001 attacks. If someone thought "chick" was the best way to phrase that, something's wrong, and leads me to think their might be other slang (however popularized) usage in the article. Maybe given the irreverant nature of the article's subject, it could be tolerable under other circumstances, but until I see Rush Limbaugh's wife #4 (or 5 or 6 or 7) referred to as his "boo", let's talk like humans.

That was vandalism, and it has been removed, albeit not as quickly as usual for this article. As far as I know Howard did not shove kielbasa down anyone's throat on September 11, 2001. DHowell 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

obsessive compulsive disorder

Does he have it? On the OCD article, it says he does, but there's no mention of it in the article. Gflores ^Talk 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page for Obsessive-compulsive disorder most of the celebrity list is pure spectulation, but someone keeps re-adding it anyway. Stern has joked "I must have OCD" (for instance, on the soundcheck), but that doesn't mean he has been diagnosed as OCD. Chiok 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he does have OCD, and has spoken of it many times on his show in a non-satirical manner (and in one of his books, I believe). He claimed to have been cured of it in the early 1990's but he has lapsed from time to time. He is a "germaphobe" and compulsively washes his hands. Gerkinstock 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: Who was Stern's first celebrity guest?

Does anybody know? Gerkinstock 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Stern's daughters

Wasn't Emily born in 1983 and Deborah in 1986? Also, Emily recently appeared in a play where she did a nude scene. Gerkinstock 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Emily is the oldest, Deborah is the middle child and Ashley is the youngest, I seem to recall that when Howard was on WNBC when Allison would call-in you could hear Emily (then a baby) in the background. Misterrick 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Link to Howard 100 Audio

User:Redd Dragon has made a claim that it is illegal to rebroadcast Sirius Satellite Radio material, However I contend that U.S. Copyright law allows for fair use. Obviously This audio clip falls under fair use because it is a non-commercial site. Of course you can say the same thing about any clips for Howard Stern's shows on K-Rock, WNBC, DC101, WCCC and WWWW etc... all of which Howard presented on New Years eve and he was able to broadcast those clips under fair use especially since he doesn't own any of them which I never understood why in his contract he never had a clause that said if he left the station any audio clips and bits become property of him or his production company. I would like to point out that this is not my link but I am defending it because I believe that it should be left here. Misterrick 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The question here isn't whether or not that Tripod site is following fair use in offering the Howard MP3, because it's not (which I'll get to in a minute); the question is whether or not Wikipedia policy says it's okay to post a link to a page that's engaging in something illegal. I'm sure that question has come up plenty of times before, so there must be some settled policy somewhere (or at least a guideline). Hopefully someone more Wikiexperienced than I am will dig that up. As for the MP3, fair use would generally be considered a couple of minutes of the show; offering the entire show (which is, after all, no longer free to listen to over the air) would almost certainly not qualify as fair use. However, it must be noted that "fair use" is a very nebulous concept in U.S. law, and has never really been firmed up in established case law. Nobody on either side wants to ever take such a case to the Supreme Court because there's an excellent chance they could rule entirely in one direction or the other, and both sides have way too much to lose. --Aaron 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok you make some very good points, So what should be done for now until a qualified and experienced Wikipedian can make a proper determination? Should the links be deleted? Misterrick 00:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The optimal thing would be for everyone to just agree to leave the link as-is until someone more experienced can come along and guide us better, just so there's no chance of a revert war starting up. But I suggest you take the high road and do nothing even if someone else comes along and deletes it in the meantime before this is settled; again, it's just about preventing a fight breaking out over it, not over who "wins". In any case, I have no idea how many people are paying attention to this talk page, so you might want to hop into #Wikipedia and ask a couple of the admins in there to come over here, check it out and offer their suggestions. If nothing else, that'll help speed up the consensus on this matter. --Aaron 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it's a moot point now because I just clicked on the link and it looks like either the site owner shut it down or the site was removed by Tripod for a Term of Service violation. It's was probably the latter. So I am going to delete the links. Misterrick 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like they made our decision for us! --Aaron 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What? No Imus?

I find it very hard to believe that any article about Stern could exist without even a mention of his 20 plus year war with Imus. Imus and Stern have mentioned the other on numerous shows like Larry King Live and their A&E biographies both mentioned the other not to mention Stern's section on Imus in his Private Part's book and movie. What casual Stern fan does not know that Stern hates Imus with a passion? I also believe that his conflicts with Opie and Anthony should be mentioned as well. Both Imus and O&A's wikipedia articles reference Stern. Stern mentioned Imus on every one of his first 5 days at Sirius. Stern threatened to sue Imus over a bit where Imus made fun of him and Beth O which upset Beth and her family and he even tried to call in and confront Imus on air but Imus wouldn't take the call which I witnessed watching Imus's TV show.

Why am I not surprised that Stern can dish it out, but he can't take it?

Stern goofed on Imus's Vanity Fair article his cancer ranch and even mentioned Imus at length during his first day press conference where MSNBC's Keith Olberman was called on to confirm that everyone at MSNBC wants Imus gone. Imus found out about Stern attacks and went back at him with a Cardinal Eagan bit causing one of Stern's fans to call him and mention it on air. Stern even said "Imus should just crawl off in a hole and die!". As often as Imus was mentioned Stern didn't mention Opie and Anthony once during week one even though O&A sent Pests to disrupt his last show celebration and streamed his first Sirius show on their XM broadcast to goof on him. That may simply be because a Stern fan would have to subscribe to XM in order to monitor O&A's show and report back to Howard which would defeat Howard's goal of making Sirius number one whereas they can still watch Imus on TV and listen on the radio for free. I've listened to both programs for over 10 years and Imus and Stern absolutely loathe each other. Maddhatt 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2006: Year of the Sirius Dog

File:2006 Chinese New Year Dog.jpg

I thought it would be nice to put this image on the Howard Stern wiki entry for the duration of the Chinese Lunar New Year celebration. And I thought it was absolutely fitting that 2006, the year that Howard Stern moved to Sirius, is also the year of the dog. Now, to explain the tangerine: It's traditional during the Chinese New Year to give tangerines, which are supposed to mean good luck (even though Howard does not need luck -- we should have given him tangerines 25 years ago!) -- at least that's what my mom told me. In fact, it was after I asked her what the tangerines mean that I created the image in Photoshop. The Chinese caligraphy on the right is the symbol for "dog." I was in such a festive mood!

The font used for the year, 2006, is a Star Trek font, which I used just because George Takai was the Howard Stern Show announcer on Sirius. "Oh my!" The Star Trek font can be found on the saucer section (or primary hull) of the U.S.S. Enterprise 1701-A -- the one seen in Star Treks I through VI. HeWhoE 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)