Talk:Randi Rhodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Randi Rhodes article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Randy or Randi

The direction to the Randi Rhodes page and the RANDY RHOADS page needs to be more clear. Especially considering that she is on the radio and people won't be able to decipher that her name is spelled with the unconventional 'I' instead of 'Y'. I just tried to look her up and wasn't able to until I did some googling. So...idk someone do it, I don't know how to.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.254.174 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC).


It's pretty simple really. Women's names use the i (Randi) Men's use the y (Randy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.221.253 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randi Rhodes

Love Randi, but this is POV!

Randi Rhodes' real name is Rivka Joyce Butinsky. She revealed her name as "Rivka Butinsky" when stating the real names of famous Jewish entertainers (e.g., Bernard Schwartz is the real name for actor Tony Curtis) during her WJNO broadcast in early September of 2000 on the occasion of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah). She revealed her middle name as "Joyce" on a 2001 WJNO broadcast when she welcomed a caller of the same name by saying, "That's my middle name!" - User:Scifiradioguy 13:20, 29 June, 2005 (UTC)


This is not sourced and seems a prank. I'm removing it, again, please provide an actual source on this information and until then I think it must be left out. I've never heard of the name Butinsky, in fact that's an expression for one who barges in, a butinsky... It's been pretty well established that she was Robertson and changed to Rhodes and that she uses Rhodes as her professional name, she's called Randi Rhodes. If you want to put in a fact about being born, Robertson, then, we can work that out, but I don't see where that fits in the lead. Maybe you should send her an e-mail and ask her, or call her yourself and ask the question, then that call would appear in the show's archives and could be offered as an external link, or even posted as fair use to commons. Call her and ask her, "on the record." (Also, you should post new comments at the bottom of a section, not the top) Calicocat 29 June 2005 19:56

(UTC)

Does anyone of you liberal or otherwise listeners know Ms. Rhodes real name and purposely withhold it? If you are so obsessed with pseudonyms these days (i.e. Gannon/Guckert especially); come out clean and tell us all what's her birth name is - WE PROMISE NOT TO LAUGH --Tigry 17:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source that this is not her real name? – ClockworkSoul 17:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) she (Rhodes) herself admits that it's not her real name, on her radio show (2) http://www.anncoulter.com/ < - Ms. Coulter cites that fact in her Feb. 23, 2005 article AND (3) (thanks to friends at Hannity.com) http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Rhodes&first=Randi --Tigry 21:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • The article you cite doesn't specify her name. How did you came across it? You don't think the campaign contribution thing could be a coincidence? – ClockworkSoul 04:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

dude - this (newsmeat) is a legit news source; look at the postal code, look at the occupation - political parties are mandated to disclose donations - she fouled up if she wanted to keep her real name a secret - so, go ahead prove me wrong, repudiate my point - or let it be --Tigry 05:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Relax - I'm not trying to "nail" you or some crap like that. I just prefer sources that are more, well, verified. A quick Google turns up nothing useful, and this is an encyclopedia, after all, not an detective agency. The burden is not on me to prove you wrong, it is on you to prove yourself right. – ClockworkSoul 06:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigry - I'm going to stop this now before it becomes an edit war, and open it up to a community survey. I think it's original research, which we do not use: we'll see if others disagree. – ClockworkSoul 16:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fine, lets leave it to the public - truth does arise from debate - however - I will not leave this alone until I get categorical prove that my facts are wrong - my website link reveals this http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Rhodes&first=Randi - so whether her real name, which I believe based on the information I provided is Randi Robertson is a real issue here. However, she herself admitted Randi Rhodes is not her real name - that part shouldn't be debated - http://www.therandirhodesshow.com - do you research yourself there. --Tigry 18:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to comprimise and leave it with your last revision: she uses a pseudonym, but not what we think it may be. Nobody disputes that she uses a psuedonym, but I do disagree that this is not the place for investigative work in trying to expose it. If we can leave it at that, perhaps we can drop all this "survey" nonsense? – ClockworkSoul 19:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on current state of article - lets keep it at it for now. The original impetus for our dispute was, however, the fact that I presented a credible news source that documents political contributions - that shows that a person (persons?) with first name Randi, who happens to have identical postal codes, location, and occupation of radio host made several contributions to democrat party under second names Rhodes AND Robertson - and until this particular finding is disputed I will not back down --Tigry 19:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Very well, then. We can continue. Your site may host news, but you're not citing news, you're siting a list of names in a list of campaign contributions. This is not a citation, it's a inference, an dtherefore falls under the domain of "original research". If you can find a source, even a tertiary source, that says "Randi Rhode's is an alias for Randy Robertson", then that's grand. Until then, you're pushing real hard to get your own conclusions placed into the common discourse, where it does not belong. That's not an act of disclosure, it's one of ego. – ClockworkSoul 20:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Has anybody else managed to figure out that her maiden name is "Rhodes", which was her name when she started radio, and when she married Jim Robertson, she didn't change it? Not many entertainers change their public name when they marry: that's not deceit, or a pseudonym. A quote from http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9580235.htm?1c:
In 1994, she joined WJNO in West Palm. Her salary shot into six figures. She bought a 4,000-square-foot house in Lake Worth and married Jim Robertson.
  • As someone who has worked in radio, pseudonyms are a very common practice. Some air personalities want to use an easier-to-remember name (I had a talk with the consultant about that one), and many just don't want strange people calling their house. Nothing unusual here. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh was once Jeff Christie. --Fightingirish 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tigry: All I wanted was for this information to be verified. Now that we have a source, and complete information, I'm very perfectly satisfied. My "holdup", as you put it, was a desire for accuracy. Perhaps the question I should pose to you is this: what is your rush? Isn't it better to have the corect information? – ClockworkSoul 03:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

here is a source for gunshot investigation, before trying to edit my addition - prove it false, otherwise people deserve to know the truth: http://drudgereport.com/mattabt.htm --Tigry 13:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Ethics question. I happen to know her real name. It's not Butinsky. She has asked that we not use her real name. But as a journalist, I deal in facts. Should I post her real name anyway? (Btw, I have no axe to grind here. I write reference books end encyclopaedia entries, and was able to find her real name with a little digging, along with the name of her parents too.) User: DevorahLeah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.157.126 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't break news or determine what is news, and articles about living people must source more strictly to WP:RS. There's no ethics dilemma here, and there are plenty of editors here who also deal with facts; do you have a reliable source that definitely says "Randi Rhodes' real name is X"? If the source is not online or not easily accessible (i.e. available only to paid subscribers), there are editors who can help verify the info. Flowanda | Talk 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • User: DevorahLeah Yes I do have a reliable source-- three of them, in fact. So I added her real "maiden name" and corrected the spelling (verified on Ancestry.com and in the Oxnard CA and Miami FL phone books that this is the correct name, and she mentioned it on the C-Span interview, but the transcriber spelled it wrong). Btw, I've spent more than 30 years in radio, and yes it's true that most announcers, male and female, use a pseudonym, so whoever said it was because she was "hiding something" was evidently not aware of common radio practice. But yes, in newspaper articles and interviews, she generally asks that her birth name not be used.

[edit] Survey

This survey is about whether to accept Randi Rhodes' alleged alias encyclopedic information. Please read the brief discussion above, which contains the primary arguments for and against by the two major parties in this disagreement (ClockworkSoul and Tigry) before voting.

Motion: Randi Rhodes' alleged alias is original research, and should not be included: Number of Votes (0/0/0) Support
Oppose
Abstain
Comments

  • I can't understand what the choices here would mean. I thought it was common knowledge that "Randi Rhodes" is a pseudonym. Can someone succinctly state what each side thinks the article should say? We can't decife between attitudes, only between possible article content. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Judging by what I see here, perhaps I was wrong and it was just her maiden name. Either way, I don't understand what are the choices between which we are supposed to be deciding. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind - I think that this was resolved. – ClockworkSoul 03:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um Tigry

Randi said very clear on http://66.92.134.175/~benburch/old/RhodesShow-(10-11-2003).mp3 , that her name is Randi Robertson and her stage name, as with most people on radio and TV, is Randi Rhodes. So she's not hiding jack shit. She says this 12:40 in. So stop with the bullshit, Tigry. Very unlike Gannon/Guckert who attempted to hide before he was exposed by those seeking the truth. Stop with your RNC/Mann Coulter talking points. Asswipe. Ann must not be a regular listener or she would know that Randi has mentioned her name more than once on multiple shows. I'd like to know if that stupid bitch Ann Coulter is really a man....

(Above posted by RandiFan) RandiFan: Relax a bit. That kind of language will just make things worse. Thanks for understanding. – ClockworkSoul 21:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If I could get that mp3 to download, we may just have something to cite at least. – ClockworkSoul 21:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...but you'd also have to cite Clockwork that she has publicly acknowledged Randi Robertson is her real name yet goes by Randi Rhodes....and she's not hiding anytihng like "Tigry" implies...

Thank you all for input - then why cant i just post the known fact that her current name is Randi Robertson? What's a holdup; for you, ClockworkSoul - I think other people here provided enough information - all I want is full truth to be posted here - i.e. her real CURRENT name - I DONT CARE IF SHE OR HER LIBERAL FANS DONT WANT IT TO BE KNOWN, people deserve to know just as much as (Jeff Gannon/Guckert story)I want her current name RANDY ROBERTSON to be on this page --User:Tigry 02:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigry, you write as if there was something sinister about a married woman working professionally under her maiden name. If you want to indicate that her married name is different, just add it, with citation. However, I certainly would object to any suggestion in the article that there is something sinister or clandestine about that. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

All i wanted to do is post the known fact - and ClockworkSoul kept erasing it - all I want to do is to post her real name in her bio (nothing sinister, clandestine, or saying that she's a liar) - that's it, no strings attached - Why cant I write that her name CURRENTLY is Randy Robertson but she uses her alias - maiden name Randi Rhodes - what's so sinister about this ? --Tigry 03:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No Tigry, that's not quite what happened. In fact, you seemed to think that she was hiding something (see the top of this very page, where you wrote "come out clean and tell us all what's her birth name is - WE PROMISE NOT TO LAUGH"). Tigry, many women work professionally under their maiden names: I know that my wife does. It seems that you had no idea that Rhodes was even her maiden name; it looks to me like you thought it was a "pseudonym". That is the word you used, right? – ClockworkSoul 03:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All I can say - the truth is out, and I am satisfied with current state of the page - i will be keeping an eye on it so that some rascal liberal doesnt remove that new paragraph (its not mine by the way, Clockwork) - if the page remains as is (mentioning her REAL name Randi Robertson in context) - I have no further objections and consider my grievance settled; hope Clockwork will follow suit. --Tigry 03:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Of course I will - it's my paragraph. Like I said: I don't care about politics, I care about accuracy. – ClockworkSoul 03:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
what happened to the reference to Randi Robertson? Equinox137 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Ok, she's said it on air many times. Her married name, which she still uses is Randi Robertson. Her on air name she uses she chose when she was a dj is Randi Rhodes, which she chose to honour Randy Rhoads. As it has been pointed out it is common for on air personalities to choose an on air name different than their real ones. Other radio talk personalities have done this too. Michael Savage (commentator)'s real name is Michael Weiner. What's the big fuss?

[edit] Bias

I have a major problem with the lack of objectivism in this article. Unlike some other talk show hosts, she actually engages in dialogue with right wing callers and guests while defending her views. What exactly do you mean by that? And why has nobody brought this complaint up before? Is Unlike some other talk show hosts, she actually engages in dialogue, your opinion, or a fact? You are free to have and hold opinions, but please don't publish them in a credible source like an encyclopedia. Are you infering that no other talk show hosts hold dialogue with "Right wing" callers? If so, show evidence. Show statistics on how many "conservative" callers she holds dialogue with, then compare it to other talk show hosts. This page needs ALOT of work!

(Above posted by TheRedAnthem. Anthem - you make a good point, and some NPOV definitely needs to be applied here. I wish I had some more time do tackle this issue, but I'm pretty swamped at the moment. I'm looking forward to seeing any improvements that you make to the article. – ClockworkSoul 15:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this article needs to read The Washington Post article. Calicocat 07:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is a source for gunshot investigation story - http://drudgereport.com/mattabt.htm - before trying to edit it, prove it wrong, otherwise people deserve to know the truth --Tigry 13:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Truth is all good and well, but I can't verify that the Secret Service cares. Various press releases say there is no "government investigation", and this story is only carried by Drudge and a few mirrors. – ClockworkSoul 02:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I've read, the only ones saying there's no investigation is Air America itself. Equinox137 13:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the section "Rhodes is a stickler for some of the basic tenets of journalism such as corroboration, attribution and truthfullness peppering her commentary with citations to a wide array of newspapers, magazines, websites, government documents and electronic media (Radio/Television)reports." is highly subjective. She still insists on her talk show that there was a conservative conspiracy of hacking the voting touch screens. It should be removed or revised. --crazyace 03:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it to "Rhodes states she is a stickler for some of the basic tenets . . ." Note that I didn't say she claims she is, so keep that in mind before screaming POV. Equinox137 23:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well that didn't last long. It was changed back to that "she is a stickler for some of the basic tenets..." That is someone's opinion of her and is biased. --crazyace 21:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not biased, it's fact. Listen to the show and read some of the external links, read some transcripts. She is very much a stickler for details and frequently gives quotes and references. She herself does not make the claim, it's just a factual statement. Maybe we need to expand this section with some quotes from transcripts demonstrating her attention to details and press reports. (Also, please sign your comments) Calicocat 13:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not fact, it's biased. To make the claim that she is a "stickler for details", then the burden of proof is on the claimant that this is so. You must prove that she has paid attention to all details, not just the ones she has chosen to present or pay attention to, as befits her particular political bent.Since you cannot do so, then the claim is unprovable, non-factual, and nothing more than biased opinion. It should be removed immediately. Artmonkey 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)



This not relevant encyclopedic information and should be removed.

[edit] "Most Outstanding Woman in the USAF," questions about

I've searched the net and asked some of my Air Force buddies about this, and no one's ever HEARD of a "most outstanding woman in the USAF" recognition. A "most outstanding airman" recognition however, does exist, although she has never claimed to recieve that title. I can't see the USAF giving that kind of recognition, especial in pre-politcally correct 1979, so I've added that she "claims" to have recieved that distinction. Equinox137 17:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll state right up front that while I think Equinox137 and I have very different views of Randi Rhodes — I like her, I think he can't stand her — I, too, have not found substantiation for this claim, nor any references within the USAF web sites I've looked at for any such award for anyone, including Randi Rhodes, nor press accounts corroborating it. So, I think "claimed" is fine, as far as this point goes. I think Randi should publish a definitive biography. Heck it might even be a be a best seller, I know I'd read it as would both her fans and detractors. As far as posting "pro and anti" web links, I think that's a bit misplaced, however, I should check further on other talk show host articles to see if there are pro and anti web sites for others. Are there? Can anyone suggest a right-wing radio show host article on wikipedia that has such? I'd like to know. I'm tempted to just remove them on the grounds of what Wikipedia is not, but will refrain pending further research Calicocat 03:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Calicoat...All the right wing talkers have pro and anti links (limbaugh, savage, coulter, hannity, etc.). I know cuz I got into a revert war with some of the more liberal contributors to those articles and that is the compromise we all came to. As far as not liking Randi Rhodes, I wouldn't know cuz she isn't available where I live (Omaha, NE) but I do think she'd be interesting. (Like my page says, I'm liberal on some issues). I replaced the links to make them more uniform with the right wing talkers. As far as the alleged stuff on the investigation, it's not only drudge reporting and as far as I can see, AA itself is the only denying there is an investigation. It's hard to say that makes it alleged, don't you think? Have a good one :) Equinox137 12:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool, I hate revert wars. I'll accept what you say, then, re: a pro-anti links section pending my being able to substantiate that. I also hate weaselish "some say, others say" which all too often are not substantiated as to who the "somes" are. Also that language is so shopworn and not keeping with the aim of brilliant prose. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, somethings are neither pro nor anti, like the Washington Post story. I opened up a section on "the skit" to help us parse out that line of thought.
You can hear her show on Real Audio and also in archives if you want to get the flavor of what she's like. Like with so many things, some parts we like, some we don't. Calicocat 13:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible that her claim was joking around? i.e. part of her sense of humor??? Equinox137 23:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Most Outstanding Woman in the USAF" , again

Why does this keep coming up in this article? There is NO SUCH THING as a "Most Outstanding Woman in the USAF" award. There never was. Equinox137 15:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right, there is not, "Outstanding Airman" or "Honor Graduate", that is it. Hey but is everyone missing the part that she went AWOL after only two years and the AF declined to prosecute? jlc 20050810

I placed the information about randi rhodes going AWOL from the air force. I don't know why it was deleted. It was gleaned from a florida press / newspaper (http://www.univox.com/radio/randi95.html). After looking up wikipedia stuff on right-wing nutcases, I decided to be fair I should look up info about the left-wing talk show hosts that I _like_ and I was a little shocked when i found this stuff out about her. systemBuilder 18:33, 24 Sept 2005 (PST)

[edit] Rhodes, Drudge, the "skit," the SS

If a reporter (being kind to Drudge there) reports an "investigation" the factual accuracy must be shown. Saying there's an investigation and proving it are different animals. Drudge has a long history of unsubstantiated stories on his web site. The SS is not an investigative agency. Investigations are conducted by the FBI involving domestic issues, maybe BATF as well. Drudge made a claim, AAR said there are no "federal" investigations. I've looked for the AAR statment on the AAR website and can't locate one there. I'll have a further look. The SCOTUS case I mention also shows that what the skit was not in anyway a "threat" is was a "joke," and if you listen to it, you'll see it's a pretty big stretch to call it a "threat." Calicocat 13:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - he didn't provide any confrimation from anyone in the government, so I'll leave that be, but as far as I know, Drudge has not distributed a false story. He has, in fact, broken stories most of the media wasn't willing to cover until the absolutely HAVE to - Lewinsky being the biggest one, but not the only one. The thing I do have to call you on though is that the SS is INDEED an investigative agency. It has exclusive jurisdiction over threats to the President and also investigates counterfeting. There are 12 (i think) federal law enforcement agencies and each has their own little domain. Alleged threats to the President belong exclusively to the SS.
I saw the statement on the AAR website yesterday when I added the paragraph. I should have hot-linked it at that time. I would guess the statement was probably removed because I remember it being towards the bottom of the front page.
As far as the SCOTUS case goes, I have to agree and really I don't think it's going to go far even if there is an investigation. The big problem I have is the way it's been phrased with "alleged" investigation. By phrasing it that way, one could assume the article accepts AAR's version of the facts and it detracts what Drudge has reported. The section of the article is supposed to be about what aired on AAR, not about how biased or through Drudge may be. If you feel the previous version was POV, I've gotta say your revert is DEFINITELY POV . . . maybe the entire section needs to be reworded altogether. Maybe a heading of "Report of Secret Service Investigation" or something of that nature??? Equinox137 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey Calicoat, your own final edit says that UPI reported that the Secret Service did investigate and decided to let it go . . .Doesn't that pretty much settle the issue?
In any case, I kept most of your changes with a few minor ones of my own. Let me know what you think. Equinox137 16:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I took a little closer look and deleted the sentence "The comedy presentation contains the sound effect of 'gunshots' which Drudge alleges constitute a threat against the life of the president, others disagree and think it an example of Drudge engaging in unethical scandal mongering and insinuating himself into the public eye for his own self-promotion." I want to be fair but come on, Cali - that's blantantly POV. By putting that in there, you're making the story about Drudge instead of the story he's reporting. Since he's the guy that broke Lewinsky, I don't think he needs to promote himself any further. Equinox137 18:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You don't know the genre, that point is critical to my understanding part of why the overall effect of this, is immediatly "joke" and not at all other than "joke," SFX are used on virtually every show on AAR and and understood to be kind of radio cartoons. Over the top, totally wacked out. Mostly gun shots are used at night by Sam Seder in his very funny voice take offs on mythic hillbelly fighters and things. I' think it's funny and I hate guns and gun violence. That's how it's used by Seder, too. As a protest against all the shootings in the US and stopping U.S. Gun Violence. Please fix that fact. Listen to source and also other shows on stream for references in the links. You can find audio streams and links for the Randi Rhodes shows in the external links section. The whole thing is a production job, that's part of its charm. We KNOW the move is real not real, Little Matt, now why don't you go back and play on the carpet Calicocat 02:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if I know the genre - the section is about the investigation, not about the genre. Labelling it as otherwise makes the section misleading. It might have been funny to some people, but it was enough to gain the attention of the Secret Service, at least for a short time. I know it was a production job - that is besides the point.
Fix WHAT fact???
Who's little Matt??? Equinox137 12:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact is Rhodes uses a host of sound effect including gun shots as do many air america radio shows. Al Franken has takes of on songs, Sam Seder has a whole host of sound effects he uses, including gun shots, Mike Malloy does comedy voices, all these are typical of radio. Discussion of one skit and it's controvery is a subsection of the comedy dicussion. This is not a place to editorialize or push a POV. The substance of the controvery had to do with the comedy (which Rhodes didn't even have detailed prior knowledge, so I'm not sure associating with her or her show is even fair. Yes, she apologised for it, but it was not her production as far as I have been able to determin). Leaving out that that gun shot was a sound effect is factually inaccurate. Calicocat 20:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of this is BESIDE THE POINT, the section is not about the comedic value of her skit, it's about the INVESTGATION, which was brought up, and quickly dropped. You can't say anyone's pushing a POV or editorializing by reporting the investigation. You DEFINTELY are pushing a POV by naming the paragraph the paragraph that supposed to be reporting the investigation, "Rhoads' Comedy".
But to be fair, I can understand where you'd want to get her sense of humor and comedic style in too. So let's do this - leave the paragraph about Rhodes' style of comedy in, and separate the paragraph concerning the investigation into a new section. Fair enough??? Equinox137 22:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There was no bloody investigation. There was an unsubsantiated report from Drudge. SS said it was not doing anything; aar said "there's no federal anything, franken said it was a "fishing expidtion." We don't know beyond one very unreliable person what this was, so calling it an "investigation" is POV sensationalism. We have no confirmation expect in toher sources quoting Drudge. The issue here is that this was a comedy sketch, see "applicable law" Listen to her show to see how often sound effects are used. the SS does not conduct investigations that I have ever heard of investigations by the SS, those are done by the FBI, BATF, Police Detectives.
YES, there was. They investigated (they are required to follow up on EVERY alleged threat to the President) and unsubstantied the report. The SS is specifically tasked to investigate potential/alleged/actaual threats to the President. It is also referred to as "Protective Research." [1] That is their specific mandate. Equinox137 15:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Mission Statement of the SS reads as follows: The United States Secret Service is mandated by statute and executive order to carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these protectees; protects the White House, Vice President’s Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for designated National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure. [2] Any more questions on what the SS does? Equinox137 15:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Without denying that the SS investigates threats on the president's life, I think that they are competent enough to recognize that a representative of a fictional organization which consists of disgruntled senior citizens with guns is not meant to be taken seriously. Again, I'm not saying what did or didn't happen, I'm just saying that the fact that the SS investigates all threats to the president is not proof that they investigated in this situation, because we are uncertain of whether the SS knows the difference between a serious threat and a joke. Thus far, we have no definitive proof, just loose conclusions that are full of holes.

[edit] Formatting

The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template. The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one. There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default. There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC. Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles. If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether. Joe D (t) 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's please stick to the standard format for the article. And lets not goad people into arguments where none need exist. Please check standards before making the assertion that someone is making something personal. I'd ask that the article be kept to the regular standards as far as formatting goes. If in time some custome made tampltes or other media items become available, perhaps those can be inserted in an expanded future version of this article. Again, for now, let's just keep it simple and with standard formatting. I think it would be better, also, to continue conversation about template default setting on the discussion pages about those. Now that the issue is cleared up, further 'debate' on this would quickly become off topic. Cheers, Calicocat 21:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
This user continues to unilaterally add floating TOCs to articles where it is not needed and goes against the guidelines, is misrepresenting the status of the templates and misrepresenting my position, despite my attempts to correct them on the talk pages and the user's talk page. I have little time to argue over Wikipedia right now, but unless the user responds and stops misrepresenting the situation I may have to open an RfC. Joe D (t) 21:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
If you've found that dscussion on talk and user pages are getting nowhere and no admins have been able to bring some sanity here, then an RfC might be the next step or a proposal for mediation. One hates to go into formal things, but sometimes it is the only way. I commented out the erroneous toc and so the article is now in standard template format which is much more readable. Thanks for taking the time to bring this to light and I hope, now, we can let this drop and on these talk pages of this article, so we can get back to working on the article, not getting lost in some off topic debate over templates. If there's an active debate, invite others to the party with a notice, sure, but don't bring that debate here. Lastly, can you please specify:
  1. Nickname of the person who's doing this "POV format editing"
  2. References to page differences that demonstrate this action
  3. Links to pages where discussions on this are taking place?
Thanks. Calicocat 22:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


(were the last questions for me?) I'm trying to take dialogue to User talk:Wetman#A .22TOCright.22 agenda, but Wetman isn't being particularly cooperative. I don't know if others want to get involved at all, but I don't really have the time for disputes right now. Joe D (t) 22:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journalistic standards

The section on journalistic standards has been added and removed quite a few times; I think it's time to come to a consensus as to whether or not the section should remain. I'm not really familiar with how negotiation, etc. works on Wikipedia, so anyone with more experience can feel free to jump in here... --Chairlunchdinner 03:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The repeated removal was an act of vandalism by some anon sockpuppet, check the contribs and you'll see. Calicocat 01:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whomever did it, it still brings attention to it, and the idea that perhaps it's POV, anyway. If we can find an exact quote from Rhodes claiming such standards, then it might be worthy to include it... but no much more, as her actual standards as opposed to those she claims to hold are quite unprovable, and will always be in question by some. Artmonkey 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Does such a section exist on the FOX News entry, and can we challenge that as well? Just asking.

Kulturvultur 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randi Rhodes Archives

  1. If the URL is the same as the title, there is no need to put both. It is not common to put the URL as the description for an external link.
  2. The fan that operates the site claims to have Rhodes' permission. If true, this gives more credibility to his site. If false, he would have probably been served with a cease and desist order by now.

--Asbl 15:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expert Commentary on OJ

According to this article Randi Rhodes merely audited courses on Law at community college. This does not make her an "expert" able to give "expert commentary." She could have given "well recieved" commentary, but certainly not "expert" as she is not a legal scholar. Perhaps the page should be changed to reflect this?

For that matter, do we have any proof at all that she actually did audit any classes? Or are we just taking her word for it as encyclopedic fact, now? I can make the claim that I audited classes at Harvard, Yale and Oxford for sixteen years. That doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't earn me the title of "expert" on anything. I just think far too many things in this article are given too much credence simply because Rhodes said so. Fan or not, you shouldn't put her word beyond reproach. Artmonkey 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courses on Law at Community Colleges

Community colleges generally do not have Law Schools, so I don't understand how Randi could have audited classes in law there. Perhaps the author means "criminal justice"?

No, Political Science. On C-Span Randi said:

"LAMB: Where did you go to college for that year-and-a-half?

RHODES: Broward County Community College. But I had a great professor there named Dr. Schindler (ph) who actually taught American politics the way it‘s supposed to be taught." (etc) -- DoctorMike

Well, again... this is just a claim she made. For all we know, she never attended or audited a single class, anywhere, at any time. I'd like to see some verification of this claim, personally. Artmonkey 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Putting the Air force Thing To Rest

I actually did some serious research on that topic to repair an apparent 'swiftboating'... she discusses the whole service controversy in great detail on the C-Span interview. Five years earlier, there was glib one line reference to taking off with a guy to Ohio in the Florida radio station interview, which was the source of a serious misunderstanding. I repaired " She eventually reached a settlement with the Air Force and they decided not to charge her with desertion." with the present "Palace chase early discharge" verbiage, which is how it went down. Did she go AWOL? Well, yes, if you don't show up for work you are AWOL--it just means absent without leave. Was she charged with AWOL? No. That is a legal thing. It is the difference between going over the speed limit and getting a speeding ticket. We who have been in the military know many occaisions when people are late for work, or don't make it back, and they don't get so charged. We also know Palace Chase gives you an Honorable discharge, she says her discharge was honorable, I found and referenced the AF regulations that authorizes this release--it seems a settled deal this is how it happened unless someone finds a DD 214 that says otherwise. --DoctorMike 17:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I've seen that section edited back and forth I don't know how many times. Do you have a link to that interview, so we can put it to rest? – ClockworkSoul 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No Problem. http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1054

This section is short enough to be quoted fair use:

"LAMB: One of the things that pops up in all of the stories that are written about you was the Air Force experience.

RHODES: Yes, that was a great experience.

LAMB: How many years?

RHODES: I did two, maybe three. I can‘t -- I did two regular and then I did a year in the reserves because I moved to Ohio. And so they told me that I could report to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. And I lived in Portsmouth, which is really a ghost town. That‘s one of those Rust Belt -- that‘s one of those cities that every man made his living on the Mississippi -- on the Ohio River.

And when all that commerce dried up, a good job for a 45-, 50-year-old man in Portsmouth now is pumping gas or working at McDonald‘s. So it really became a depressed area. And I lived in the hills there.

LAMB: You were enlisted.

RHODES: I was enlisted.

LAMB: What was your highest rank?

RHODES: My highest rank was airman first class. I was about to become a sergeant but I just wanted to go with this guy.

LAMB: What is that story, once and for all, the story of you just leaving the Air Force?

RHODES: I did just leave.

LAMB: Just walk out the door? Where were you?

RHODES: Here‘s what happened. I went through basic training in Texas, Lackland. And then I went to Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls. And I was being trained to be a flight engineer.

And the first you have to do is be an aircraft mechanic. So I had just gotten done with that and then I got -- my permanent station was going to be New Jersey. And this was the way I was going to see the world, because New Jersey is the point of exit and entry into the United States.

I went, but it‘s Jersey! It‘s Jersey! Yes, I wanted Germany, I wanted -- you know. So I got there and there was really not much that they would use me for. There were 300 guys in my squadron and me.

And so I lived in the men‘s barracks, but I had the room next to the door so if I had to run out I could, kind of thing. Anyway, the guy that lived across the hall from me and I became friends. And this guy was from Ohio.

And he wanted out really badly. And he got to the point where he wouldn‘t talk to anybody in military clothes -- wearing military clothes. And the Air Force was looking to help the guys accept me, I think, or to say, women can do this.

So in 1979 I was made most outstanding woman in maintenance in the Air Force.

LAMB: The entire Air Force.

RHODES: There were about three women in maintenance, it‘s -- you know, it was…

LAMB: But it still was the entire…

RHODES: It was a big deal in that the dinner was amazing. I‘ll never forget this dinner. I felt like Cinderella. It was the first female pilots and the women from World War I and the -- I sat next to my base commander, Colonel Forsebray (ph), who was a fabulous guy. I was allowed in the officer‘s club for the first time. I mean, it was an amazing night and they gave me this plaque and it said for outstanding service. I still have it. It‘s on my wall in my office at Air America.

And then after that, this guy and I, I kind of fell in love with this guy. And so he said, we have to leave, we have to leave. They‘re never going to do anything for you. It was all -- you know, and because they had given me this award, I think I became an embarrassment to them. Do you know what I mean?

Where we just honored her and she wants to leave. So they made a deal that if I wanted, I could go something called Palace Chase where you do twice the time you have left in the reserves. I said, OK, I‘ll do that, because I don‘t want to disgrace what I‘ve accomplished. I don‘t want to make it bad for other women. But there‘s really nothing for me to do here.

I mean, they -- I had a speed handle and I was taking panels off of airplanes. And so…

LAMB: But you didn‘t go AWOL.

RHODES: No. I went Palace Chase. And so the deal then was if you were 100 miles away from your reserve base, you would go to one drill and they would tell you when you had to come back. And they would tell me, you don‘t have to. So I got an honorable discharge and that was it. " --DoctorMike 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randi's Photo

I am new to wikipedia, so I don't have the skill to do images. I was surprised when I saw the picture in the article. On her show's site, she looks like a completely different person. I propose that someone update the page's photograph, even showing both side-by-side would be better. Can a more experienced user please do this? Denis Diderot II 06:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to copyrights, it is very difficult to upload appropriate photos on to Wikipedia. Essentially, you either have to take the photo yourself, or have it as a government photo (which by definition is public domain, as it is financed by tax dollars), or you need the permission of the copyright holder to release it to Wikipedia. This is why many articles do not have photos.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asbl (talk • contribs) .
Okay, thank you for that information. I'm sure I will find that useful when I begin to do major editing in the future!--Denis Diderot II 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randi Rhodes and Air America

Randi and her constituancy in Air America are constantly stating that they are "kicking every right wing show's ass in the ratings" (thier words, not mine) The TRUTH is; Fox News is the most listened to network and the Radio Factor is number one on that network. Air America is losing sponsership by the day and are on the verge of going off the air due to lack of funds. Now back to Randi. Her views have very little cohesion to reality, she inserts her conspiracy theorist views in the place of reality and resorts to personal attacks (personal attacks usually happen when truth confronts personal views) For example: She has accused the vice president of shooting his hunting companion in the face with a shotgun because although he is a conservative, he wasn't right wing enough. She has refered to Bill Oreilly of being everything but human and will not go on his show to debate any issue (this I attribute to cowardice), She stated that soldiers are required to memorize the UCMJ (united states code of military justice) this is an outright lie. She stated this to support her arguement that the soldiers involved in the war in Iraq are not following the UCMJ. I would like to quote more of her "truth" but I can't listen to her show very much. When I do listen to her, I get physically ill. She is a bitter, hateful, closed minded individual who, thankfully, will be out of a job soon. Even mainstream liberals on the whole think she is a loon. - Emanuel Goldstein 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

        You conservatives have no sense of humor


I have a great sense of humor. I laugh every time that I hear that another radio station has dropped Airhead America from thier line-up or when another advertiser has pulled out due to the conspiracy theorist views that have no connection to reality. I think it is funny that whoever you are, you didn't sign your addition to my post. Kind of sums up the cowardice of the Liberals in general.70.13.162.46 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't believe I am doing this

In defense of Randi (it sickens me) Broward County Community College offers courses in Criminal Justice, Business Law and a Legal Assistant degree. - Emanuel Goldstein 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't prove she attended or audited. As far as I know, this is just another empty claim, like the imaginary air force award. Artmonkey 01:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal bias

Ridiculous amount of cheerleading in this article. The liberal bias of Wikipedia never more apparent than with this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? —chair lunch dinner™ talk 03:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought RR was "progressive", but there doesn't seem to be an entry for that.

It would seem that the least "Point-of-view" way to describe RR's radio show is using her own words. That might also be the most polite and respecful way, regardless of your own bent. (unsigned; whatever. From another IP.)


      • Why is the Rhodes article somehow free of links to critics? Other radio hosts have them. I added one but it was removed, citing a rule that effectively eliminates links to her detractors. How convenient to shield Rhodes from critics.
If you can find a non-blog critic then it will be put there. For example, Media Research Center would be perfect if they featured anything about Randi Rhodes.Gdo01 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're hiding behind the "no blog" rule to keep key Rhodes critics off the page. Same thing at Al Franken's page. Most of the criticism of them comes from blogs. The Media Research Center's Newsbusters, which is what you would link to in your example, is also a blog.
Let's use an example of an extremely popular conservative's rebuttals; lets look at Rush Limbaugh's page. As you can see, there are no blogs on the section that "opposes" Limbaugh. You would think that the links section opposed to Limbaugh would be swamped with liberal blogs but it isn't. Sites properly posted there are concentrated efforts by several writers (except for the Franken page which I believe is kind iffy). If we can keep the Limbaugh site from being flooded with angry bloggers then I'm sure we can keep angry bloggers of the wiki page of a substantially less popular radio host.
The fact that angry bloggers are the only people who want to rebut Randi Rhodes is not our problem and it just proves how little true criticism there truly is. If Randi Rhodes was truly criticized, she would have more critics than people who have a computer and too much time on their hands. And in closing, Al Franken does have a prominent criticism site that is proper for an external link [frankenlies.com].Gdo01 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is cheerleading here. Sheep follow thier shepherd like, well, sheep.--72.16.132.20 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be more examples to justify the NPOV tags on this article. So far every question has been reasonably explained. Just because you don't like a person does not mean you can go to their wiki and force a critical link into an article. This article is better refferenced than most articles of it's kind and most importantly, it's not filled with stories and opinion, it's pretty much a concise bio.71.234.110.209 06:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

      • Randi fans are rather cultish about her, referring to her only semi-humorously as "the Goddess". Truth is she's a poor talk show host. Complaining about GOP/conservative "vicious personal attacks" and "name-calling", then doing the same towards Bush, Cheney, etc. She talks over callers (even some friendly ones) and then demands that they "answer my question". And of course, she panders to the Conspiracy Theorists, but "pulls it back" enough that she claims she was just "thinking out loud" or "just saying" but not supporting such theories so that she's not critized for it when she appears on the Mainstream Media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.164.92 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Work in Radio

In the early work in radion section it says "While teaming with host Perry Stone at Milwaukee's WQFM, Rhodes was suspended in 1987 when their program offended the homosexual community and led several businesses to cancel ads." The reference is to a Miami Herald article. I did a search of the Miami Herald on the given date and couldn't find the reference.

[edit] Early Work in Radio

In this section it says "While teaming with host Perry Stone at Milwaukee's WQFM, Rhodes was suspended in 1987 when their program offended the homosexual community and led several businesses to cancel ads." and references

[edit] Randi Rhoades article obviouly biased

Remember the things she said about CACI, about how they raped Iraqi Prisoners? The court case, the bancrupcy of Air America? What about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.43.144 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

The case was dismissed ([3]), but CACI is appealing. Either now or when CACI's suit is conclusviely resolved, the article should certainly mention it. JamesMLane t c 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Critics and Criticism

Someone should merge "Rhode's Critics" into "Criticism" Denis Diderot II 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of AAR Making the Rounds of Wikis

It should come as no surprise that the "Bush/shotgun" controversy linked to Randi Rhodes was removed from her article and buried here in the Discussion page. AAR fans have been making the rounds of the wikis (including Uncyclopedia) "cleaning up" unflattering stuff about AAR and its hosts.

perhaps, but fwiw, for sheer effort of perpetual sanitizing, the Rush Limbaugh page cannot be beat. I would guess there are paid flacks cleaning it on a daily basis.


And what about all you right-wing and Libertarians doing the same exact thing---and even WORSE---to the pages involving AAR hosts and other progressive talk-show hosts? Hmmm???BobCubTAC 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs make a what now? 68.32.238.94 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I don't know if the photo was necessarily added by a hater, but I will agree that the photo was hideous, and I will not miss it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walking Dog

Randi stated on the air that she was "watching a football game at an Irish pub" and "went outside for a smoke". Why does this page still say she fell when walking her dog? 143.182.124.2 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal vs. progressive descriptions

As been noted before, Rhodes and Air America use the word "progressive" to describe themselves or their work (see: http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/team/randirhodes , for instance), which, according to WP:NCI#Self-identification, the article should use. It seems that in this article, progressive should be used in first references, then other neutral descriptions can be used elsewhere as appropriate to the content and context. Not sure really what the ongoing back and forth is about, but WP:NCI is intended to prevent this. Flowanda | Talk 20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the point of changing it is, but people keep taking it out of compliance with WP:NCI by substituting "liberal" for "progressive". So I change it back... SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The first link above no longer works; however, the Nova M press release continues to use the term "progressive" to describe the show/Rhodes' views, so that should be used in the first reference. As a side note, I know very little about this person, do not listen to her show (or anyone else's), so I have no interest in which term is used other than what is determined by WP:RS or WP:BLP. Flowanda | Talk 02:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed" tag

I've added the "disputed" tag to the article after Randi Rhodes herself, during the second hour of her January 16th show (17 minutes into it on the Green 960 podcast), criticized this article for being highly inaccurate. Specifically, Randi indicates that her age is wrong in our article, plus:

"Whenever I'm deposed, they always bring up my Wiki entry, and ask me, 'Is this correct?' and the whole thing is wrong, I want you know, like, everything on there is incorrect, but I leave it like that, because in depositions they like to use my Wiki thing, and so they go, 'Is this correct?' I go, 'No.' 'Is this correct?' 'No.' 'And this isn't correct, either?' 'No.' 'Did you ever make an attempt to correct it?' 'No, no I didn't.'"

So it seems we have some serious goings-through on here to get all our facts verified. As someone who watches this article, that was somewhat embarrassing to hear... SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? The whole thing is wrong? Rather a sweeping statement, don't you think? And probably a biased opinion by someone who states she has a vested interest in keeping the article incorrect? I mean, truly, do you think a Randi Rhodes needs a "Wikipedia is incorrect" defense against anyone trying to slap her around with her Wikipedia article? Even if she had the power to "leave it like that"?
Please don't think I'm being dismissive -- I take WP:BLP very seriously, but I am skeptical enough to know there's nothing to be embarrassed about, especially with an article that's trashed as frequently as this one is.
We have plenty of existing reliable sources to work from and many more on the web to verify and stabilize the article--what do you recommend as the next steps? Flowanda | Talk 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I will agree that she certainly did enjoy that things aren't necessarily correct. As for next steps, let's get all of our reliable sources in order and source the hell out of it. Every little fact, including birthdate and such, should have a citation pinned to it. The current article has a few blogs in it, and so those need to be removed. Otherwise, though, we need to identify where we need citations with {{fact}} tags, and then put some citations in there. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy listening to Randi Rhodes - but when she dissed our Wiki, I was genuinely embarrassed to hear that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope we don't go Jimmy Wales on the citations; after a while, they become the focus rather than the support. So, in this case, what is considered reliable sources for contested birthdates? I couldn't find any other dates other than what was listed in the article. Flowanda | Talk 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Schultz

What's her beef with Ed Schultz? Kingturtle (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that as well but she doesn't seem to like to talk about it.VatoFirme (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
'Kay, here's Ed's rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BezRw4GCVs8&feature=related. Here's Randi's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IplZ21Z-19w
Basically it sounds like Ed trashed Air America and Randi trashed him back. I wonder if Randi will still defend Air America after her suspension? Ooooh the plot thickens. By the way can we cite youtube? Probably not but maybe someone else can try to find a better source with a transcript or something.VatoFirme (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a fan, but can anyone post information on her issue with Hillary? Is she an Obama supporter? The fact that she was fired for a tirade against a fellow liberal/"progressive" woman out to be expanded upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhodes had recently changed her tone on the show from "Primaries are when you fall in love, and I'm not being the other woman" to, referring to Mrs. Clinton, "I can't let you marry that woman," while publicly throwing her support to Barack Obama. I'm sure we can find a citation for these statements and her concerns about the Clinton campaign, but I'm not particularly inclined at this point to go digging through Green 960's show archives... SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification, primary sources and biography of living people

Based on Rhodes' own comments and, more importantly, guidelines about sourcing information about living people, I'll assert this article needs to source content strictly per WP:RS and not rely on any primary sources, even when those sources are transcripts of interviews with the source herself. We need to leave the vetting and verification up to the mainstream media and include only content that's been fact-checked by professionals and published in reliable sources. And if you want to argue about what constitutes "mainstream", "fact-checking", "truth vs. facts", please take those issues up in the appropriate discussions areas of Wikipedia policy; this article deals with adhering with current Wikipedia policy. Flowanda | Talk 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably that comment is justification for removing from the introduction information about the reason for Rhodes' suspension. The New York Times reportage of an event that was filmed constitutes mainstream, fact-checked information by professionals and published in a reliable source. The explanation is relevant and encyclopedic. Removing it, especially without explanation, would violate NPOV. Even if she were to eventually become un-suspended, the suspension and the explanation are notable.
If I misunderstand Flowanda's intent, apologies. JuanFiguroa (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The only content I removed about the suspension was information (without the source) that was already included in the section further down about the Air America incident. A news articles would probably include that info/source in the lede, but Wikipedia articles are more encyclopedic.
The edits I was referring to were unsourced or sourced to primary sources (including unedited interview transcripts or straight Q&As) . The content discussed personal information about drug use, commentary about career progression/salary and unattributed direct quotes.
Sorry...I should have been more clear about the content I was referencing. Flowanda | Talk 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Journalistic Standards section needs revision.

I have twice tried to edit the "Journalistic Standards" section where it says "She is a leading activist for accountability and standards in the media..." This is unverified and needs a citation, and my edit reflected that. Specifically my edit stated "Despite her behavior at the event on April 03, 2008, she claims to be a leading activist..." Apparently two of her fans keep close watch on the page to insure it casts her in the best light, rather than maintaining the neutral stance the rest of us desire, and as such have changed my edits, with one attempting to frighten me with some sort of ban. I'm going to attempt one more edit with a slight change in an attempt to appease the fans (though that goes against the spirit of Wiki), but if that doesn't fly my proposal would be to remove the whole statement since no one is able to verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asperitus (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] FACT CHECKING NEEDS TO BE DONE

I do not have time to do it right now, but I sense some factual irregularities in regard to her resignation and new network. The article says that she was suspended when the video was posted two weeks after the event. I heard her say on Larry King that the video had been up for two weeks prior to her suspension. She also claimed that Air America had new owners that wanted to force her to change her contract and that the video just was an excuse for them to manipulate her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.17.33 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is much dispute around Rhodes' suspension. It seems clear that she was suspended by Air America Radio (AAR) as referenced by the statement that was posted on the AAR website. A sub-issue is the justification of her comments at an Air America-branded event as "stand up comedy" without any citation. Certainly she is a humorous person, but it's unclear that her purpose was to be a comedian at this event. I will remove the "stand up comedy" remark and ask that anyone who restores it please cite something that makes it clear that she was doing a comedic performance and that was her role at the event. Regardless, given the nature of the remarks, and the AAR billing of the event it's no surprise to observers that the network would suspend her.
--Charles Oppermann (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age

randi's birth year has been listed on her entry as 1959 for at least a couple of years. this past week i noticed someone had altered it to 1968. randi stated in the interview she gave to brian lamb that "in 1979 I was made most outstanding woman in maintenance in the Air Force." if, in fact, she was born in 1968 then she would have been 11 years old. she also says, in this interview that she was in the air force for two or three years and "I just got out of the Air Force. I think I was 21? Twenty-one." obviously she was not born in 1968. the link to the transcript of the interview with brian lamb: http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1054 Orleans23 (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)orleans23

[edit] Military experience

The phrase "went Palace Chase" doesn't mean anything to me. Can someone please replace it with a phrase that is meaningful to civilians and people otherwise unfamiliar with the U.S. military? Alodyne (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)