Jump to content

Talk:Dean Edell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Popularity of Dr. Dean Edell Show?

[edit]

Kvuo recently deleted portions of the article regarding the popularity of the show with the explanation of "obviously untrue." Looking into this, I find conflicting evidence: Edell's Bio (published by dozens of radio stations) claims that it is "America's second most popular syndicated radio talk show...heard in more than 400 radio stations."

Talkers Magazine, on the other hand, places his weekly audience size at 1 million listeners, ranking 26th in their 2005 survey.

Looked hard at Arbitron, but I am not sure if they track market shares or audience sizes for syndicated shows. Hoping you can shed more light on this, Kvuo. dpotter 03:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edell is a kook, heard in only 90 markets, then he cannot be possibly #2 behind Limbaugh. Phil Hendrie is in over 100 markets, and he's nowhere near #2. I'm not sure I'd take edell's own word at how popular the radio show is.. Radio guys are notorious self-promoters. he may be #2 in some certain demographic. but I'm quite sure there are other radio shows that are on in more than 90 markets other than limbaugh.. --Kvuo 14:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious, we have a high-school dropout telling us the nature of the medical literature, enough so that he has concluded Dr. Dean is a "kook". This is exactly why wikipedia will always be worthless- a source of democratic "truthness" rather than anything apporaching objective reality. Science doesn't conform to your instincts, value judgement, and political beliefs/aspirations. I doubt you could even tell me what a double-blind placebo-controlled protocol even means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.229.231 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Amen, brother. Dean spoketh the truth, which doesn't make the faithful (used broadly) very happy. Charles in Eugene, Oregon.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.212.73 (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both could be true. It used to be that you could not pick up the Limbaugh show without having Dean Edell along. This was a recognized fact a few years ago. See here Most stations therefore carried him grudgingly, and most of them banished him to weekends or the overnight hours if they could. Calwatch 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Online Audio?

[edit]

Just wondering if anybody who gets his show has heard his opinion on online audio. I used to listen to his Real stream around the turn of the century and at the time he was big into building what he wanted to be the best medical website in existence - yet today I can't even find a podcast.

Previously there was sentence that Dr. Edell had been married several times, I forget the number, and was deleted. That kind of personal information makes these articles more interesting, though maybe less then flattering. BillMcGonigle 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Bill's suggestion. In addition, I've heard or read somewhere that several of his (six?) children have been in and out of drug rehab. I'd like to know if there's any truth to it. LNelson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.115.185.2 (talk) 21:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Anti Catholic Bias?

[edit]

Why is there a controversy about this? Two anonymous ip addresses seem to keep adding back blurbs about catholic beliefs. Don't you need some kind of source for something that is controversial or debatable like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikesalsa (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added this information because as a Catholic I have heard him on seven different occasions single out the Catholic Religion for the butt of his editorials. I am sick of this degrading of my faith. If he had talked so badly about the faith of Islam there would have been a holy war. I notice he doesn't have the courage to talk badly about religions whose members would actually fight back in anger against anyone who dares talk against them. My only weapon is forgiveness and bringing his religious hatred to the attention of audiences. The comment will be reinserted until he quits saying such terrible things about my religion. If you don't like the comments ask him to quit spewing such hatred for my religion.Silent. I Love my God I am sorry he doesn't have one to love. Silentsam242 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The only response many have taken has been to shun products of his sponsors." An interesting note is that since so many quack products advertise on the show Dr. Edell himself will criticize some of his own sponsors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.233.13 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section because it's unsourced and could get wikipedia sued. Here is the deleted text, but I warn you that it would be foolish to reinsert it without finding sourcing first. His programs are frequently extremely Anti-Catholic in nature and he frequently criticizes the Pope and the Catholic Religion in general. His criticisms go far beyond being just critical in nature and border on extreme Anti-Catholic Bias. A good number of Catholic listeners have complained about his offensive anti Catholic lectures but have been unable to get him to stop. The only response many have taken has been to shun products of his sponsors.Reverend Distopia 22:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A further note: no one has re-added any of the information which was removed. I noticed Silentsam242's statement so I have to say, if you read this, please do not put that section back on unless you have some source materials. This is very serious. The fact that you yourself show very clear bias against Edel shows that you probably shouldn't be working on this page anyway. However, the least you can do is find some documentation to back up your claims. When you write potentially defamatory statements about an individual without proof, you can be sued in court. If you don't care about that, that's perfectly fine, but do us the favor and help us keep Wikipedia afloat by not placing it in the position where it might be sued. Non-profit organizations can't afford to be sued.Reverend Distopia 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverend Distopia (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dean Edell. 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:

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) 05:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dean Edell. 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:

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) 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dean_Edell&oldid=1257716238"