Talk:Howard Stern

---

Archives

Previous discussions: Talk:Howard Stern/Archive 1

---

The wealthy white man

"On January 15, 1998 Lance Carvin, who had been stalking Stern, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for threatening to kill Stern and his family."

I think this is absolutely disrespectful towards humanity. Stern is allowed to make fun of others publicly and earn money that way while being backed up by fans and lawyers, but the ones that see what's wrong in our world, wanting to put down the powerful people who use their position to further their selfish opinion, they get their mouths shut. Guest Account 08:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't threaten to kill someone. Plain and simple. That crosses the line in the eyes of the law, no matter who it is. Payneos 08:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this relevant?

Recently a long standing feud with the Opie and Anthony Show has come to a head. On a recent appearance on the Sean Hannity Show in an interview, Sean asked Howard if he had them silenced or gagged from mentioning Howard on their program. Howard quickly affirmed that the rumors were true, and further stated that while he was a champion of free speech, he was a champion solely of 'his' free speech, stating "It doesn't matter, as long as I win, and you know what? I win." and "I believe in censorship when it benefits me."

Firstly, can someone please explain why the above statement is relevant in regards to The Sirius Show, under which heading this inane paragraph is entered?

Secondly, what does "come to a head" mean exactly? Doesn't the phrase imply a turning point? A watershed? How has the Hannity interview brought the fued "to a head?" What significant event has occured as a result of this interview to justify the above entry and its accuracy?

Perhaps this statement would best be served on the Opie and Anthony page, since they have a fued with Stern. I can honestly say, as a devoted listener of Stern, that he is not fueding with O&A, as he finds them to be insignificant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:64.48.59.29 (talk • contribs) .

First, sign your articles, it makes Baby Jesus cry when you don't. Also "Whis" isn't a word, so I took the liberty of making it "Why." You're welcome.

Now, the expression "Comes to a head" means it's reached the culmination of all the problems that have built up over the years that lead to this particular point. It's worth note, especially since Howard does have a clear and present problem with Opie and Anthony. After listening to him rant on how The "O&A Army" has only "Two members" (which is noted under his Radio Enemies section, I might add) as well as the fact that he likes to parade that he's the champion of free speech ('His' Free Speech) which was a significant event that he went on record admitting he had even ONE of his radio enemies 'forcefully' gagged. In essence, "Talk aboot me, I'll tell the bosses to fire you." That's not exactly the kind of free speech I enjoy.

As a devoted listener, you're delusional if you haven't heard any of his ramblings aboot O&A. Finding them "insignificant" is an ironical sentence in a sense since XM is doing better in all significant business areas then Sirius, which is partly due to the large success of O&A 'on' the XM platform.

In a final clarification correction, the reason it's under the "Sirius Show" section is because it occured 'during' the Sirius Show's time period. It has no other real place.

Hope that helps. Payneos 21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically...it HASN'T reached a "culmination." The culmination was reached WHEN he had the gag-order placed on them. All he did on Hannity was confirm his action.

Also, I haven't heard him "rant" once about the Army. He's joked about them, but with much less frequency than you suggest. On top of that, I've heard him mention O&A no more than ten times over the last 5 years.

Also, I don't believe I ever said that I've never heard him talking about O&A, so I don't understand why'd you'd say I'm delusional in that regard. As far as O&A's impact on XM, that's highly disputable. Do you have any facts to back your claims up?

The bottom line is this...you are a fan of O&A and the only reason you keep including Stern's Hannity appearance is that you mean to stain Stern's image. I don't really care, but it CERTAINLY has NOTHING to do with The Sirius Show. If you feel that his "feud" with O&A is soooooo significant to Howard's bio, then perhaps you should start a new heading, "Feud with Opie and Anthony," or something like that and write your version of that particular "war". That's where your comment would best be served. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Floydiannyc (talk • contribs) .

Baby Jesus weeps again. *SIGN YOUR ARTICLES WHEN YOU FINISH THEM.*

That aside, the feud reached it's culmination at that point, when it was finally out in the open. And you wither A) Weren't listening that particular day when he did, or B) blocked it out for some reason. But I have explicitly heard him refer and rant aboot the army.

And no, this is what I assume based on XM's doing well, business and technology wise, and Sirius being still behind. Ratings numbers are not disclosed by either company, however, so neither Howard or Opie and Anthony, should they claim they have numbers, actually do. This is due to competition reasons between the two companies.

The bottom line is this... sign your comments. Wait, no, that was what I said the first time. Anyways, you might have a point, but what can I do if I did? You would most certainly delete that anyways. I'm not giving any "versions" of the war, there are no "versions" of the truth, only just that. The truth. I cited an article and gave a summary of it and what happened on that particular day. The relevance is to Stern himself, being hypocritical, and being called on it.

So, let's get to work. Payneos 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with you. You have an agenda and nothing I say will make you see why adding your blurb about the Hannity interview is insignificant. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and hence, your opinion that Stern is a "hypocrite," while maybe valid, has no place on this site. Go start a message board or a web site....your AGENDA has no place in what is supposed to be a fact related article.

P.S.....what are you gonna do about me not signing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Floydiannyc (talk • contribs) .

Why, sign them for you, Pookie! <3

Side notes, hypocracy is not an opinion, it is a fact when backed up. He claimed to be a champion of free speech, yet places a gag order on a rival show. Hypocracy. The article tidbit I added has a CITED SOURCE (look for it, it's there), and that's why no moderators have had a problem with it so far. Payneos 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The guys you're talking about may not like Howard Stern. A lot of people don't. That doesn't earn them a place in the article. Imus is bashed relentlessly on the Stern Show. These other characters aren't really mentioned. Sorry.Vegasjon 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioned enough to have an article written about his and their feud? This isn't a new thing. Howard doesn't constantly talk aboot any of his "Enemies" because no good radio host would, it's essentially a free plug. So saying "Howard doesn't talk aboot them much" doesn't cover it, because the article explicitly states otherwise. Payneos 23:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Doesn't cover it"? Stern has SPECIFICALLY SAID he is not enemies with O&A and he has even wished them luck on CBS radio. Give it up already. MGlosenger 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can one cite source? Payneos 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, obviously Payneos has a personal agenda against Stern. Hollosyt

I don't think it's obvious Payneos has a personal agenda. We should always assume good faith. At least this is being talked about in the discussion page as it's being reveted back and forth. I'm still not convinced that this section belongs on the Howard page. There are people Stern fueds with openly. I don't think the people in question are among those.Vegasjon 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it can be taken in "good faith" when there is proof to the contrary it is hard to go on good faith alone. "Well wishing" can also be a backhanded "Yeah, good luck, hope you choke on a chicken bone" depending on the context. What he might have said and how he said it may be two different things, so why go on speculation when there's solid proof to the contrary? Payneos 06:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your edits being in good faith.Vegasjon 02:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk aboot shooting myself in the foot. However, "good faith" and citation are rarely enough for people these days. I'll put the paragraph back up now since there seems to be no more contesting to the article. Payneos 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No more contesting? How exactly are we supposed to prove a negative? Perhaps we should rifle through every single broadcast he's ever done and ensure that he has never said 'O&A are enemies'?

He certainly hasn't said anything vaguely resembling it recently, and if you want to say 'Well, he's just being sarcastic,' then you can say that about anything. Hardly compelling evidence.

Stern may be an enemy of O&A, but O&A are clearly not enemies of Stern. MGlosenger 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Which once again, is contrary to the cited article. I think we need to call in moderation to deal with this, because clearly even a cited, legitimate source with good faith as backing isn't enough to save it from repeated vandalism. Payneos 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That article was written about an incident that happened years ago. Perhaps Howard Stern would have called O&A 'enemies' back then, but certainly not now. MGlosenger 09:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Written aboot an incident that happened years ago, but the term applies to both past and present. Howard just cannot silence them in any form now because they are carried by different companies. Which is fine. Payneos 15:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirected from Blumpkin?

There is no article for Blumpkin, the page (incorrectly) links to Howard Stern. Can someone corect this?

Blumpkin was originally used in "Dirty Work."

I propose we remove the Blumpkin section and just add a note about the fine to the 2000's section. LilDice 12:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Enemies?

How can Opie & Anthony be 'enemies' of the Howard Stern Show when Stern himself has specifically said on his show that they are not enemies? He has wished them well on every occasion when anyone else has mentioned them. How does this make them enemies? 206.190.139.254 18:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can one cite source? Payneos 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard Howard say he is not Enemies with O&A. I was unable to find a direct quote, however if you read the week of 4/27 and 4/24 summaries on http://www.marksfriggin.com one will notice he never bad mouths the two, but wishes them well on CBS radio.

Hollosyt 11:10 PM EST, 28 April 2006

Direct links to the appropriate MarksFriggin log:

http://marksfriggin.com/news06/4-24.htm#mon

There are other references to O&A in there too.. Good luck finding any part where Stern calls O&A 'enemies'.

04:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfournately Blogs and "Show Summaries" can't be used as cited sources, as was shown in the "Wackbag Incidents" on the Opie and Anthony Page. One needs direct news articles or other such reputable sources as a proper citation. Payneos 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes unfortunatley, especially since Stern gets more negative press than any comedian. Hollosyt 29 April 2006

Stern has never claimed they stole his idea of moving to Sattelite. Please cite where he did.

Hollosyt 29 April 2006

Stealing the idea of moving to satelite can be worked around by dropping it, but it is noted [1] here that Stern does accuse them (and everyone) of ripping him off. Payneos 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How about getting around this deletion and addition problem by agreeing on a more well rounded section for O&A? I propose something like this.

Opie and Anthony: Often accused by Stern of being 'Howard Stern' clones. Stern did have them gagged while working at CBS (link to Hannity article if you would like). However the unique part of this fued is it's apparant one sidedness. The O&A Army often attend Stern functions like his last day on CBS radio and David Letterman appearances and hold up signs mocking him as 'Hoo Hoo'. However Stern is ambivolent towards the O&A Army, laughing about how they seem to be fans of his since they all ask for pictures with him. This could be improved but what do you think? Hollosyt 30 April 2006

It still doesn't work because there's no fact behind that. I don't recall reading anywhere that the pests wanted to take pictures with him, and if they did I doubt he would for the fact that they were holding up huge signs that stated "I invented everything." and "Everybody rips me off" - Hoo Hoo. It's not one sided if the only side to a story is the truth. But I do like some of the wording in it. We'll work around it somehow. Payneos 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is fact, he stated it on a March 14th show. See the show summary here - http://www.marksfriggin.com/news06/3-13.htm and I know you said you don't count a show summary as proof of him saying something, but it's unrealistic to provide a quote from a print source for every single assertion.

It's not that I don't count it, it's that Wiki-Moderators do not. And I'm upholding their decision on several occasions. While you can provide that, that means I could use some O&A Fansite that provides a show summary to discredit what you just stated, or most of the Howard Stern article. But it's obvious an O&A Fansite would have an O&A slant, much like a Howard Stern Blog would have a Howard Stern slant. Therefore, it has to be thrown out. Payneos 22:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut the BS. Here is what is happening. Payneos has an agenda, the agenda is to portray Howard Stern as a hypocrite and bully to Opie and Anthony. It is not to accuratley portray the relationship between Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony. By using wikipedia loopholes he refuses to accept the combined common knowledge among actual Howard Stern listeners (of which he is obviously not among) that Howard Stern does not consider them Enemies at all, though he may have at one time. He also omits the fact that the 'fued' is currently one-sided as evidenced by the April 20th Howard Stern show. And shows during the week of March 17th. Apparently unless the press writes an article quoting Howard Stern in said shows, the shows did not happen regardless of the fact that myself and others can quote the passages verbatim.

A reasonable solution is to allow the community to write a fair and accurate description based on our shared knowledge, instead this section has degraded to vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.77.110.38 (talk • contribs) .

I propose the current section be edited to only include the fact that Howard has not expressed ill-will towards them in their move to CBS radio, has wished them luck in this move. I think the fact that Howard admits to gagging them at Viacom is worth noting however. All the rest should be removed. Hollosyt 10:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually "A reasonable solution is to allow the community to write a fair and accurate description based on our shared knowledge, instead this section has degraded to vandalism" is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, inasmuch as it would violate WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS, amongst others no doubt. "The community" is not a citable or reputable source. The fact that you heard something on the radio is irrelevant. If someone is researching an issue and uses Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source (which is the intent), can they call you to verify what you heard? You (and I, and everyone else here) are not reputable sources. I suggest reading the above links to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Tufflaw 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll state it again. If you can provide evidence to the contrary that this "feud" is one-sided, please do. But also, remember, just because they may not be "feuding" doesn't mean they're not "enemies." I.E. The Soviets and the Nazis, they originally didn't fight each other, doesn't mean they *like* each other. They were enemies. And O&A/Howard Stern are enemies as well.

On a side note, if you really would like to get technical, when Howard announced his big move to Sirius, Opie and Anthony stated flatly "Congrats to him, he went for the big payday and it paid off. Hope it works out." And that was that. Can I prove it? No. But notice how in subsequent articles, it does not appear. Therefore, I still propose the article stands on the basis of a legitimate citation. I have no problem with the "Well Wishing" but such statements would also appear in the Opie & Anthony article as well, which means it has to be taken with Good Faith, which I have no problem with. Payneos 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not promoting not citing sources. In fact I would like Payneos to provide evidance that there is a fued at all, his one reference referred to a previous instance. 68.77.110.38 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that just because Stern said he had O&A censored does not make them enemies. Here is the context of the censoring. When O&A and Howard were working for the same company. Howard asked Mel Karmizan to put a gag order on O&A because he felt disrespected and felt the actions of O&A went against the common good of profits for the company. Mel agreed, Howard did not have the power to do it on his own. This also does not prove they are enemies. For instance , if Payneos and I both worked for the same company and Payneos was telling clients that they should not work with me I would have a legitimate case for censoring Payneos, if my boss agreed she might censor him. This does not make us enemies. Hollosyt 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, we were *competing* for some special reason in your given example, much like Opie & Anthony and Howard Stern competed back in the day, at least in Howard's opinion. THerefore, as stated in the article, he "silenced" the "competition" in order to stay on top. Amongst other quotes that directly lead to them at least being competition, if not direct enemies because of the anomisity between the two shows.

"I am not promoting not citing sources. In fact I would like Payneos to provide evidance that there is a fued at all, his one reference referred to a previous instance."

I concur, to an extent. But because there is no feud, does not mean they're not enemies. I realize that we can work out the wording that there is a feud *now* but that doesn't mean there isn't one going on. Most articles *printed* (not online, so I can't cite) comparing the two shows include the fact that the two shows just don't like each other. To the point of... pretty much hate. And that's not a *bad* thing, that's just how it is. Howard has every right to be pissed at O&A, especially their relentless mockery of his daughter and her "Jingle Ball" Incident. It's wrong to try to portray him to be above the fray, he is only human, you know.

It is also of interesting note that normally Howard Stern would confront problems on air, rather then go to a boss, it doesn't seem to fit the Howard Stern M.O. Why is Opie and Anthony the exception? That's an irrelevant statement, but food for thought. Payneos 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, Howard doesn't even care about them enough to start a war with them. Either that or he's scared of them. But, I don't think that's the case. O&A have to use Howard to prop themselves up, mentioning O&A would just bring them up to his level and Howard is the top dog. Why would he prop someone up who shows no respect to him? 68.77.110.38 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See, but that's all opinionated. I think Howard is a master of his craft, and I respect him. That doesn't mean I like him, but I wouldn't take cheap shots at him on a website he'll never read, because that's silly. Neither Howard or O&A really war all out often with each other, but it may happen, and that would be a very interesting day.

That aside, I'm seeing a noticable decrease to the resistance to the article. Payneos 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's your agenda to crow bar and O&A reference into Stern's biography on wikipedia. At the end of the day Opie and Anthony have to define themsleves relative to Stern, not the other way around. 68.77.110.38 02:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And you say that like it's insulting. Even O&A do not question that Stern is the benchmark. Nobody can deny that. But it's the fact they aspire to become the benchmark themselves. And with Howard on the downswing, and O&A still with many years left (barring another firing) they may do it. THat's just an opinion.

On that note, however, you wield the word "Agenda" too much, but I can throw it back at you, saying you have an agenda to keep Howard's article 100% Pristine and free from any valid, backed up criticisms. Informal mediation should be arriving soon to help determine what to do. Payneos 03:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Either way the section should be conidered for removal any way is it is noting less then POV from both sides, as the above disussion only goes to show, and will be tag accordingly. And aht would be really nice is that the OA or HS fans that have an agenda or bias sitck to editing their page for who they like and not the others as they cant seemto not interject the own personal/fan bias onto the the other. Also if the revert war keeps up, i'll see to have the page locked, and will have it relocked untill it stops. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from Boothy, but that doesn't mean much because it's not a point of view if it is a fact. My goal is to insert a fact into the article, backed up by a cited source. Threatening to lock it doesn't do any good, nor does raving aboot how it's PoV, what DOES do good is helping to rewrite the article so it expresses fact and *not* a point of view, so it can be inserted in the article without the countless reverts that are going on. Payneos 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If Stern hadn't specifically talked about the very 'O&A are enemies' issue when they moved to CBS, I'd say maybe the O&A entry would be valid. But, guess what, he said several times that he had no hatred for O&A and in fact wished them well. I just don't see how this makes O&A enemies of Stern..? MGlosenger 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you'd need to *cite* that claim to contradict the claims he made while on the Sean Hannity Show in the article I provided. However, it needs to me from a legitimate news source, not "The Community." As Tufflaw puts it... "'The community' is not a citable or reputable source. The fact that you heard something on the radio is irrelevant. If someone is researching an issue and uses Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source (which is the intent), can they call you to verify what you heard? You (and I, and everyone else here) are not reputable sources. I suggest reading the above links to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not." Payneos 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a rather bizarre way to handle things, don't you think? So if the National Enquirer writes a story, it's a citable source because it's in print, but if the radio personality HIMSELF actually SAYS IT on the air, then it's meaningless? Is Stern supposed to hold a press conference and say, "Opie & Anthony are NOT enemies of my show"? MGlosenger 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is not a "reputable source". Did you read the policies and guidelines I linked to? Personally I think the whole "enemies" and "friends" stuff is unsourced and not encyclopedic anyway and should all be removed. Tufflaw 03:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia handles it's business. If you think it needs to be changed, you should lead an effort to change it. Normally, I would agree with you solely on the "Good Faith" Wikipedia Rule, but Citation > Good Faith, and therefore, I have to press the issue. Payneos 04:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume that you're right, and that Stern's assertions are not valid unless they're reprinted somewhere. How do any past efforts Stern may have made to have O&A gagged make them current enemies of his show? 04:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And that's another problem I've had to contend with. It was debated above, but you might have missed it, so I'll restate my point. Just because they're not *openly* fighting does not mean they're not enemies. Which is a lot of negatives to prove a point, but is still how I see it. Both shows wished each other well when they did their new business ventures (Opie and Anthony when Stern "Signed his big paycheck" for going to Sirius, and Howard Stern when Opie and Anthony went back to CBS broadcasting.) However, both shows clearly still do not like each other, and probably never will, thus, I still am convinced they are enemies to the bitter end. Put another way... just because Howard won't "waste his time" on Opie and Anthony does not make them any less an enemy. Payneos 04:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well considering that the revert war continues, i have put the article up for protection. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is a good idea. Payneos 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the radio personality himself saying they're not enemies isn't good enough, then you having a 'real good feeling' certainly isn't.

I do think the fact that Stern had O&A gagged is interesting, especially in light of Stern always saying that censorship is bad. That does not, however, make O&A 'enemies' of the show. It would be better to have a 'notable incidents' section, and to put the O&A gagging under that section, and not claim anything about things 'coming to a head' or that O&A are 'lifelong enemies of the show'. The Mancow 'poo in a box', 'Anna Nicole Smith in a limo', and 'Rachel Hunter ditching the show' incidents can go under this 'notable incidents' heading.

I suppose that if anyone is an enemy of the show it's Leslie Moonves.. but so many people proclaim their hatred for the Howard Stern show, I wonder if this section is particularly meaningful. It would be better to have a section detailing Stern's CBS lawsuit. Don Imus isn't really an enemy so much as Stern just doesn't like the guy. When I think of an 'enemy', I think of someone who is violently opposed to all you stand for, and Imus and Moonves aren't it. MGlosenger 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not using my 'real good feeling' as an actual evidenced way of stating what should go here and what shouldn't. I think to eliminate the "Enemies" section may be fine, actually. The two shows are different, so whereas one might treat things one way (As in, Howard takes things in strides, O&A confront immedately. This is what the two shows do *now*, what they did in the past may or may not be different.) THat said, I'm for a notable incidents section. Payneos 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for that, let's just remove the Enemies section, since it is so subjective. As for the O&A gagging incident, I think it's fine to note it, but it shouldn't be noted and spun as making Howard a hypocrite since there was an arguably good reason to have O&A gagged. Hollosyt 16:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, here is a source that reports "A reserved Stern wished (O&A) well." Not a sarcastic Stern, or a n annoyed Stern. A Reserved Stern. My personal opinion (not that it matters) is that Stern is more hurt than anything about O&A doing a show similar to him and constantly trying to tear him down. Anyway, here's the link: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=209118 Hollosyt 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But you can't speculate on that. If Stern is hurt that, in his opinion, O&A "rip him off" then he must be devestated at radio as a whole since he claims most of radio rips him off. Which would be in your "Marksfriggin" show summaries, ne? Also, because shows are similar, it is not the *same.* O&A don't have a "Wack Pack" much like Howard doesn't have "Wip'em Out Wednesdays." The shows may have the same basic undertones (in some respects) but I always have thought them vastly different, marketing to vastly different demographics. And on a side note, you don't build up your competition, you tear it down. Even Howard did that in his final days on terrestial radio, promoting his new Sirius venture. Which is fine, in my opinion, always try to make yourself out to be the best. Whether or not Howard is, is a matter of opinion, but I will say for a long time, he most certainly was. Payneos 19:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can speculate on that since I said it was my opinion. You don't have to tear down the competition to build up yourself, that's the attitude of a loser. Do you hear the Detroit Pistons tearing down the opposing team before a playoff match? No, they go out and play the game and let it speak for itself. Hollosyt 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying though, that during the game itself, the team doesn't engage in any behavior that may demoralize the other team? Flashy dunks, "Yo Momma's", that sort of thing. Everyone does it. You don't get ahead by inaction, you have to take charge. Do also remember, that the Detroit Pistons play a sport, where the action is on a court. You don't have to say a word for the duration of the game, just do your thing. Radio is all aboot talking, and bashing your competition is something any compitent radio host will do every so often. Enough so that they make the competition look like assholes, but not enough to give them ridiculous amounts of free plugs. Payneos 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes competing teams make themselves look like assholes without any help from anyone.. MGlosenger 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So now we have one source with evidence that Stern censored O&A in the past. And one source where Stern wishes them well. I think it's safe to say the O&A is no enemy of Stern and hence should not exist in the Enemies section. The Question now is mentioning O&A relevant to the Stern page? Hollosyt 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wishing someone well does not mean you're not their enemy. The enemies section of the article should be weeded out in favor of "notable incidents" but it should still remain that there is some sort of anomisity between the two shows. It's silly not to think there isn't. Payneos 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There may have been, but not anymore I have shown reasonable verifiable evidence that he doesn't think they are enemies. Go ahead and put the thing about him gagging him in the 90's in. But please no POV about how that makes him a hypocrite like we discussed above -- a reasonable POV is that it does not make him a hypocrite since Stern may have been acting in the best interest of the company. Hollosyt 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument is quite sound for Howard to look like a hypocrite because he did when he did that. It was stated right in the article that he is a champion of free speech, but only *when it benefits him.* Going a step further, when has Howard ever been "for the company?" Isn't his mantra one of rebelliousness, down with the man, and such things? What does he care if two "shock jocks" explode and cost the company millions, as long as he has "his free speech" he's fine. Payneos 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be noted in the article. As far as whether this makes Stern a hypocrite or not, I think any discerning reader can figure that out for themselves. MGlosenger 01:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Howard has always been an honest hardworking guy who cared about the company he is working for, anyone who listens to Stern knows this. He worked for CBS for 20 years, convinced them to Syndicate and make millions of dollars. He gives CBS a year and a half to prepare for his departure, puts on a show that earns CBS millions of dollars in ad revenue during that time. Then he moves to Sirius where he helps Sirius become a success. I don't see how he would be against the company. Sure he had his problems with CBS, but he never was dishonest with them. Hollosyt 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so it looks like the consesus is to remove the Enemies section and add the gagging of O&A to a notable incidents section with no mention of hypocracy (since we have established that is POV and the reader can easily draw her own conclusion). Agree? Hollosyt 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Fine workin with ya, Hollosyt. =) Payneos 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice working with you, i am relativley new and you've taught me alot about how wikipedia works (and doesn't). I'll request the unlock. Hollosyt 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Enemies section removed, see below to figure out where to add in O&A gagging. Hollosyt 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"...taking bits from other media personalities..."

It seems that the following passage (from the "2000s" section of the "Radio Show" category) should be supported with specific examples and/or citations.

"On the opposite side, Stern has also been accused of taking bits from other media personalities. Several personalities have accused Stern of not giving credit to, or acknowledging, others for their ideas in which Stern has incorporated in to using in his show."

-> Which media personalities have made these accusations and what do they consist of?

I second it, you should at least give one example if you're making an accusation like that. Hollosyt 16:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Hollosyt 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Marksfriggin.com as source?

I propose we accept marksfriggin.com as a self-published source. According to the WP guidlines on sources self-published sources: "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications"

Mark has been providing show summaries every day since 1998. He has also been cited by news stories like: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi_3/documents/05200113.asp

I remember finding a news article that actually cited mark but now I can't find the link of course. Hollosyt 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That article didn't cite the website, it put it in a list of related links, which included artielangedeathwatch.com and heidicortez.com. Clearly a fan summary site is nowhere near a reputable source. Tufflaw 03:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize this, see the last sentance. I am hoping someone can dig up some citations by the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollosyt (talk • contribs)

Regardless, marksfriggin.com would not be a reliable source. From the main page, "MarksFriggin.com is one Howard Stern Super Fan's tribute to the greatest radio talk show ever." Clearly a fan site, not an unbiased news report. Tufflaw 04:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So even if reliable press cited the transcripts, it wouldn't be a reliable source? I guess Fox News can't be used as a source either then... Hollosyt 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can use Marksfriggin.com as a source. It's the most reliable outside source than Howard or Sirius themselves. Howard himself has said its the best outside source for everything Howard. Skilanky64 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we first must make sure it meets this qualification - "In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" , remember just because we hear Howard say something doesn't mean we can relay that as fact. This is an encyclopedia.... 19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur that MarksFriggin can be used as a source when necessary (especially for show summary details and specific dates/time). Mark actually worked on HowardStern.com and updated the news section during the first few weeks after the site's launch before the crew took over, so he's pretty reliable as a source. But HowardStern.com is a pretty good source now since they have show archives of their own. I suggest using their own site before relying solely on MarksFriggin's site. --LiK 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Incidents Section

Where should we add this, and what else should be in it besides the O&A gagging. If we can't find more to add then that we should perhaps add the O&A gagging to the 90's section of the show since that's when it happened? Hollosyt

I added an entry about the gag order to the 1990s section, using information from the article at [2]. I couldn't find an actual date, and according to O&A's Wikipedia article they were hired by WNEW in mid 1998, so I wrote that the order was first placed 'in the late 90s'. If anyone has a more specific date, please add it.

Also, looking at the 1990s section I see that some of the former 'enemies' are listed there - I personally don't think the Anna Nicole or Rachel whatever-her-name incidents are all that noteworthy, so I didn't bother readding them. MGlosenger 23:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Les Moonves lawsuit is a good notable incident for the Sirius Notable Incidents section, but I'm sure that goes without saying. Payneos 12:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a seperate section underneath the Radio Show section. We will have to give it a higher level section later once more since it is such a major event. LilDice 18:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Stern the intactivist (Other Stern Causes)

Howard Stern is a well-known staunch opponent of circumcision [3], I think this is relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. - Stormwatch 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure it's all that relevant to his biography, perhaps it would be more relavent on a page about circumcision? I'm also not sure why you call him an 'inactivist'. LilDice 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You read it wrong. It's intactivist. See: Genital integrity. - Stormwatch 00:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, new word for me, anyway do you see my point? I think standing on it's own it's a bit out of place, perhaps we could add a section for Stern causes. Things like free speach, animal rescue(north shore animal league), 9/11 (raised lots of $$$)... LilDice 01:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good idea. - Stormwatch 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's work this out. Here is what I know of

• Stern and his girlfriend Beth Othstrosky support the North Shore Animal League
• Stern raised $??? for the 9/11 families
• Stern has spoken out against circumcision.
• Stern has become a posterboy for free speech issues, though not by any choice of his.

The last item is a touchy subject and may not be NPOV. What I think is relevant is that Stern is often held up as a proponent of Free Speech and has certainly spoken out for it, but he has not used any of his own money to fight the Government on issues of obsenity and the freedom of speech. He has urged his employers to fight the government though.... LilDice

Common Sayings

We could really trim this down. Some sayings like oooh cunty! never really took off. Also, I noticed "This is gettin' to be ri-god-damn-diculous!" is attributed to John Wayne, isn't that actually a quote from an outtake of a Casey Casum (sp?) recording session? LilDice 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could be trimmed, but that quote really was John Wayne. Casey Kasem said "Fucking ponderous!" Foday 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fines Section?

What about either starting a new page or adding a new section that lists every single FCC fine leveled against Stern. I did a bit of research this morning and found with a google query like: "Howard Stern Show" inurl:Orders site:fcc.gov you will find a list of the fines since 1994 but no older ones. I haven't done much more research than that, but I think it would be a noble pursuit to take on. Anyone interested? LilDice 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Stern stalkers

Not surprisingly for his fame, outspokenness, and crude humor, Howard Stern has attracted a large number of death threats over the years. One man, Samuel Callea, ran out in front of Stern's limo as it arrived for work in midtown Manhattan, shouting, "I'm going to kill you!"

Michael Lance Carvin, whose previous victims include Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, and Ronald Reagan (whom he pointed a toy gun at in 1975), sent numerous threatening letters to Stern and his then-wife Alison, including statements like "I will absolutely, without a doubt, kill you. And this is 100% guaranteed," "Alison is dead" six times with threats and a drawing of slitting her throat, and "You can get your head blown off opening the mail" with a fuse and gunpowder in the same envelope. Carvin is a schizophrenic with delusions of false persecution and relapsed after two decades of staying out of trouble when he attempted to go off his medication.

For the links on these two, see the list of stalked celebrities, which includes hundreds of entries and links.

Pat O'Brien Sex Tape

I am reposting this because some idiots want to continue to vandalize a page. Redd Dragon 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cared about actually providing information instead of vandalizing articles you would realize Howard played these tapes on his terrestrial radio show when they came out. He played them on his first day because he couldn’t play the uncensored versions before and now he could. Fighting over who played them uncensored first is irrelevant and stupid. Redd Dragon 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, let's say (even though it's not true) that Howard Never played them at all. Why is it relevant that O&A played them first? O&A have nothing to do with a Biography on Howard Stern. LilDice 19:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we block 71.192.77.113? He or she just put in the same O & A blurb again. This article isn't about O & A. Foday 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to block me. If it upsets you that much (even though it's fact), I won't repost it. But I felt it was necessary because Stern touted the tapes as an "exclusive" and the "first time they were being aired uncensored". I was simply pointing out that O&A did it 8 months before in the same medium that Stern started in January. User:BTC316 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if that is accurate, those claims by Stern are not repeated in the article, so there is no need to address them there. SubSeven 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry those claims aren't accurate. Stern never said they were exclusive or the first time being aired uncensored. They were just one of the first things that Stern wanted to play uncensored that he was unable to play on Terrestrial Readio LilDice 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember that, so unless you can find a source it's not relevant. Anyway before anyone on the radio played it it was played on the internet. 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Revelation Show

I removed the Wack Pack revelations because they are a small bit that isn’t important enough to list it in this already long article. There is a revelation wiki and that’s where it should be. Unless the article directly involves him or any cast member I don’t see why the full information should be included when there is a better place for it. Plus the fact we have duplicate articles that nobody seems to want to delete (Deletion of the “Revelation Show” wiki article failed). Redd Dragon 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See: Revelation Show

Good idea, no need for them. LilDice 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Old Tapes

Hey Redd Dragon, you mentioned that he owns them forever. I thought Howard said that he had them for 20 years. Was he joking? I got the news from his live show as it was announced. I'll relisten to the replay to make sure. --LiK 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, my mistake. He said he had the tapes from the last 20 years. I had misinterpreted his announcement. I was so excited that I fumbled that info. Thanks for the correction. :) --LiK 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Opie and Anthony -- Rivals?

In this article, Opie & Anthony are mentioned as being Howard's rivals. I think this should be removed. Howard himself has stated that he doesn't view it as a rivalry.68.224.239.240

MacDonald's probably doesn't see Wendy's as a rival, but they are. Here the two different people compete in an identical medium with very similar material. They are rivals. Bluetubist 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)