Talk:The Rachel Maddow Show/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page moves

After two pages moves in as many days, I can only hope that consensus settles on this name for the article going forward. - Dravecky (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Guest hosts

Hello, didn't David Shuster guest host the show once or twice, following the U.S. presidential election? LovesMacs (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What are the show's current ratings?

Many people predicted that after the presidential elections the show's ratings will go down. Did this happen? Пипумбрик (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it did happen. March was the show's worst month. [LINK] Her show is still overwhelmingly the second most watched show on the network though. [LINK] --W.A.C. (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss technical aspects?

I have been listening to the TV show via podcast and I've noticed a sound effect I describe as "shuffling paper" used often in the show. It's usually used before a commercial break and right before they cut to some prerecorded video clip or sound bite. Is this in fact a sound effect or does Rachel actually shuffle papers before each break and cut to video clip? I noticed that the "radio show" wiki page has discussion of sound effects. Does anyone have any input on this topic? 216.228.183.97 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

Keith Olbermann announcing in the Daily Kos that Maddow had been given her own show has nothing to with Maddow actually getting the show. She would have had it had Rush Limbaugh first made it public. Olbermann's role in pushing MSNBC to give Maddow her own show is already adequately presented in the article without gratuitous fluff that is more about Olbermann than about Maddow or her show. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a point for debate but you also deleted the reference that supported part of the preceding sentence. I have restored the reference while omitting (for now) the sentence under discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Platform?

I think you and Keith and Chris should start asking "Just what is the specific points on the T-party platform? What are the proposed way of changing the current structure to attain these goals?" I can not find anything but generalities in what these people have to say. I believe what they are doing is nothing more than a reinvention of the "Contract with America" to take back over the Congress simply by blaming, not just the Democrats, but this President for the catostrophic failures of the "free market" system and the "hands off" policy or corporate America. The largest Well fare checks today are those being written by the taxpayer to clean up what is referred to as Brownfields, just where does the T-party think that money is coming from. This is nothing more than a penalty levied on the taxpayer to pay for all the past ills of corporate America desimating the earth as they go along, making it uninhabitable for animal or plant life. On top of that we fight among ourselves with our 10-20 year tax rebates to see who gets to have the priviledge of bring jobs back to an area, this of course after we clean the ground up before they can build. I was really disappointed in all of your responses to Obama's Oval Office speech. None of you seem to understand that this man is truly different. He has spent his life achieving goals by bringing sides together, he is a consensus maker, not a militant. He is not only black, he has an understanding of Islam and Buddism, but chooses to practice Christianity. This is who he is, you're trying to change him to fit the mold of what you expect in people who don't get their way - such as the GO(B)P. Can you remember the last time you saw a First Couple look at each other with Love and Caring eyes, and hold each other so tightly in public? It's been nice chatting with you, please consider the above requests. This coming election is going to be tough for a lot of Democrats, who don't know what to believe, they are undecisive about their own party because of all the lies being spread about what was supposedly in the Health Care Reform act, questions about Socialism charges, and weather they are thinking the right way or not. They have to be raised up to start fighting all this hogwash out there and ask their own questions about how the T-party is going to "Take back our Government". Thank you for listening - Dave H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.111.210 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Domestic terror backer bragging on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Leach_(pro-life_activist)

Leach has been effectively allowed to toot his horn under the label "pro-life" and not "pro-terror".

On his web pages he claims to answer the e-mail for Don Spitz of THe Army of God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Spitz G. Robert Shiplett 03:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs)

Article resource

Good article on how the RMS works: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rachel-maddows-quiet-war-20120627 –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Beltway Media"?

Greetings; when I watch the Rachel Maddow Show she refers often to the "Beltway Media", yet I cannot find the definition of who, or what this is. Is she refering to the general info in the Media in Washington, D.C. page, or does she mean a dominant handful of companies with an agenda? If so, who is she talking about? Thanx much.12.39.179.62 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Media in Washington DC is my understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Title disambiguation

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the primary topic. There will no longer be a disambiguation page and hatnotes will be placed (see WP:TWODABS).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The title is currently "The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series)" to disambiguate from the radio show of the same title. Per the TV naming conventions, the disambig should be "(TV program)" instead of "(TV series)" since TRMS is non-episodic (the episodes do not relate to each other like Lost (TV series)). Likewise, the "(radio)" disambig should be "(radio program)", but that's part two. Any thoughts on this? czar · · 04:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to wonder whether this should be moved just to The Rachel Maddow Show, on the grounds that this is the main usage. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm on board with this logic. Makes more sense than what I originally proposed. czar · · 05:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the move, especially considering the radio show no longer exists. Caidh (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mattbuck's proposal. The TV program should be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case, and (TV series) should be dropped. As for the radio show, some kind of DAB is needed and it looks as if "radio program" is the most common phrase here (as opposed to "radio" or "radio show"). See Category:American radio programs and List of U.S. radio programs. --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW The Rachel Maddow Show is currently a dab page, so we will need administrator help if we decide to move it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Requested move/dated|The Rachel Maddow Show}}

The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series) → The Rachel Maddow Show – Per prior discussion on renaming disambig term, the TV program assumes priority over the long defunct radio show of the same name and the associated dab page, and thus is worthy of shedding the disambig term. czar · · 06:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems non-controversial to me. Unless there's a controversy I don't know about, I'd suggest someone just make the change. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We will need administrator help; there is a DAB page in the way. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – the CommonName rationale is not really on point, but this is where PrimaryTopic obviously applies. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:SPEEDYCLOSE should apply automatically any time even Dicklyon invokes PRIMARY TOPIC. --B2C 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Let's not edit war, please

Three editors are getting uncomfortably close to edit warring over a small point. Let's see if we can work this out on the talk page. I don't have a particular opinion one way or the other on this point, but I'd like to get it settled to everyone's satisfaction and avoid any escalation or three-revert-rule bannings. Let me see if I can lay out the issue and we'll try to find a way to say it. As I understand it, the issue is how to describe the situation reported in these two references:

User:Mott Black Coffee wants wording like this: "On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic."

User:Dravecky wants something like this: "On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic, beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor in the demographic for the night."

User:Caidh proposed something like this: "On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic, beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor in the 25-35 demographic and the 35-54 demographic for the night."

Now, can we decide like civil people how to report this in a way that is both neutral and accurately based on what the sources say? --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Response User:Mott Black Coffee: I have offered several alternatives to the posting all of which have been rejected. My first posting, corrected the demographic and the conjunctive phrase which made it seem the Rachel Maddow Show was the highest rated show for the evening. That was undone by Caidh and the following was posted: "On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers (with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor in the demographic and becoming the highest-rated cable news show of the night."

Simple rules of English split the sentence around the conjunction which leads to two sentences:

On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers (with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic) beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor in the demographic. On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers (with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic) becoming the highest-rated cable news show of the night.

This second sentence is false. The next edit by User:Caidh attempts to incorrectly add the 35-64 demographic. Clearly O'Reilly won this demographic and this sentence is not supported by the citation. My edits all acknowledge Rachel Maddow winning a comparison across programming hours in a single demographic.

However, I disagree with continuing edits which are essentially wrong, and secondly to not contain the context in which the show did not win it's time slot or any other slot that evening. I don't feel the need to include that context if the entry is limited to the milestone achievement and the demographic information. However, if a comparison to another show is mentioned, it must be put in context as was done in the original citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mott Black Coffee (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So rather than rehashing the whole argument, how do you think the sentence should read? One of the sources specifically compared her numbers to O'Reilly's; are you opposed to any mention of the O'Reilly comparison despite it having been made by a Reliable Source? --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think either my last post or a previous post that does includes the context of the citation is acceptable. My original post was:

On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, showing an hour earlier, in the demographic. "In total viewers, O'Reilly and FNC maintained their healthy advantage. Tuesday's Factor brought in 3.35 million over Maddow's 2.04 million. And for the entire primetime block, FNC posted 2.49 million viewers in primetime over MSNBC's 1.79 million."

I believe either puts this in context. Mott Black Coffee (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the source concludes by pointing out that O'Reilly maintained his usual advantage overall. I was going to suggest (edit conflict) that this could be included for context, since it is in the source. But IMO we should do that in a partial sentence, rather than two sentences laying out way more numbers and details than the original citation. That seems like TMI and WP:UNDUE considering that it is responding to a single phrase of one sentence. Could we just do something like this? On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic, beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, showing an hour earlier, in that demographic. However, in total viewers, O'Reilly and FNC maintained their usual healthy advantage. The source is linked, so people wanting more details can go to the source. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My suggested draft:

In September 2012, Maddow viewership in the 25–54 demographic topped that of Hannity on Monday and Tuesday and in the demographic's daily average for the week,[1] though not in the week's cumulative viewership for the time slot.[2] The week was MSNBC's strongest since February 2009.[3] At the time, the network regularly ranked "a distant second" to Fox News viewership.[4]

Neither of the two sources mention milestones. I don't believe the viewership numbers are of any consequence to the article, especially if we're not talking about records. (If they are records, I didn't see the RS to confirm that.) My draft distills the thought to the bare, verified facts. (Also "healthy advantage" is vaguely non-neutral language—I don't see a need to have any aspect of that paragraph included, especially quoted.) If necessary, the single Hollywood Reporter line (in the following list) about MSNBC viewership as a "distant second" to Fox can be paraphrased for context. (Unused, potentially useful srcs: [5][6][7][8]) czar · · 22:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, good, we're making progress. Your draft is neutral and is based on the sources. However, the Hollywood Reporter article specifically compares her to O'Reilly, not to Hannity. So it seems like our sentence should do the same. How would you word that? --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated the blockquote. That HR source is really wacky... You're right about the comparison to O'Reilly, which is a weird comparison to make, being cross-time slot. So I struck those original sources and now use The Wrap (reliable), which says that Maddow "won" the time slot for three days (though it could be clearer that they mean in the demographic). Also changed Hannity → the competition, as the source doesn't explicitly ref Hannity. (More than open to alt source suggestions, but it's slim pickings.) Also added a source that says Fox had the highest cumulative. Rephrase is a little jargony, so open to suggestions there too. czar · · 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Dug around some more, and I removed the vague "three-day" quote, reverted back to the solid Monday/Tuesday/Hannity ref. Rephrased. Added the "distant second" quote. I think this phrasing is complete and fair to the final stats (the previous sources were from mid-week). czar · · 23:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think something along those lines would be accurate and neutral, and puts the whole issue into much better context than the warred-over sentences about a single day's ratings. However, there are other people we need to hear from, to see if they would accept this draft or a version of it. (It's a little jargony, mainly because the sources are jargony, but I don't want to tinker with the wording until I find out if this will be agreeable to the other folks here). --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am good with the final suggestion. I think it reflects the citations and puts everything in context. The reader is left with an accurate understanding of what happened. I would note that this item has experienced several edits since it was posted. An attempt was made to clarify the context back in May that User:Caidh rejected until the recent resurgence of activity. I wonder if the recent Playboy interview with Hannity that incorrectly assumed The Maddow Show had beaten him in his time slot was not fueled by incorrect postings to this page.[9] If all agree on the current language, I hope it stands.Mott Black Coffee (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Made the draft live pending full consensus. I don't expect any future issues with this paragraph, but if dissenters arise, we can go back to consensus-building here. czar · · 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me thanks for everyone's efforts (sorry, was out of town after my last edit). Caidh (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Rachel Maddow Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081031101458/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5g7u4RWI5m_VoFGwSDFYs8p1bh-WwD942JRPOA to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7u4RWI5m_VoFGwSDFYs8p1bh-WwD942JRPOA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

Hi All - I added a citation but was not able to remove "citation needed" - this is in the background section of the Rachel Maddow Show Wik Tedwillett (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Tedwillett. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not accepted as a "reliable source". Ironic, isn't it? So I removed your citation. I just now did a quick search for a reference to support "Studio 3A" and couldn't find one. We may have to delete that part, it has been unsourced for a long time. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. As you can tell I'm new. I'll dig around to see if I can get a source. Until then should we remove it? Tedwillett (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dig away. We can leave it for now with its "citation needed" tag; it's harmless. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

additional guest host

I'm pretty sure Ali Velshi sat in as a guest host in late August 2018. He's not presently listed. — MaxEnt 08:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)