Talk:Steve Dahl/Archive 1

Page

Steve Dahl needs a wikipedia page...

Non-copyvio temp page has been created. ErikNY 21:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that a link to a page of supposed newspaper articles that have been reformatted into HTML, poorly I might add, should be included as gospel for two reasons 1. If the articles exist then link to them, if not they can't be proven as fact and should not be included 2. The web site runner obviously has a very slanted opinion and I thought that opinion about article subjects was not allowed

This wikipidia entry is very much slanted and not written from a neutral point of view. It lacks the quality of research befitting a wikipidia entry.

--Chitownflyer 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) To answer the above points

1. The link to is relevant as it provides a historic perspective of a very controversial shock jock disk jockey. The news articles are vaildatied Author, date, and publication and can be looked up and confirmed and meets standards of valiation.

2. By the standards you are stating, the other links are opinions as well with out the validation standards you are asking. In which case dont' belong on the list either.

3. This article, as written is VERY VERY slanted and does not take in consideration Steve's controversies and criticisms of his radio career in Chicago.

4. It is very obvious the agenda the contributor has as well.

Then quit whining about it and fix it.--RWR8189 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve & Garry "reuniting" rumor

Hope not to offend anyone, but I think it's premature (unless someone has solid evidence) to suggest that Dahl and Meier are reuniting. Maybe it's a trifling distinction, but Meier and Dahl did not "reunite" in the complete sense of the word. Meier stopped by Dahl's remote broadcast. There's no reason (yet) to think they're getting back together. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct, but please also support with sources. - Chabuhi 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find comments like "...Now that the two work in the same building, it has fueled speculation that Steve and Garry will be reunited permanently (perhaps even making a return to morning drive)...." to be questionable. Can anyone cite a legitimate article stating that there is such speculation? If not, let's remove that part. WinSmith 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsitancies in Name Usage

The article variously refers to the subjects by their first names, nick names and last names. For the casual reader who is not intimately familiar with the personalities discussed, reading the article becomes a dreary scroll up to find out WTF is Steve, or which is Garry and WTH is this other guy. Last names are best when discussing multiple people. Clean it up. don't assume all the readers are from Detroit or Michigan or wherever these two jocks are from since these personalities are linked from other articles relating to sports incidents. Be consistent please.

WCKG Ratings

"The fate of both Dahls has recently been called into question as WCKG's ratings keep them in the cellar of Chicago radio, tied for 28th with a paltry 1.2 share. A station-wide format change and house cleaning is expected soon as reported October 2, 2007 by Robert Feder of the Chicago Sun-Times."

I don't think this is important to the article, yet Chicago1919 seems to think it is. Every one of this user's edits has been to this article, and most have been about WCKG's ratings, which is neither encyclopedic nor important to the biography of Steve Dahl. I don't feel like getting into a revert war, so I'll let others decide Jauerback 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't belong in there. I removed it. Betaeleven 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If the station's poor ratings and imminent format change are not wiki-worthy then neither is the self-aggrandizing bloviating about ratings that was previously posted. This is not intended to be an advertisment for Mr. Dahl, but rather a factual encyclopedic presentation. This entire entry is so biased it does a disservice to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago1919 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges. Steve Dahl's ratings have been, and continue to be, good. The rest of the station's are arguably not good. Thus, it is on-topic for an article about Steve Dahl to include information about his ratings, but it is irrelevant to discuss the ratings of the rest of the station. You don't see an article about 30 Rock discussing the ratings of Scrubs just because both are on NBC. WinSmith 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we'll agree to disagree. Steve's ratings are not good. To say you are fifth in the male 25-54 demo in the afternoon drive slot is to say nothing. He's beaten by both sports talk stations in town. His advertisers range from a mortgage broker to a limo company with no real consumer brands to speak of and station revenues underscore this. To the extent that ratings are perceived as "good" by anyone, the imminent arrival of Danny Bonaduce will be a rude awakening. Lets keep references to ratings out of the wiki as they are dynamic and they generally don't support the advertising/promotion efforts of this particularly biased wikipedia entry.--Chicago1919 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Steve's personal ratings being in the article (good or bad), however WCKG's ratings as a whole have no place in here nor does speculation on what might happen to the station regardless of the source. Jauerback 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is an imminent format change at CKG it is certainly pertinent to an article about Dahl's life and career.--RWR8189 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to: WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. Betaeleven 04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun-Times is certainly a reliable source, and yes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but that policy has nothing to do with the issue at hand, editors are not providing speculation, an RS is. This information is certainly notable and has a place in this article--RWR8189 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC).

Ratings go up and down constantly. People have been predicting WCKG's demise for at least 6 years. Furthermore, my opinions about the reliability of the Sun-Times aside, we're talking about a column not a news article. The columnist in question is frequently wrong, and has shown a clear bias against the subjects. WinSmith 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RWR, why are you bringing up the reliable source info anyway? I never questioned that. Betaeleven 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground and no soapboxing

The standing article needs work but continually inserting hyperbole about "ratings dives" is highly POV, regardless of your inclusion of sources. Single purpose accounts aren't looked on favorably, either. If you have facts to add to the article, please add them, but leave out the POV. The Parsnip! 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the current version of the article looks really good. Great job. Jauerback 18:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsnip, your edits have been good. However, I think the fact that syndication failed is an important part of the record and should be included. This is as good of a place as any to put it as it was controversial in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago1919 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to including information about the failed syndication, but I don't think it's really a controversial topic (certainly not in the same realm as Dahl taping coworkers). If anything, we should restructure it to add a new main head "Radio Career", and then include a few subheads underneath it that represent the linear nature of the whole career. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts? Additionally, calling it "ill-fated" is POV and OR. The Parsnip! 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've readded the bit with some editing, and restuctured. The Parsnip! 01:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Parsnip, given your undying advocacy of the subject of this wikipedia entry I assume you are in some way working for Mr. Dahl. In fact, I assume that you are Mark Czerniec, Dahl's webmaster and otherwise flunky. No, I guess CBS reformatted WCKG because of the HIGH ratings. This wiki entry is a completely biased advertisement for the subject and in no way an objective entry, mainly because of you and, no doubt, Dahl, himself. --Chicago1919 14:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, have you read WP:NPA? I recommend you do so. Also, I am not this Mark person, and I don't know who he is. No, I don't work for Dahl. What I am is a concerned Wikipedian who won't sit here while you continually insert weasel words, POV and garbage into this article with your single-purpose account. I think you should give up your crusade to insert negative POV into this article without any independent reliable citations. YOU don't know WHY WCKG decided to restructure, it could be for a multitude of reasons. Saying that they did it because of bad ratings is speculation, and speculation is WP:OR. Nobody of consequence 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Chicago1919, I have to completely disagree with you. Parsnip's edits have been great: very balanced and informed. On the other hand, I don't believe you've had a single edit that hasn't been pushing a POV and full of weasel words. In fact, you haven't touched a non-WCKG article. One could easily accuse of you of the very same thing. You really should read the links that Parsnip provided you. Maybe they will give you some insight on how Wikipedia works and how an article should look. Jauerback 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For both of you to use the term "weasel words" when chastising me for referencing facts regarding ratings and the reason for the format change as stated by Dahl, himself, tells me a lot. I am not stating POV, I am stating fact. I now understand that you view Wikipedia as a sort of Yellow Pages for advertisement and not fact. Thanks for the education.--71.239.5.116 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's try some further explaining. I have no problem with you putting any controversies in the article about Dahl. Earlier, you had put something about him not making the Radio Hall of Fame. I'm not sure why that's not in there anymore, but I doubt that you removed it. Here's a link to a reference:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060808/ai_n16662475

However, when you use a line like, "Also in 2006, this self-described legend did not garner enough votes to make it into the Radio Hall of Fame", (the italics are my own) is considered weasal words (have you read that link, yet?).

Another example: "...ratings keep them in the cellar of Chicago radio, tied for 28th with a paltry 1.2 share..." (italics mine) are other examples of weasel words that are totally POV and not necessary to the article.

Third example: "...WCKG's long-awaited format change was unveiled..." (italics my own). Even with sources, this doesn't belong in an article about Steve Dahl.

Final example. Why was this change of yours necessary? From this: "Dahl announced on October 29, 2007 that he will move to mornings at WJMK on November 5 as WCKG changes formats..." to this: "...Dahl himself, lamented WCKG's poor ratings and resultant limited marketing resources as well as the fact that a reformatting of the station was forthcoming" (italics my own, again) Do you not see the weasel words that you are using?

Now as an example of "positive" weasel-words (and these are not yours) are "He is considered a pioneer in talk radio...", however that line now has two sources to back it up. Without the sources, this line wouldn't belong either.

Putting ratings information about Dahl is okay, but about the overall station that he is (now was) on has nothing to do about Dahl. WCKG's rating belong in the WCKG article. Look at this way, ten years from now, is anyone going to care about what the ratings of WCKG were when they're reading about Steve Dahl? No. For example, are the station ratings necessary for this important line in the article:

"Less than a year later, WDAI changed formats to disco and fired Dahl on Christmas Eve, 1978."

No, except that the station changed formats and Dahl was fired, but I'm sure that WDAI's format change had something to do about the ratings of WDAI (and even Dahl's), but it's not important to this article.

Oh, and according to the following line from the November 6th Phil Rosenthal article, his ratings were apparently not all that bad: "While Dahl remained a reliable draw, WCKG struggled..."

It's obvious that you're neither a Dahl fan nor a WCKG fan, however I won't speculate why that is. As I said before, every one of your edits has been to add negative information to WCKG-related articles. That's a bit single-purpose, don't you think? We need balance to the article, yes, but you're going a bit overboard. Jauerback 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)