Talk:Don and Mike Show

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

Search this page for "Matthew Verbin" and search the whole of Wikipedia and Google for the same name. He has posted on many wikis a bunch of nonsense, none of which, I suspect, is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.227.222 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On July 10, 2005, Don's wife, Freda Wright-Sorce, died as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident. She was 50 years old, and an integral part of "The Don and Mike Show." Please keep Don, his son Bart, and the rest of the Wright and Sorce families in your thoughts and prayers.

Is this really appropriate? I definatly understand that this was tragic and this is a tough time for Don and his family. However, this is an encyclopedia and I think this should be noted, but Wikipedia isn't a message board to relay messages to others. What I think would be appropriate is if a link to a credible D&M message board/forum post about Don's loss is linked under a section about her death. --Kevin McManus 23:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the "thoughts and prayers" part doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia (though the original poster had good intentions), but Freda was a big part of the show and of Don's life and her passing is undoubtedly a major milestone in terms of the show. --68.71.49.76 23:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said... should definatly be noted. I understand she was a big part of the show --Kevin McManus 01:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think "thoughts and prayers" is fine in the "discussion" part of the encyclopedia. -- [2 cents]

I don't think it's "fine" because you're assuming that the person who is reading the article actually practices prayer. This is an assumption that an encyclopedia should NOT make about the reader. However, her death did have an impact on the radio show, so it deffinately should be noted. -- James McEwan

I do believe it is worth mentioning the death of Freda, as she was an integral part of the Don and Mike show. However, the sentence "Please keep Don, his son Bart, and the rest of the Wright and Sorce families in your thoughts and prayers" is a direct appeal to the reader, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. The sentence contains no fact. It does not reinforce any other mentioned fact. It would be acceptable in something like a newspaper column or a fansite for the show. However in this article it is not acceptable.

If this were actually in the article I would agree, but this is the discussion page, and this was an extremely traumatic event that changed the show. It is at least worth mentioning, and a small request for prayer is not offensive (despite the current atmosphere among the dominant 5% in this country). --DestradoZero 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is special mention given to Beth Anne's departure in the history section? If mention was given to past, more integral, longer running producers I would understand, but Beth Anne was only involved with the show for 2 years or so, and in the grand scheme of the shows history, means nothing. Surely the departures of Charlie and Lisa, or Diana and "Sherry Liquor" would merit bigger mention. This entry smacks of a very short term listener's contribution. --66.65.36.228 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Bob Hope be listed under "dead to the show" when he is, after all, dead to everybody?

RE: Bob Hope never pissed D&M off to the point to where they kicked him off the show. Those who are "dead to me!" (DG) have thoroughly worn out their welcome and are no longer allowed on the show. --Andy Howard (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Leah Remini dead to the show? What happened?

Leah used to be a friend of the show. She did one of those specials on a cable channel, inviting cameras into her home for a "private look" into her life. She acted like some type of deity, bascially a total hag. The guys played parts of it on the radio during their show and ripped her over her antics and comments. (it was quite hillarious and very accurate) When she found out she called Howard Sterns show to be on it in New York the very next day. She eventually called in and tried to scold the guys for "betraying their friendship". Since they were right about the way she was acting on the special, they didn't budge or apologize and the call ended badly. So long Lisa Remedy (joke from her special were the DJ at her wedding reception called her Lisa Remedy instead of Leah Remeni) Sean Smith

Do you know the date of the show (or an estimate) so I can look it up and see exactly (more or less) when Leah officially became "dead to the show"? --Andy Howard (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love Don and Mike, don't get me wrong, but: This article has a lot of good information but is riddled with POV. It needs extensive cleanup.--Bltpdx 07:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "All Music" show after their suspension did not go for the full four hours. Don originally intended to do this, but quit after somewhere between 45 minutes and 2 hours. I would change it, but I don't have the time right now to research the actual amount of time (ie, listening to my CD with that show) due to work. DestradoZero 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the All Music Show on 5/31/02 did last all 4 hours. When they returned on Monday 6/3/02, they announced it as "Broadway Monday" and were taken off the air until Monday, 6/10/02. I believe this confusion may have come from the folks at Radio Gods Forum chopping out all the music to include only the talk up to each song and the last few seconds of each song in their daily released MP3. --Timcooke1982 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find the show(s) in question on PYBS.com and see what the deal was. --Andy Howard (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are O&A listed under "Friends" of the show? They were rivals. A quick summary from memory, I'll try to keep it somewhat encyclopedic. At one point, O&A were being openly abusive of Don and Mike, saying very negative things about them on the air. Don and Mike countered on their own show, but were ordered by management to cease O&A related subjects. Don and Mike didn't appreciate being silenced while O&A remained free to continue trash talking them. In retaliation against their management, Don and Mike performed their next show devoid of all elements of their regular format. Instead, they played old-fashioned, broadway style show tunes. Audience members calling the show received prizes of either dog muzzles or dog choke chains, in a less than subtle stab at the management. Don and Mike were then suspended for at least one week. Eventually, O&A were fired from their radio station for an incident involving nudity in a church. Although they kept to their managements instructions not to mention O&A on the air, Don and Mike openly gloated on the air, invoking phrases like "justice is sweet" and "what comes around, goes around." --Andy 12:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them "friends of the show", but after Don's wife Freda died in 2005, Opie and Anthony expressed condolences and the idea of a radio feud was put into perspective. Most of Don's old radio feuds were put to bed at this time.--Nuwriter 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don and Mike were also actually on fairly good terms with O&A in the beginning. Things soured at some point afterward, but as previously stated they're no longer feuding. DestradoZero 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since they have moved studios, do they also have a new mailing address?24.16.41.151 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would be "Don and Mike, North Pole". (They have used this in the past as a joke, but according to them they actually DO get mail sent to them marked as such.) DestradoZero 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O and A was actually mentioned on the radio last week. Don said that they had a fued with O and A and some radio banter back and forth but the argument was over.

I have been listening to D&M for 20 years and I remember in the WAVA days someone they called "Danger Boy". He was their Gopher and idiot on the street, he would don crazy costumes and stroll around town... Does anyone remember this guy or know what happened to him? Thanks.

Rob Spewak was the original Dangerboy. He is now "third man" and sometimes producer of the show.

[edit] Rob was their intern/Gopher guy on WAVA and as previously stated "Danger Boy". --Andy Howard (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has very few sources and seems to mostly be made up of original research by listeners. It'd be a shame to remove all the info, but at the moment it's all unverifiable. Could involved editors please find supporting references for this article? -Will Beback · † · 22:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning - unsourced material will be removed. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the source for much of the information is the show itself. Sources for historic information will be very difficult to obtain since much of it is covered in local newspapers like the Washington Post which only has archives going back 2 years available online. Some specific examples of sections which are of concern in this article would be helpful in identifying what needs to be cleaned up. Rtphokie 13:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed almost all of "Dead to the show" and "Frequent Callers" sections because they had no sources and referred to living people. How are the "Caller rules" verifiable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"News Presenter" is a primarily a British term (BBC?) and will probably not be understood by many Americans. This radio show's target audience is in the United States, so it seems more appropriate to use American terminology like "News Reporter" or "News Announcer" or "News People", doesn't it? The Wikipedia guidelines on American/British say to use the word choices of the country of the article's subject... but "news presenter" is not listed in the list of British words not used in American English. StreamingRadioGuide 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters, really. I'm also sure that those of us born in America will somehow connect "News Presenter" with the people on the show who have presented the news. Not that difficult to figure out. DestradoZero 13:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used on the show so I dont think it will cause much confusion Rtphokie 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this section. There is zero evidence of this being true at this point. If something citable is found, by all means put it back (and word it a bit better) Rtphokie 21:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. As far as I know Don has never moved to XM Radio, nor has he mentioned it on the radio. He is currently (as of 8-07-13) on Sports Talk 1140AM KHTK (Sacramento, California) --Andy Howard (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged as having poor or irrelevant examples however I dont see any explanation here on the talk page so I'll start this section. What are the specific concerns?--Rtphokie 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my concerns:

The list of 'Other Personnel' is way too long. Is the entire list of general managers, program directors, interns, etc. really necessary?

The list of caller rules is way too long, and probably not very encyclopedic.

The list of segments is a bit long.

The friends and feuds sections smack of original research.

Needless to say, 43.5 Kb is a bit large for an article such as this.--Fightingirish 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "rules". There's still too much unsourced material in this article. I'd support removal of the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other personel list could stand some pruning. Caller rules could go either way. Friends and feuds is encyclopedic and comes directly from the show, not original research. That's the hard thing about daily radio shows, there aren't many other sources than the shows themselves yet these things are still well known to long time listeners. These items are valuable here though because they can assist new listers and serve as a general reference.--Rtphokie 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the 'rules' were relevant in the same vein as Tom Lykis' 'Blow me up Tom' styles are relevant to its article. It's a running gag of the show and makes the show unique from other similar talk show programs. Is it original research, probably, but the only other source would be podcasts of the shows. It's hard to get around that.τßōиЄ2001 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

original research refers to information which is difficult to verify. These 'running gags' are easy to verify, they are broadcast daily on a nationally syndicated radio show. Your are correct that these 'gags' do make the show unique which adds to the encyclopedic nature of the information.--Rtphokie 01:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you cite or verify something (besides podcasts as I mentioned earlier) that is broadcast on radio or TV if it's not somewhere on the internet? I guess you could say go listen to station X from time A to time B, but that would be an awkward citation. But back to the point, I agree with you agreeing with me. ;-D τßōиЄ2001 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If things that happen during a broadcast aren't described in a printed source, and if past broadcasts aren't available, then they may not be verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So don't you think there should be at least an exception for notable (which can debatable) details involving such media? Listeners/watchers of these programs are more than likely going to monitor shows they take an interest in and keep them factual sans citations/sources. Otherwise, all we are left with is the station, syndicates, hosts and personnel. Don't get me wrong, I know facts can proven or disproven. But gags and the essence of a show are hardley ever documented (unless you're Howard Stern). ;-)

P.S. I live in Dallas so I only listen to them via podcast. τßōиЄ2001 06:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're undocumented and unverifiable they don't belong in an encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've previously discussed the quantity of unverifiable, unsourced material in this article, including #Sources and #poor or irrelevant examples. above. Per WP:V, any unverifiable material may be removed. Does anyone have any verifiable, reliable sources for the "Caller rules" section of this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading them again, I don't even understand how we know that these are the rules. Do they announce them from time to time? That is, do they say, "Hey everybody, new rule: No impressions." Or are these de facto rules deduced based on listening to the program? That is, do we know the rule is "no impressions" because they exclude or mock anyone who calls in with one? It looks to me like the latter, and that much of this material would be considered original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know that the rules have ever been read all at once, they are "referenced" as callers break them and added to occasionally. This is probably the only place, other than the various D&M message boards, that the rules are even written down anywhere. Yet they are pretty big part of the show. The forbidden verbal crutches ("is it me?", "whatnot", etc.) and things that callers love to do that are never as funny or interesting as the caller thinks ("first time long time", jokes, show ideas, breaking news, etc.) If this were a list of bits, I'd say it needs to be gone immediately but it's good information. Since it's central to this often caller driven show, one of the few that takes unscreened calls, it should stay. I'll take a crack at rewording it. We are always going to have --Rtphokie 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)the problem of it's sourcing though, since the only source is and probably will always be the show itself.--Rtphokie 11:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you going to re-write the material? Your personal memory of what they've said or done over the air in the past? How could that possibly be verifiable to a reader or another editor? If the only sources are past episodes of the show, and if there are no transcripts or recordings, then maybe the information just isn't suitable. This shouldn't be the only place anything is written down. However, I can see having a paragraph describing the existence of unwritten rules, and mentioning a couple of the ones that come up so frequently that anyone listening for a reasonable time would hear them. Something along the lines of:

• Don & Mike don't screen their calls, and instead have developed routine methods of handling calls. They hang up on or make jokes about callers who do impressions, report breaking news, tell jokes, and other unacceptable activities. From time to time they announce new rules. In March 2007 they stoppped accepting calls about breaking news due to the time lag in broadcasting.

But we should keep it trim, minimize the original research or speculation, and source it as much as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what I'm proposing --Rtphokie 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section again - it still has no sources and there's no progress in re-writing it. Rather than restoring the unsourced material if anyone wants to write about caller rules then please either find a source or make a short paragraph with minimal assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the show. 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.180.134 (talk)

It has been suggested that Joe Ardinger be merged into Don and Mike. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question. Should The Mike O'Meara Show get its own separate article, be incorporated into this article or be incorporated into the Mike O'Meara article? EvWill (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs its own article as it is its own show. 68.102.180.134 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should get a mention at least but have its own separate article since it is a separate show from the Original Don & Mike Show and as far as I know in no way associated with the old show OR Don Geronimo's current show on KHTK --Andy Howard (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Don and Mike Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116142514/http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44 to http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416031551/http://www.radioandrecords.com:80/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=WDm0rnuQBFo%3D&Version=0 to http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=WDm0rnuQBFo%3d&Version=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.readexpress.com/read_freeride/2008/04/wjfks_don_geronimo_to_retire_this_month.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/$rol.exe/headline_id=n17597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Don and Mike Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523102920/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/02/don_geronimos_sayonara_song.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/02/don_geronimos_sayonara_song.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=WDm0rnuQBFo%3D&Version=0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/%24rol.exe/headline_id%3Dn17597
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120907112003/http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/manassas/article/omeara_out_in_wjfk_format_change/39464/ to http://www.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/manassas/article/omeara_out_in_wjfk_format_change/39464/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]