Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Current event template

just added it, Article might need few "Reliably Sourced" statements Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• We're not a news website, so there's no need for that template, unless the situation either turns very grave, or (God forbid!) he dies. UnitAnode 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a for quick reporters glance source i have readded a reliably sourced neutral sourced non crystal ball statement Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ok dont want edit war here i am dropping it Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These post are almost incoherent. UnitAnode 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

i know i need to slow down when writing Weaponbb7 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in the wrong section, anyway. "Recent events" is under the "Other media appearances section." Look for "Hospitalization for chest pains" in the "Personal life" section. Eegorr (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Shiny Example of How Wikipedia is a Joke

This is over. And this talkpage is not a forum for the airing of grievances about Wikipedia. If people keep posting things like this, they'll most likely be blocked from further editing. UnitAnode 03:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article was edited by Kk8punk3d288 with the flat out lie that Rush Limbaugh died. It is a perfect example of how Wikipedia is packed full of lies. You can review the BS edit here: [1] You can review how others are laughing at Wikipedia's moronic dubious achievements here: [2]. Once again, Wikipedia is a joke.--InaMaka (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously? It's called "vandalism". You don't need to get your panties in a knot. Vandals come here and report people "dead" every day. I don't know how someone racks up 2,000 edits and still sees vandalism as a sign that Wikipedia is "a joke". --King Öomie 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Limbaugh was "declared" dead by Wikipedia for a total of 6 minutes from 5:04 UTC till 5:10, and again for 11 minutes from 10:24 till 10:35. Big whoop. All it shows how quickly such errors (usually) get corrected. -- Zsero (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) The REAL joke is how sites like RadarOnline think this non-event is actually news-worthy. "BREAKING NEWS: MAN STUMBLES SLIGHTY, BUT CATCHES HIMSELF!" "HOW WILL HE LIVE WITH THE SHAME? WHY DOES ANYONE STILL LOVE HIM?" --King Öomie 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Not so easily dismissed Rightly or wrongly, many people take what they read in Wikipedia as "gospel," or at least as factually accurate as other online sources, or indeed even traditional encyclopedias. Dismissing this false report, even if it was up for only a few minutes, as "vandalism," will not assuage those who turn to Wikipedia for factually accurate information and find they were given misinformation. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Do you have anything else to suggest instead? Oscroft (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC) User talk:paulfromatlanta The real story here is one that isn't interesting to the media - I'm very junior here and I did check the trail to the primary source before I wrote the heart event paragraph. But I wasn't prepared to defend the article. Senior people stepped in immediately and kept the article limited to verifiable Encyclopedic content. Its a thankless job y'all do but this IS a Shiny Example of Wikipedia. It must suck to wake up to a Drudge story of how Wikipedia reported Rush dead. But every time I read an article about the "Wikipedia elite" or how "occasional editors are not welcome," I'll think about this article and how problems were fixed in minutes and the verifiable content by this "occasional editor" was left standing - but was moved to the correct section and hyper-linked. Don't let the bastards get you down - the "Wikipedia elite" provide one of the greatest services of the Internet era and make it possible for us occasional editors to participate without getting our little contributions destroyed. Sadly, the real story doesn't make for a good headline. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement, but since certain articles, like this one, are more liable to vandals than others, how about blocking all edits to an article by anonymous users as well all users with less than say 2000 or 3000 edits? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) It would be infeasible to prevent edits based on edit count (who decides, based on what, etc etc), but articles facing large amounts of vandalism are routinely protected from IP edits in a process known as "Semi-protection" ("Full-protection" being no one can edit the page). This is usually only done when the article faces a high volume of vandalism, which this one doesn't. See WP:RFPP for more. --King Öomie 20:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Of course user Kk8punk3d288 was banned right? His page here at Wiki is still active so I'm guessing he was not banned. Therefore we can conclude that it was not vandalism as this user has done many other edits that remain. Unless Wiki takes action, it seems to me that this edit, while wrong, was allowed or he'd be gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.238.67 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC) No, he has not been banned, or even blocked. But keep this up and you will be. Honestly, I have now spent more time dealing with people complaining about the vandalism than I did with the vandalism itself. The people who added false information to the article made a serious error of judgment, and they have been warned for it. They have not repeated it, so the matter is at an end. Further complaining is unproductive and will be dealt with accordingly. -- Zsero (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC) So you're going to ban people for criticism now? Gee, let me dig deep and send some money to Wikipedia's online panhandling link above and help finance your fine fascist work here!173.65.221.85 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC) The primary reason I wound up creating an account on this travesty of a site was to deal with blatant errors that certain article campers, considering various subjects "their own" refused to fix. It took being accused of sock puppetry, being banned, being harassed in email and more to get a single item changed in a meaningless write up for an old TV show, for example. But in the end I won...and some people are still crying about it. Wiki is indeed a laughingstock for that sort of thing, among many other reasons, including, now, this one. The begging for money at the top of every page doesn't help. The complete refusal of reputable colleges (and even high schools) to accept data straight from the place is evidence of just how bad it has become(yes, I have high school age children, am pursuing a higher degree currently and have family who both teach and are pursuing degrees at various institutions at various ages). No place accepts Wiki as credible, but someone go ahead and bleat how I'm wrong and their internet school does... The fact the "editors" of this place act as pompous as they do, as if they were actually contributing to something viable or valuable, is at least entertaining. The fact that people get banned for pointing out the incompetence, and the hypocrisy(and that it's stupidly done in public on these pages and linked around the 'net) makes for truly high humor. I'm certain Limbaugh will appreciate the joke, unlike some of the denizens of this place. FMChimera (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Content

In the paragraph: "Barack the Magic Negro" parody, is that really have anything to do with Limbaugh? I was just wondering because its in the Controversial Incidents. And quite frankly, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Mr. Limbaugh.Prettyflowers1 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes, of course it has to do with him! He plays it all the time. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but there's no question that it's his. -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion is a clear case of WP:Undue weight. Barack the Magic Negro is a Paul Shanklin song inspired by a March 19, 2007 Los Angeles Times column by David Ehrenstein. Limbaugh's association with the song is as a disc jockey and there are two other people and one newspaper that are more directly linked to this song. The argument that this needs to be included in Limbaugh's biography is comparable to an argument that every pop song from 1970 to 1988 needs to be documented in Casey Kasem's biography. --Allen3 ^talk 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that Shanklin is closely associated with Limbaugh. "Shanklin writes most of, and voices the characters for, the songs and satirical comedy segments used by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh." That doesn't make it clear exactly what their relationship is: does he work under contract for Limbaugh, does he write for the purpose of selling to Limbaugh, does Limbaugh give him the ideas he wants developed, or does he work entirely for himself and Limbaugh is merely a really big fan? -- Zsero (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the Paul Shanklin article, the idea for the parody was Shanklin's. If you have a source that says he works for RL, then it might be relevant. Otherwise, I would have to agree with Allen3. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan of this: "Some groups and individuals have criticized Limbaugh's accuracy. The July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, a publication of the progressive group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), alleges 50 different inaccuracies and distortions in Limbaugh's commentary.[74][75] ". Progressive is marketing spin/a buzzword. Can we just say "liberal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal" is more than marketing spin, it's the outright hijacking of a term that used to mean (and still does in some countries) a generally libertarian/conservative policy. I think the modern use of "progressive" by the hard left harks back to the Progressive movement, which is at least honest of them. Anyone can look at the first "progressives'" record and judge for themselves whether it was benign or not. -- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point Zsero, but I would go one step further and say that instead of liberal and conservative, the labels should be progressive and libertarian. I think that that is more accurate, IMHO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mutual

Rush worked on the Mutual radio network as the news reader on the Larry King radio program around 1981, beginning I don't know when and lasting I'm not sure how long. If someone has the correct dates it would be good material for Rush's work history. Rainbow-five (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Got a source?Jarhed (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed copy edit

This article is pretty rough in places, would anyone be opposed to me giving it a fair copy edit. I know alot of editors watch the article, but no one seems particularly dedicated to raising its quality. I am going to go ahead and start. It won't hurt my feelings if anyone wants to revert it all once I am done. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Be a little less bold than for a non-controversial article, and be careful of changes to the summary.Jarhed (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative?

It is an insult to old-style Conservatives such as Barry Goldwater to describe Rush Limbaugh as one of them. I understand that he is what US Conservatism has turned into recently, but I believe that we need to be much more specific.--75.25.130.215 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is worrisome to think what conservatism would be without Rush Limbaugh. Time and time again, he has pointed out the dangers of pandering to the ideas of the Democrats and Liberals. Congressmen and Senators appeared to not listen and now those that based the ideals of the conservative party on pandering to the ideals of others are suffering politically for general lack of ideology. Real conservatism is based on personal responsibility - something long forgotten by the liberal left. Rush uses puffed up words like "excellence" and "right" to convey his all too correct insight on today's political events and people are glad (as shown by his ratings) to hear someone who isn't ashamed to be right "99.1% of the time". 72.54.93.138 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

^LOL74.140.210.223 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable a broadcast's ratings are as a determinant of correctness (or even relevance). So You Think You Can Dance is watched by an incredible amount of people. It got an Emmy. And it's about dance crews. The number of people who think he's correct is completely irrelevant- A massive swath of the population thinks this planet was created in six days by a magical man several millenia ago, who took care to make sure the planet looked much, much older for some reason. Wait, that's a good part of Limbaugh's audience, actually. --King Öomie 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Painting with a broad brush, there. Either way, you're welcome to disprove what's said. Most people can't because it's true. Just because someone has different views than you, that does not make them incorrect (or more inclined to be incorrect). That's a huge problem, because most people write him off as being 100% wrong, simply because they don't like him. Do they make the effort to actually listen to what's said and consider that "Hm, this could be true..." rather than jumping to "Hm, well he used to be fat and had a drug problem... so obviously what he says carries no validity. My argument is done, I win." Gpia7r (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

^LOL again199.76.188.51 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh says a lot of things that are factually in error. For example, "It's that there is no man-made global warming." (11-30-09 and plenty of other times). Statements like this contradict science, but he builds upon such errors with more errors. PashaNatanovich (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In error according to whom? Have you not been following the news for the past two weeks? The claim that man-made global warming exists has long rested on flimsy evidence, and some of the best of that evidence just went kaboom. Anything emanating from CRU, or relying on their data or research, must now be discarded, and the record re-examined without it. Are you still so sure of your position that you feel comfortable calling Limbaugh a liar for taking the opposite view? -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about his substance abuse or his weight. His views on science (and scientists) disgust me. Directly from the article- [3]. He doesn't think too highly of scientific consensus, either. --King Öomie 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your connecting religious people to his viewership, and in turn to the correctness of him. I'm not religious, you're not religious, and religion is irrelevant to the discussion. The "massive swath" of people have to go somewhere to get truth (even if it's 99.3% accurate). The biggest disappointment is the media's lack of reporting, and blaitant lies. So, the passive-aggresive comparison of the type of person that listens to his show to the type of person that believes in a magical man (which only implies you believing they are complete dolts) isn't all that neutral and isn't really needed in a discussion you aren't required to take part in if you can't do it in a neutral way. The last lines in my previous comment were referring to the typical actions of media, not you personally. Gpia7r (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That percentage keeps going up... =P Lies according to who? I mean, who has the facts? According to who? I feel like that second part is FAR more important. And I never said I regarded the fundamentally religious as 'dolts'. If that's what comes from being demonstrably incorrect (and unapologetic about it), though, then I suppose it goes beyond my opinion. But according to who? =D --King Öomie 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...Or should that be 'whom'? --King Öomie 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Science specifically does not allow for consensus. reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Next I thought this was to discuss whether Mr. Limbaugh is a conservative. To that end: 1. Conservative - (Definition) a member of a British political party promoting free enterprise and private ownership. (Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, Copyright 1996, Oxford University Press, Pg 298-299). 2. By the definition provided on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism, The opinions expressed by Mr. Limbaugh seem to fall into the category of "Classical conservatism and economic liberalism". Sethklinefelter (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in prior discussions on articles like this one, the consensus has seemed to be to identify the subject as they label themselves. For example, Sean Hannity is labeled a conservative, even though some people feel he's a neo-con. Political definition is quite a grey area in some cases, so many editors allow the category to be self-defined. Otherwise, we're doing original research in analyzing the subject's views.

Please note I'm not saying consensus can't change here, I'm just clarifying for other editors how this discussion has wound up before. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta Rush has apparently had some sort of heart event and is hospitalized in serious condition. But even though Google news lists 30 articles they all use a local TV station KITV as the source - its would be good if we could get another primary source before people descend on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfromatlanta (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rush is fine, back on the air Wednesday, Jan-6-2010. He believes in Science and scientists, such as Roy Spencer, but does not believe in Junk Science (such as AGW and health nuts who set up a FAX machine and send scare notices to news outlets.) If you are interested, I can provide broadcast dates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem there is that his definition of 'junk science' disagrees with that of... actual scientists. But hey, he's the one with the Ph.D, right? --King Öomie 14:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts

Unless you truly know what happened, DO NOT write facts about the hospitalization. Thanks, Old Al (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Radar online and Fark.com all just picked up WP's false announcement of Limbaugh's death.... C'mon you guys we have policies about verification of facts and increased level of scrutiny for biographical articles of living people for a reason...Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the false information was reverted within 6 minutes the first time, and within 11 minutes the second time. Compare that to how long it takes a newspaper to correct its errors, if it ever bothers to do so. Frankly I do not believe that the proprietors of either of those web sites actually saw the article during the two brief windows in which it was vandalised, unless they were behind the vandalism. If they went trawling through the history, then you can do the same on any article and find even worse things. Big whoop. -- Zsero (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked CNN or the New York Times didn't have a reputation for regularly declaring premature deaths of public figures. The whole point is one of verifiability. There should never have been a mistake to begin with vandalism aside. The "Big Whoop" is Wikipedia losing credibility as a source of information which in my opinion is a pretty damn big deal.Nefariousski (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been intentional vandalism. They cited this blog http://www.blancadebree.com/index.php/2009/12/rush-limbaugh-dead-at-age-58/comment-page-2/#comment-1038 - instead of punishment or limits on editors, it may require more education about what constitutes a valid encyclopedic source. Now its true there was an explanation as to why this was not a good source in Talk but lots of editors ignore Talk, unfortunately. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

Anybody with the intelligence to know how to edit WP is intelligent enough to realise that that blog is not even on the same planet as a reliable source. -- Zsero (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I speak for many here when I say that I would appreciate it deeply if everyone cared as much for the integrity of Wikipedia as I do and not post their hate-filled wishful thinking as facts. -- TodKarlson 09:58, 1 January 2010 (Happy Ney Year!!!)

There's no indication that anybody did that. -- Zsero (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that as a matter of documenting history it should be added that several Internet outlets as well as Wikipedia listed Limbaugh as dead even if it was for a brief moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.63.173 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's not significant. If every time WP is vandalised or an error is inserted it became part of the "historical record" worth talking about, there'd be no end to WP. -- Zsero (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, I think that it is significant. Not simply that WP was vandalized, but that a high-profile person's wiki article was vandalized AND the extreme speed (a few minutes?) with which it was fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's disingenuous to say that the page was vandalized. Vandalism would of been entry that stated, "on such and such date Rush Limbaugh was abducted by aliens and never heard from again." Wikipedia was not the only source that was stating that Limbaugh had died. As a matter of history I think it's important to document that Rush Limbaugh is a personality of such incredible controversy that he has created such enemies in the world and media that they will jump at any opportunity to wish him ill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.63.173 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalised. You would barely find a single Wikipedia editor who would say that claiming someone who is not dead is dead is not vandalism. Limbaugh is a controversial character, you're right, and this controversy is addressed in the article. As has been stated above, claiming that someone is dead is common vandalism and those of us who revert vandalism have probably all seen it happen before. This was not anything even approaching the Siegenthaler incident, where a false mention of death was not noticed for four months (and probably would have gone unnoticed for longer if not for one of Siegenthaler's friends removing it). That was live for four months, even being edited by other people in the meantime, and became a notable controversy being reported all over the place by many reliable sources. This was live for six minutes and is just your garden-variety vandalism that was reverted by the next person to edit the article. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not true. WP:VAND is clear that vandalism is ONLY vandalism if the intention was to deliberately disrupt the encyclopedia. Posting something you believe to be correct (and encyclopedic) doesn't become vandalism when someone discovers that you were in fact incorrect. --King Öomie 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Point taken. I hadn't read the policy in a while, and I guess we all get a bit rusty over time. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush's opinion on Wikipedia.

I was listening to his program today and Rush made the reference that comparing him to Wikipedia is a insult. Can this be inckluded here? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He was trying to be funny. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think Limbaugh's opinion about Wikipedia is notable, go put it on the Wikipedia article.Jarhed (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In honesty I was unsure and wwasn't sure if it would be relevant. Hence why I came here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial article and I think that editors should be careful about making changes to it. Unless the edit is obviously noteworthy, then I vote no.Jarhed (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then no it is! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that we've moved past them a little...

I think that the "Barack the Magic Negro" section, the "Operation Chaos" section, and the "Fail" section should all be re-evaluated for relevance. They're all really one shot incidents that generated little buzz afterwords. Perhaps the Barack the magic negro and Op chaos could be subheaded under "2008 election" and the Fail section could be combined with leader of Republican party? Soxwon (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

as a person who isn't really involved with this page, that makes sense.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the current division is fine. They're all noteworthy occurances that are well sourced. The "Barack the Magic Negro" and "I hope he fails" controversies are well sourced and occurred before the 2008 election and "Leader of the Republican Party" repsectively. -- User:Chelydramat ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In no way are we saying to get rid of them, but there is undue weight by having them isolated out on their own. They should be included in the section on the 2008 election.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been remiss in overlooking your response these past two weeks. I don't object to correcting undue weight and to be honest that didn't occur to me at the time. The extended campaign season for the 2008 election (IMO which started right after Kerry lost) disgusted me so I fell back to conventional chronology. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Soxwon and Balloonman. Both sections need to be shortened and merged into a larger section. UnitAnode 06:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sections for Decades

QUESTION: In the Article, under "2. Professional career", there are subsections for 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. How long will it be (and how much career info need add up) before the next subsection is added? "2.5 2010s". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

At the very least we should wait until the 2010 Congressional elections are over, but even that may be jumping the gun. Maybe a "Present" category could be used but I don't know the preponderance of notability needed for a new section. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake in Haiti

I find it amazing that a completely biased writeup of Limbaugh's comments on Obama and Haiti are allowed to stand as they are. Is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid website? That whole section is a disaster. ----THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's been removed, and the person who added it, warned. UnitAnode 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• I've removed the information again. Discussion needs to happen here around how (and whether) it should be included. Limbaugh has disputed that he is being quoted fairly, claiming that the context of the quotes is necessary for understanding what he was saying. Until and unless discussion happens here, and consensus is developed on this matter, it shouldn't be included. We're not the newspaper, and we don't need to report on everything as it happens, especially in the case of a BLP. UnitAnode 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless this gets a lot more widespread media coverage I don't see the point in including it. If we referenced every asinine thing Limbaugh ever said his article would be about as long as the rest of Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your unbiased opinion. ----THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's starting to pick a bit of steam: [4], [5]. I'd give it a little time and then this will probably have enough coverage for inclusion (and then blow over just like the "Barack the Magic Negro" and "I Hope He Fails" incidents, but that's just speculation on my part) Soxwon (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For everybodies' convenience I'll drop a link to the transcript of the segment that's being taken out of context [6]. If it will be read is another matter. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 02:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore I'll post the three diffs from User:Lguzenda [7] [8] [9]. I may ask about having this article protected if this vandalism keeps up. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd recommend that Lguzenda be blocked, as s/he has now readded the information at least three times (once after having been explicitly warned not to do so), and still has yet to participate in discussion. UnitAnode 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Numerous media are covering this, and the White House has responded. RL affirms what he said according to CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml.Kdammers (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this not worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.59.249 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the transcript above contains one of the phone-calls Limbaugh answered that has caused so much controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.59.249 (talk) 08:5 2, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is obviously worth including: it's received wide press attention. ('Rush Limbaugh Haiti' currently gets over 3 million hits on Google, and 591 on Google News.) We've got Pat Robertson's controversial remarks about the Haiti earthquake in his article; Rush's comments belong here. It would have to be worded neutrally, of course. Robofish (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a tin ear if you think that there is any equivalency between Pat Robertson's uncut statement and several clips of Rush Limbaugh stripped of any relevant context. I highly doubt that Media Matters or Huffington Post would deign to include a quote like this:

So the country that he runs around the world apologizing for, the country that he has chip on his shoulder about, he now turns to as its president and asks people who have lost their jobs because of his policies to donate to WhiteHouse.gov to the people of Haiti, and we will do it. We are the most charitable and the most generous people on the face of the earth. Each and every time a natural disaster like this happens, we step up. We are there.ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 15:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just getting up to speed on this issue, and I can't for the life of me see what was so controversial or notable about what Limbaugh said. He has accused the president of being a political animal since day one, and I can't see how that could possibly insult a politician. What am I missing?--Jarhed (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

http://themoderatevoice.com/59698/clinton-bush-dismiss-talk-show-hosts-politicization-of-haiti-earthquake/ --74.213.91.69 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How is that supposed to improve the article? This is not a forum ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not a Wiki person so please forgive me if I'm violating a Wiki protocol with this entry, but if former President George W. Bush and Former President Bill Clinton respond to Mr. Limbaugh's comments on the Haiti disaster, isn't that enough to deserve some entry on Mr. Limbaugh's Wiki biography?

When you have two former Presidents of the United States of America who see fit to respond to Mr. Limbaugh's comments on the Haiti disaster, that's a pretty big deal in my humble opinoin or am I missing something?

"George W. Bush on Rush Limbaugh’s Haiti comments: Now’s not the time to focus on politics"

"Limbaugh said that President Barack Obama might use Haiti for political means to shore up support in the black community. Limbaugh also said the United States has donated to Haiti — through the U.S. income tax.

Clinton initially said he had no response to Limbaugh’s comments, because “it’s not fruitful to get involved in that,” what the former president called “a fruitless and pointless conversation.”

Bush was more forceful, saying, “Now’s not the time to focus on politics. It’s time to focus on helping people. I mean, look, you’ve got … children who’ve lost parents, people wondering where they’re going to be able to drink water. There’s a great sense of desperation. And so, my attention is on trying to help people deal with the desperation.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/george-w-bush-on-rush-limbaughs-haiti-comments-nows-not-the-time-to-focus-on-politics.html

The above is from an Orlando Sentinel blogger so here's a second source from USA Today:

"Bush, Clinton: Haiti response not about politics"

"I'd say now is not the time to focus on politics," Bush said in an interview taped Saturday after the ex-presidents' visit to the White House. "You've got people who are ... children who've lost parents. People wondering where they're going to be able to drink water," Bush said. "There's a great sense of desperation. And so my attention is on trying to help people deal with the desperation."

Bush said that he doesn't know what critics are talking about when they claim Obama is trying to score political points with a broad response to Haiti's crisis. The most vocal critic has been conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh who urged people not to donate and said he wouldn't trust that money donated to Haiti through the White House website would go to the relief efforts. He said people contribute enough by paying income taxes.

"I just think it doesn't do us any good to waste any time in what is in my opinion a fruitless and pointless conversation," Clinton said.

He added: "In a disaster of this magnitude there's no way that the government, which has other responsibilities as well, national security and other responsibilities — you just can't deal with this just with government money."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-17-presidents-talkshows-haiti_N.htm

The above is former President Clinton responding to Mr. Limbaugh's remark, "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."

The full video is here:

Putting Politics Aside

January 17, 2010 9:00 AM

"In the age of "mean and polarized" politics Bob Schieffer notes how former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has put aside political differences for the good of the people of Haiti."

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6106929n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Thanks and again I apologize if I did something wrong, but I think Mr. Limbaugh's statement on the Haiti disaster is too significant to just to completely ignore.Davemartin7777 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because former U. S. Presidents are reported to have said something doesn't make it notable. To put it bluntly the sources you've posted is just run-of-the-mill media bias. Yes, Rush Limbaugh's career is based on stating his unvarnished opinion. But just as true is that those in the media whose living is based on imagining offense have repeatedly tried to manufacture outrage by misquoting him or even outright lying about what he said. The coverage of this nonevent is so slanted that to include it would be nothing short of point-of-view pushing. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 04:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said ChelydraMAT. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It might also be helpful to understand that it is a POV that this is notable and should be included. I am an interested editor on this article, I follow US news closely, and my own POV is that I can't figure out why anyone thinks this should be mentioned. The Haiti earthquake is notable, but I can't for the life of me see why Limbaugh's opinion about it is.Jarhed (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. That claim that Limbaugh urged people not to contribute to Haiti charities, you need to check your source on that. In the transcript I read, he said the exact opposite.Jarhed (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Rush was misquoted, over and over, as is most often the case. What he said was to check into private organizations to donate because the Whitehouse website and others like it will have large overhead costs, like 25%. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your thoughtful comments on my request for inclusion of Mr. Limbaugh's Haiti disaster remarks to his Wikipedia entry.

Forgive me for my grammar errors... I got my GED in the Air Force.

It may have been liberal bias for Mr. Sheifer to ask both former Presidents about Mr. Limbaugh's statements, however the fact is that former President Bush a Republican saw fit to respond to Mr. Limbaugh's Haiti disaster remarks as noted above as did former President Clinton.

I'm not judging if what Mr. Limbaugh said was right or wrong, just that his statement were significant enough for two former Presidents to respond to them on American national TV, as well as being covered extensively by American and foreign press.

"The Haiti earthquake is notable, but I can't for the life of me see why Limbaugh's opinion about it is"

Jarhed, you may be a Wikipedia Power User and your opinion is more valuable than mine, but I submit that Mr. Limbaugh's statements on the Haiti disaster are notable because he's got the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States, he's highly influential with his fan base with a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners, he's paid $400 million dollars for his insight, his Haiti disaster comments were covered by most of American media (including a statement of agreement from the National Review, which references Reuters) and two former Presidents saw fit to respond to his Haiti disaster comments as well as current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjY0NDNhODViZjJmYjA3N2Q3MzcwMDc1ZGQ2OGQ2OWI=

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml

Davemartin7777 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Egad. I am the opposite of a power user and I can't imagine why anyone would apologize for a perfectly respectable educational credential like a GED. From what I understand from the sources, Bush and Clinton were both asked about what Limbaugh said about the President, and both agreed with Limbaugh without mentioning him. Limbaugh generates ratings, and news sources try to work him into articles all the time. I get it that Limbaugh is notable, but I am still trying to understand why this is.Jarhed (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses to Rush

rush and feminazis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Js9L6dz2Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcreynoldspa (talk • contribs) 05:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but ask but what's your point (besides self-promotion)? I would just delete this but it's just too funny. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, with all of that talk about how controversial opinions get philosophers in trouble with the larger society, I thought they were talking about Limbaugh at first.Jarhed (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Patriotism

This article is extremely biased. Why don't we see more included about Rush's extensive charity work? Unlike the libs, Rush cares about Amerika, and supports teh soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.137.94 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does mention his work for raising money (and donating his own) to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. It also mentions his work with the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Would you be willing to offer more details about what is missing or imbalanced, and how that could be fixed? CosineKitty (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your leg is being pulled.--Jarhed (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much at the time, but it doesn't hurt to offer a chance for helpful criticism. CosineKitty (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ratings mystery

"As of 2006, Arbitron ratings indicated that The Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million listeners..."

This is not cited, and I cannot find any actual overall ratings from anywhere. When you google "rush limbaugh ratings" you get articles about how his ratings are never actually compiled, and no one has any idea how many people listen to the show, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html

If anyone has any actual numbers from an actual reliable source (like arbitron), that would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.96.6 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitron has that data available only by subscription. You're free to pay them and see for yourself, but Rush has no real incentive to lie about his ratings. Many scientific articles are used as sources on Wikipedia while being behind a pay wall. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 07:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and for pointing out wikipedia's position on that. I really didn't know, but now I've gone through and read the standards, so I'll see if I can find someone on the Resource Exchange to confirm the Arbitron data. The only reason I'm skeptical about it is that the Washington Post article (linked to above) seemed to indicate that the overall numbers for Rush's total listeners were never even compiled by Arbitron in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.96.6 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitron compiles stats for all radio stations and all dayparts whether or not the station in question buys their ratings. Since Limbaugh is on some 400+ radio stations, his ratings can't help but be huge.Jarhed (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Phony soldiers

I recently read this section of the page and found that it wasn't accurately telling what happened. Limbaugh claims that he was talking about people who aren't really soldiers. That's fine for him to claim and it's fine for us to include his point of view. We should also present things from a more neutral perspective. I changed this section to detail what actually happened (it's all in the transcript)- 1st a caller spoke to Limbaugh about soldiers criticizing the war. Next Limbaugh interrupted him and mentioned "phony soldiers." Almost two minutes later Limbaugh mentioned Jesse Macbeth (an actual fake soldier). That's what happened. I believe readers of wikipedia would be best served to have that info and also hear from Limbaugh and the opposing side. I made the section reflect that with well sourced material and a link to the actual transcript (on Rush's site no less). ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} reverted what I did back to the one sided view from Limbaugh. In so doing, my CNN reference, [10], which actually said what I wrote was replaced with the following [11]. A quick check of the second komonews article will reveal ABSOLUTELY nothing about Limbaugh and it is original research to use it in this way. The media matters article explaining the uproar was also reverted, as was the transcript. We should not be doing original research or removing well sourced material without good reason and we especially shouldn't be doing it to present a one sided view. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You really need to take what Media Matters says with a grain of salt. I've read that CNN source carefully and it doesn't support what you're saying (it just refers to critics of the Iraq war) so I will revert it per WP:BLP. The old source isn't really needed here so I won't use it again. You failed to mention that I incorporated the transcript link and that Rush read the MacBeth story after talking to the caller into existing sentences. It is just sloppy to just stick that at the end of the section. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. If you actually had read the CNN source you would notice that the second sentence says exactly what I said. What you have is unsourced and is only supported by Rush- one of the parties in the dispute. My CNN source is independent from the dispute (it's not on Media Matters' side or Rush's) and merely states the facts.

2. To revert to what you have is original research and cannot stand in the article.

3. You did mention the MacBeth story being AFTER the "phony soldiers" comment (which is my point and which is why it's hard to believe that Rush could be referring to something that nobody had mentioned yet), but I fail to see where you incorporated the transcript link. Am I just blind or is it not there? I agree that it could be incorporated better than the way I did it.

4. I take what EVERYONE says with a grain of salt (media matters, rush, etc.) which is why I simply add what they say (what ALL of them say) and let the reader decide how to interpret it.

For the above reasons I am compelled to revert your original research and your omissions which clearly violate NPOV. Let's not make this an edit war, please. Either address my valid points or refrain from simply reverting. --Brendan19 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are the second, third and fourth sentences of the CNN article... "Limbaugh's comments in question came Wednesday when Limbaugh and a caller were discussing critics of the Iraq war:

"What's really funny is, they [Iraq war critics] never talk to real soldiers," the caller said. "They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media."

"The phony soldiers," Limbaugh then said."

Here is my sentence: "During the September 26, 2007 broadcast of Limbaugh's radio show, he used the term "phony soldiers" when talking to a caller who mentioned soldiers who criticize the war.[27]"

You still want to claim that it is unsupported? --Brendan19 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just because you inferred that Rush was calling soldiers who disagree with the Iraq war "phony" does not make it so. You are engaging in synthesis by inserting that sentence. In addition you have it backwards since major changes are to be discussed on the talk page before inserting them in the article. I'm not impressed by your constant accusations of original research and violate NPOV while you engage in it yourself. So cool it. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 23:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I inferred nothing. I merely summarized what a CNN article said. Limbaugh used the term, "phony soldiers," when talking to a caller. This came after the caller mentioned soldiers criticizing the war to the media. Read the article. If you still don't like it then maybe we can use this one [12] (it's from Fox News, so you should like that). Specifically, read the second sentence, which says, "Edwards and the campaign of fellow Democrat Chris Dodd took issue with the radio talk show host's characterization of Iraq war veterans who have spoken out against the war. " Or maybe we should use this source (Christian Science Monitor) [13]. The first sentence says "Comments by conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh that troops who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers" are still stinging more than a week after he made them. " Or this, from the Boston Herald [14] which says, "The firestorm over Rush Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” remark heated up yesterday - with the conservative blowhard taking a hit from both political parties after he slighted servicemen who oppose the war in Iraq." Here's more from CNN [15] "In the wake of the high-profile uproar from Republicans over a MoveOn.org ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus, Democrats are seizing on recent comments from popular conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh who said on a recent broadcast on Iraq that some veterans who criticize the war in the media are "phony soldiers.""

You should also check out this noticeboard [16] where I have brought our issue for others to comment on. --Brendan19 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are still inferring, and no matter how many times you repeat it will not change that fact. I see you've already violated WP:3RR in your quest to violate NPOV. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, you are dead wrong about me violating 3RR. Along the same theme, you seem to be confused about what an inference is. I can help clear that up for you- when I paraphrase what was repeated in five different reliable sources that is NOT inferring. When you use Komonews (which says nothing about the Limbaugh controversy) as a reference to support your opinion about what Limbaugh was talking about, that IS inferring. Get it?

Now, two points of order: Do not insert your statement in the middle of mine again, as it creates confusion about who is saying what; and do not make false accusations about me violating 3rr. --Brendan19 (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't presume that you have the authority to tell me what to do here. It's not my problem that you imagine offense. It was crystal clear which post of yours I was replying to. And your insertion of the same edits barely fall out of the 24 hour time limit, violating the spirit of 3RR. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As for your narrowly stated claim the Komonews was originally included to give context to the controversy since (shock) Rush talks about current events. The only reason I went along with removing it is that Macbeth's story is referenced later in that section. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood the point. A source is meant to back up what you are trying to say. If the source does not say what you are citing it for then it is not actually a source. The reason komonews should have been removed is because it didn't back up what you were saying. Nowhere in komonews did it say ANYTHING about Rush Limbaugh. To say things that aren't supported by your source is original research (OR). Please don't attempt to argue with me about OR if you cannot even understand the basics of what OR is. --Brendan19 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not one of those sources has a quote of Limbaugh explicitly stating "soldiers against the war are phony". He is on the record of having talked about the Macbeth story the previous day. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See straw man- nobody needs to provide such a quote from Rush. Next, read Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Attribute_facts so you can hopefully understand why I cited CNN and others when I gave an intro to the topic. Then re-read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position to hopefully understand why this means nothing unless a CNN type source says what you are trying to claim this proves. --Brendan19 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I read through the current version of the phony soldier section and the linked wikipage specific on this contraversy. It appears fair and balanced in its presentation of the views and statements made by Limbaugh. I actually listened to those specific radio shows where Limbaugh discussed all of this and it appears to be congruent with what I heard. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FounderIntent, it is accurate as it is. When you look at the whole transcript, it quite obvious the whole line is about soldiers pretending to be soldiers in order to criticize the war. Note how the caller distinguished real soldiers from those who pop up out of no where - he was referencing back to an early statement about the soldier who was truly not a soldier but an imposer. I think we have to be careful not to twist to the point where they are not true - in the context of the full transcript, they were referring to impostors posing as soldiers as phony soldiers. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Charles Edward and FoundersIntent. It is clear that Limbaugh was taken out of context. When he said "phony soldiers", he was literally referring to people who pretend to be soldiers but aren't. CosineKitty (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need to chronicle his diet(s)?

I'm tempted to remove the brief paragraph about him going on a diet in March 2009. It seems too trivial to include here. Besides which, I know he has gone on diets, and gained weight back, several times, so why mention just this one instance? Unless this recent diet is deemed more noteworthy than the others, it seems logical that either all should be mentioned, or none should be. In terms of importance, the latter seems preferable. CosineKitty (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point there. Even though he's candid about about struggling with his weight Rush has never officially endorsed a particular diet plan. Since Rush doesn't pass himself off as a health guru his weight loss shouldn't be in the article. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove it as well, because it is only of purient interest. I left it because I suspect that some people are curious. I am fine with it being gone.Jarhed (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is an important item and very simple. Rush says he eats less. He is very successful and weight control is a big factor in wellness and longevity. He has millions of listeners that benefit; plus many more in media that hear of his dieting (including distractors) that can benefit. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(Opps. I see it is not currently in the Article.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro

What is an "influential opinion leader" and is there a better way to describe Limbaugh? Perhaps, "...his opinion is influential to the direction of the conservative...." is better. I would change it but I don't want to be flagged twenty times for changing a couple words. The phrase just sounds so ridiculous. Merbeliumph (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase should go but it was a compromise between people who wanted to call him "the leader of the Republican party" and reality. If you think you can fix it, give it a try.--Jarhed (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "conservative movement" a contradiction in terms? 193.90.173.90 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica Comment to leave country: was it for care or a permanent move?

I signed in to my AOL email and found this.

I'm not sure where or whether it belongs.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not notable, since I don't think he's serious about it. Now, if he WAS serious, that would be different. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of Limbaugh's site shows this is not an Alec Baldwin promise to move to a different country but a statement that he would travel outside the United States "for treatment" if Obamacare passes.[17] As such an arrangement would be unlikely to affect his ability to host his radio show, or otherwise impact his public impact or persona, it does not appear notable at this time. --Allen3 ^talk 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on something here. Why would he have to travel outside the U.S. for medical care? Is there something in Obamacare that would force him to get substandard medical care in the U.S.? I mean, he is rich enough to pay for all his medical needs with cash (i.e., he doesn't need medical insurance like most people do), so what does Obamacare have to do with it? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Rush highlighted the difference today (between visiting the US doctors in Costa Rico and what DbM got excited about, him leaving.) On the other hand, Rush said (about the tipping point) "If and when we get to that point I will tell you. We have not reached it yet, [I would move to New Zealand.]" Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, if that's the case, if someone really wants to add it in, then I see little problem with it as long as that is made clear. Still, it's kind of a minor thing, so I'm not sure if it's worthwhile. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree—not appropriate in the Article. True fans and others that want to know can find this info (here) by clicking the 'Discussion' tab. Rush said: If Obama's health care passes, US doctors may not be permitted to form private practice little clinics with individuals paying a retainer for services. [18] [It could be like Obama and NEA-union shutting down a successful NY voucher school for minorities.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

True or false: Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if the health care bill passed. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

True. Here's the exact quote: "If this passes, and it's five years from now, and all that stuff gets implemented, I am [pause] leaving the country. I'll go to, I'll go to Costa Rica." (Rush Limbaugh, March 9, 2010) Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Tuesday, March 9th is the day Rush Limbaugh explained that he didn't say he would move to Costa Rica. Here are my notes for Tuesday, March 9th, in part:

Segment#1: Rush Limbaugh didn’t say he would move from USA. . . . If doctors are not permitted to opt out of gov’t service; and if they are not permitted to start their own practice; I will be treated in Costa Rica when needed. That started a firestorm in DbM, ...
>>> US Doctors go to Costa Rica when they are dissatisfied enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I quoted him word for word from the broadcast and from secondary sources which covered the broadcast. He said he would leave the country and move to Costa Rica five years after the health care bill passes. How could you possibly spin that? Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh's statement on this issue is, "I was asked yesterday where will I go for health care if Obama's health care passes, and I said if doctors here are not permitted to form private practice little clinics with individuals paying a fee, a retainer, and for services, then I'll go to Costa Rica to get major medical health care. I didn't say I would move there." This would appear to make it clear that the phrase "go to Costa Rica" that has been widely bandied about by the media indicates a temporary visit as opposed to a permanent change of residence. --Allen3 ^talk 14:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So, are you saying he backpedaled and changed his original statement? I've heard the audio broadcast and read the transcripts. He said, and I quote: "I am leaving the country. I'll go to, I'll go to Costa Rica." How could you possibly spin this? Viriditas (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. 'Bandied about'? I'm not sure what you expected the media to do with the phrase "I'm leaving the country if this passes". He didn't exactly say "but don't worry, it's just medical tourism". --King Öomie 14:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now can someone please explain why Limibaugh chose Costa Rica? Does he prefer their comprehensive, nationalized health care system? Michael Moore is going to have a field day with this. Everyone, invest in popcorn. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks the recently-passed bill simply isn't comprehensive enough. --King Öomie 14:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this kind of discussion Viriditas and oomie Soxwon (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So should we just ignore the recent hoopla? Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To discuss Rush Limbaugh’s original answer on Monday 3-8-2010, it is good to read the caller’s question first, (CALLER: Where, then, would you go for health care?) [19] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Full audio clip here. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though Rush said “If this happens in five years, I am leaving the country, ” you could take it either way, (‘for treatment’ or ‘residency’). Of the 70 comments under the Media Matters two minute audio clip (we can credit Media.Mat for including the entire short exchange) all comments overreach to the conclusion they would like to see, with glee—two days later, Media Matters includes one comment supporting Rush Limbaugh and speaking against the overreach: “by Ross (March 10, 2010 11:36 pm ET) ”It's ironic that a website which purports to fight misinformation would deliberately take Limbaugh's comment out of context. He was talking about going to Costa Rica for treatment, if necessary, at one of the clinics that are being set up for wealthy patients if Obamacare passes. You left that part out of your clip. If that's not spreading misinformation, I don't know what is!” ((Again, I would say that Media Matters gave enough context, and it was listeners like msNBC that rely on Media Matters for their news that “got it wrong”.)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom Line For Next Five Years :: Rush says two things: “I love to tweak the Left” and “If reporters would call here, listen to the program, or check the website they could get it right.” With HD DittoCam, you can see Limbaugh present—but that is available (as far as I can see) for two weeks only, now expired. Again, what you have in the Media Matters audio clip says enough, and accurately so. Thanks goes to them in this instance. You can add to that the next day explanation, not backtracking but reemphasizing.

If you revisit the original link at the top of this discussion section, the AOL author re-explains his note: how “go to” is different than ‘move to’.

The show fans in New Zealand take exception to this flap and point out that Rush Limbaugh says he prefers to move to New Zealand when the tipping point some predict is reached. For now, every listener knows Limbaugh plans to stay and save America as the Constitution hangs by a thread.[ http://www.RushEcho.org]

There are three phases to the comment (not counting Monday the 8th of March) Phase One was the reaction the next day, Tuesday 9th of March; Phase Two was when H-Care Senate version was sign into law by President Obama; and Phase Three (the time to review the Rush comment again) will be in five years, the timeframe Rush mentions. I.e., if you firmly believe Mr. Limbaugh said he would actually follow US doctors to Costa Rica, you can look for the actual move to be in five years. FYI, he also says ‘reconciliation’ will be forgotten and we can live with the Senate version, etc.

Listen/watch the show for primary sourcing: [20] [21] Visit two new sites for leads to accurate secondary sourcing:: [22] [23] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Today, Rush Limbaugh says he takes five days off to look for healthcare in other nations but Costa Rica is now off his list ;-) "See you on Wednesday or Thursday", he says. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-issue and does not deserve to be put in an encyclopedia. I mean, you seem to be obsessed with whether he scratches his ass with his right hand or his left. Get a life people and leave these meaningless things out of Wikipedia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful advice—I'll be moving my attention to WP: Jargon_of_the_Rush_Limbaugh_Show. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I wrote that last night when I was tired and I didn't realize how it sounded until I just read it again. Sorry about that. I still don't think it belongs in the article, however. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Maintain Show and Jargon articles relevance also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh read a letter on his radio show that he had received a request from a national print outlet

Can't the grammar of this sentence be improved?211.225.34.134 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For consideration: On January 16, 2009, Limbaugh read a request from a national print outlet . . . ((PS: That would be the Wall Street Journal)) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination). patsw (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Where is the link to the source for "...highest rated talk show...

There is no source for this information listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tseay11 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source used in The Rush Limbaugh Show article.[24] It may be somewhere in here too, if not it should probably be placed in there to cite it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the wikilink, List of most-listened-to radio programs, speaks for itself. ----THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tom6612, 25 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I would like to correct the "Public perceptions" section of the Rush Limbaugh wiki page. This is the link to the page --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Please change

Since 1991, Limbaugh has had the most-listened-to radio talk show in the United States, with 14.25 million listeners a week as of March 2009.[139] In 2003, he peaked with an audience of nearly 20 million a week.[140]

to

Evidence of Limbaugh's audience size is uncertain. Arbitron has never released a national estimate for Limbaugh, and it says that the job is too complicated, expensive and time-consuming to bother with. Arbitron has never attempted to aggregate all of the data for his audience and according to their spokesman Thom Mocarsky "There is no economic motivation for any objective third party to do that kind of analysis."

The source for my requested change can be found in

Washington Post article "Limbaugh's Audience Size? It's Largely Up in the Air" By Paul Farhi, Washington Post Staff Writer, Saturday, March 7, 2009

This is the link to the article --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html

Tom6612 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Done - Since the references previously cited for the original sentence were unverifiable (one is 404 with no backup in the Internet Archive, and the other is a blank page), I went ahead and made the change as suggested. --Darkwind (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He's a Christian?

The categories at the bottom suggest he's a Christian, but no evidence is provided in the body of the article. This category should be removed unless it can be substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.148.141 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled thread

First off, sorry for not editing this page in the correct way. I am very unfamiliar with editing here.

I am writing to note this on the Rush Limbaugh page: "During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program, Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then stated, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" and held up to the camera a picture of the then-teenaged Chelsea Clinton. Responding to the ensuing criticism, Limbaugh claimed he had been handed the photo by mistake.[84]"

This is a false version of events. I recall that here on wikipedia, that version of events was attributed to the year 1993, then to november of 1992. Now I see its been changed to a vague "during the clinton administration".

I watched the Rush Limbaugh tv show every day when it was still on the air, and that's a phony description of events. Rush never asked that question "Did you know there's a White House dog?", nor was he handed ANY photos, much less made and claim that he was handed a wrong photo.

Here is what really happened:

http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

This wiki article uses Al Franken's book as a source for the false version of events, but that link debunks Franken's claims with a partial transcript of rush's show. Rush's detractors, including Franken, have in all these years has yet to produce an official transcript, or better yet, a video of this event they claimed happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.43.249 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this as poorly sourced and non notable. --Tom (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess this was added back, I haven't looked yet. I would still leave it out per undue weight unless it was widely covered and was some big deal, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments archived from /Comments

This entire article is written by an obvious democrat and attempts to portay Rush Limbaugh in every possible negative way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.88.69 (talk)

I am a huge Limbaugh fan but I find this article objective and fairly accurate though it did leave certain details of the Sen Reid letter fiasco out of the narrative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.119.5 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the pain-killer addiction?

Not even a statement that it occurred. This was pretty big news back then seems like it should merit a mention in his personal life section. I don't think sources will be too hard to find.Ukvilly (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• (Reinserting my comment below --Brendan19 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. This page is constantly being whitewashed by dittoheads (this time tjmcdj) to make Rush into a saint. I prefer just showing him to be the person he is- accomplishments, flaws, and all. I have restored the page to include all the relevant info. I also included info about a prop Rush used back in the Clinton administration- it was a photo of Chelsea. User threeafterthree seemed to think that a photo (i.e. prop) isn't relevant in the props section and also thought it was poorly sourced (the source was a book written by a current US Senator). I disagree to both of those contentions and, therefore, undid that whitewashing attempt also. --Brendan19 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• (End of reinserted comment)
  • I just removed a comment that wasn't really helpful. Can we try to stick to discussing improving the article rather than attacking othjer editors? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a list of dittoheads who constantly whitewash this page. Seems you are assuming bad faith edits. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page and I made no attacks to "othjer" [sic] editors. These are examples of personal attacks. I disagreed with you and this, the talk page, is the place to do that. Read this to understand why you shouldn't refactor MY words on a talk page. Do not remove my comments again.

All of that said, do you have any ideas to improve the article or did you just want to remove my words and tell people that you didn't really find them helpful?--Brendan19 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the poorly sourced "material" again. Was this "event" widely covered and was really that big a deal that it warrants inclusion in this bio. Maybe include it in the sub article about his show if at all? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can now see that this was, and is still, widely covered and I hope you are satisfied w/ the amount of sources. --Brendan19 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of sources is not as important as their quality. I still don't know enough about this event to tell if inclusion in the bio is warranted, by I hope others will chime in. I did remove some material which was not covered in the citations. Maybe the last sentence can be tweeked to reflect what the sources say? --Tom (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't chime in often around here, but yes, the pain killer addiction was big news. There was a period of time where there were questions about whether or not his addiction would lead to his incaceration and thus ending his broadcasting career.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it would be easier to support inclusion if we could get the section trimed. I think the overall situation is newsworthy. I'm not sure that (although i'm sure they were reported) that every arguement made by lawyers on both sides needs to be there. Do we need 800 words to say there was an investigation, he admitted a pain killer adiction, charges were dropped after he agreed to pay investigation costs and recieve 18 months of treatment.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the incident should be mentioned, but that it also needs to be pruned back to a more reasonable size. As a point of comparison, the article currnetly contains 35Kbyts of readable prose (according to User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js). The section dealing with his prescription drug addiction contains 3923 B (~11% of the total article) while his four year long nationally syndicated television show only receives 264 B (~0.75% of total article). Does anyone who supports in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight truly believe the addiction issue is 10 to 20x more important (a comparison implied by the roughly 15x size differential) to Limbaugh's public life than his television show? --Allen3 ^talk 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it can be trimmed quite a bit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking a really stupid question, but if there is nothing about his pain killer addiction, what's Rush_Limbaugh#Prescription_drug_addiction? NickCT (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That section at one point had been removed, and the removal was reverted by one of the people commenting in the thread. Here I believe. [25].--Cube lurker (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. Ok.. I'm with you. For the record, I think this section qualifies as notable and should remain. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clinton's have a dog material

Sorry for any confusion, I caused above. I wasn't talking about the pain-killer addiction, but about the story of Limbaugh busting on Chelsea. --Tom (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm still trying to figure out which are pending changes. They say nothing has really changed, but how do you tell which changes are the pending ones? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have the Reviewer privilege, then they are very hard to miss when you look at the history of a page under "Pending Changes" status. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Phony soldiers section.

The section on phony soldiers currently contains the following:

"and their article received substantial press coverage after it was discussed in speeches by Presidential candidates John Edwards and Chris Dodd."

which appears to be cited using:

Dems Criticize Limbaugh's Comments

This reference is no longer verifiable. Does anyone know of another source to substantiate this content? I am particularly concerned with the phrase "substantial press coverage" and whether the source supports the claim. --Rush's Algore (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this but did find the AP article being hosted at Breitbart.com. Hope that helps. †TE†Talk 05:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "substantial press coverage" since it was not supported by the reference in question. I don't have any objection to it being reinstated as long as a supporting reference can be provided. --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Public perceptions

Why is there a "public perceptions" section? I don't think he is running for office. He continues to enjoy unprecedented radio dominance. I'd say he is popular with the market segment he is interested in being popular with - what does the opinion of people who don't listen to his show matter? What other radio hosts have a "Public perceptions" section that seems to exist solely as a delivery mechanism for negative polling data? Howard Stern? No. Al Franken? No, and popularity would be directly applicable to him as he is now an elected official. A Google search shows that "Public Perceptions" as a section is exceedingly rare on wikipedia. If I were to find and source similar polling data that showed a negative light on former President Clinton's legacy (who now occupies a part-time activist role in leftist politics) and I added such a section on his page - how long do you think that would stay assuming it was all done correctly? A few seconds? And would that removal (which would be justified 14 ways to Sunday) have any bearing on this section continuing to exist on this article?

Looking at the polls themselves, the citation links are broken. The link on the Rassmussin poll just lists the result, but not any of the breakdown or who commisioned it. On the puplic policy poll, it jumps out right off that the poll was commissioned by Dean Debnam, who is a well-known booster for the Democrat party. I'm guessing that a poll conducted by your direct public enemy would normally be considered less than reliable? It would be interesting to look at the history pages for other polarizing figures and see how many similar polling sources were immediately (and properly) discounted as heavily politically biased. Zilla1126 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As no one has seen fit to weigh in on this, I will have to assume that there is no opinion either way. I'm going to remove this section. I would not object to it's re-insertion if there is a valid precedent of a "Public Perceptions" section on non-electable famous persons. In any case even if this is a valuable section, it should not be using polling data from known biased direct public enemies of the subject (Dean Debnam).Zilla1126 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Error in "Entertainment Props" Section

The article states that "abortion callers" originated in 1989 during his Sacramento radio program. Mr. Limbaugh moved to his national program on Aug. 1, 1988. SeattleRetro (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So did you fix it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Health Care and leaving the US

Limbaugh famously said that if the health care bill was passed, he would leave the country. He had also said previously he would be leaving New York because of higher taxes. Liberal commentators have pointed out he did not move in either case. I am wondering if we can include something about these controversies in there, with his responses. I'm sure we can't just include every controversial thing he has said without just blurting the transcripts of his whole show or something but these were points that have been repeatedly raised. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently he did recently leave New York, over 1 year after saying so; he did have a lot of stuff to tie up, so that is reasonable I would think. Here are a couple of ok links, but there need to be better ones for Wikipedia [26] [27]. Those are for the move itself; there are plenty of links to choose from on his original vow. Here I think the problem is not finding sources so much as making sure that they are reliable and preferably as neutral as possible. As for the leaving the country bit, here's one less biased source: [28]. The bit about him suggesting Costa Rica as his potential destination has been reported elsewhere as well as in that source. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Additions to "Further Reading"

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

Two additional books you may wish to add to the list of "Further Reading" under "Rush Limbaugh" are the two books by Keith Olbermann: "Worst Persons in the World" and "Pitchforks and Torches."

DavidBarrettCT (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)DavidBarrettCT, 1-8-11

What would Rush say?

"We can take this country wiki back. All we need is to nominate edit the right candidate article. It’s no more complicated than that." Join WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Conservatism. Lionel (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Purposefully Unflattering Picture

How about a more "unbiased" picture? There are plenty of decent pictures, if you want to use one from CPAC that aren't pictures of him mid-sentence with his mouth open looking angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.195.47 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What you seem to be unaware of is the fact that we cannot simply use whatever picture we find that we like. Rather, we need images that are, in essence, released into the public domain. I don't think the evil liberals here at Wikipedia have a bone to pick with Idina Menzel, but compare her picture on Wikipedia with some of the more "flattering" pictures of her out there. If you can find a better, free image of Limbaugh that we can use, please submit it. Otherwise, we're stuck with what we can get. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was going to say the same thing - however I don't think someone dumped it on here to make him look like an idiot. However, the CPAC picture is AWFUL - looks like someone took it with their phone camera. My suggestion is that you take the headshot that's currently lower down, move it up to the lead, and dump the CPAC picture completely - just because we have access to a picture doesn't mean we have to use it... I would have done the switch, but I didn't want to upset the local editors. Ckruschke (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Replacing the infobox picture with File:Rush_Limbaugh.jpg seems like a pretty good idea to me. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed minor edit to improve neutrality

{{Edit semi-protected}} In the 4th paragraph, the second sentence reads "He criticizes liberal policies and politicians and promotes positions viewed as conservative." (Note that "liberal" is linked, while conservative is not.) I appreciate that the second part of that sentence resists the oversimplification of political positions and thus more accurately captures the nuances of political stances and debates in America; the first part does exactly the opposite. In fact, it subtly suggests that there is such a thing as a monolithic, overarching liberal political stance or policy. This is no more true of "liberal" than it is of "conservative." Furthermore, making one term linked while the other is not reinforces this misconception.

I propose 2 changes.

1) Balance the uses of "liberal" and "conservative". For example, "He criticizes policies and politicians he views as liberal and promotes positions viewed as conservative" OR "He criticizes policies and politicians often described as liberal and promotes positions frequently viewed as conservative."

2) Link both terms or neither.

I hope that someone suitably vetted will consider and implement these changes.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.208.157 (talk)

I think the reason conservatism is not linked there is because Conservatism in the United States is linked in the first paragraph. "Liberal" in that sentence is linked because it is the first occurrence of that word in the article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Osborn is correct about the linking—we only link the first instance of any given word, per WP:MOSLINK. I'll let a more involved editor decide how to balance the terms. I agree that it does appear unbalanced right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I like "He criticizes policies and politicians he views as liberal and promotes positions viewed as conservative" as a factual statement that I think people of both parties would agree with. Ckruschke (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Rush Limbaugh and his "alma mater"

The article prominently lists Southeast Missouri State as Limbagh's alma mater (in the infobox). While he was enrolled there, the implication is that he got some substantial education there. In fact, he attended two semesters and one summer session, and basically failed everything. It is misleading to list SMS as his alma mater, as well as unimportant, and it should be removed from the infobox. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that we should add all the information we have that the infobox allows and not put our own interpretation of what is needed or not. If he had a short, year-long marriage to a non-notable person that didn't affect his life much would we omit that as well? It says (did not graduate) directly after SMSU, so nobody will be confused that he earned a degree there anyway. I don't see the harm of more information. But I can see the other side so I am not adamant about this—I'll defer to what other people think. –CWenger (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep it simple, as it is. (It already says, "(did not graduate)".) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you want to add, "He attended only two terms, and hated it." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• It actually is his alma mater. Alma matter does not only mean a graduate of the place. The Obama bio lists Occidental College as his alma mater. He did attend there, but he holds no degree from Occidental. The Jimmy Carter bio lists a college that he took 2 non-credit courses from. Other bios such as Michael Dell and Bill Gates list college alma maters, despite not having graduated from college. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

An alma mater can mean BOTH a school that you've attended and and one you've graduated from (per Merriam and several other dictionaries I Googled). Therefore the current statement is grammatically and factually correct. Per Rush's comments in the past, it would also be correct to insert both that he 1) failed everything and 2) hated it. For anyone who listens to the program, Rush has been very open about his dislike of formal schooling and his overall failure in it (which was probably helped along by his dislike). Ckruschke (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Just be able to source the info and don't do any OR/SYNTH (like speculating what created his dislike). Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

The "controversies" section is awfully long, isn't it? I have noticed that. The conservative personalities on wikipedia have an awfully long "controversies" section. I believe if you add up the "controversies" section and the "Drug Addiction" section, it would constitute the largest single section in the article. I don't recall seing a controversy section that long in the Michael Moore article. Wikipedia has a liberal bias, either by the administration or by the individual editors, but nevertheless, it has a liberal bias. Wikipedia will never be a serious encyclopedia until it gets rid of its liberal bias, which is worse than FoxNews' conservative bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is hilarious! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is par for the course for Wikipedia. An equally polarizing figure on the left would be Michael Moore. Look at his page and you find almost nothing but positive information, as well as a very nice picture of a very fat, ugly and angry man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.195.47 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you'd have to be quite polarized to see "nothing but positive information" in the Michael Moore article. Of course, you ad hominem at the end there supports my polarized theory as well. If you have additional criticism of Moore, sourced to independent reliable sources, please take it to that article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Totaly agree this section should be removed and reintegrated with the rest of the page (Wikipedia:Criticism sections).Obsidi (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As already noted, WP:CSECTION says, "For very long articles, such a section - appropriately titled - can be useful for users who are searching quickly for relevant information." This is certainly a very long article, considerably longer than the previously compared Michael Moore. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is because Wikipedia is concerned with the truth, and it's well known that the truth has a liberal bias. 134.115.64.73 (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to make yourself more framiliar with WP policies and guidelines, because "truth" has nothing to do with WP, it is instead verifiability. As for your notion about the supposed "bias" of truth, good luck finding a RS.Jarhed (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the talk page on Keith Olberman, a figure who is undoubtedly as far left as Rush Limbaugh is far right, does not have a controversies section because: "Criticism sections in biographies are discouraged on Wikipedia because they tend to attract excessive weight. The article currently includes criticism. Any criticisms should be placed in an appropriate section pertaining to the topic of criticisim, well sourced, in proportion to its importance, and take a long-term perspective (i.e., not overemphasizing recent events). Cresix (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)" Therefore the controversies section should be removed if Wikipedia is in fact unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.207.98 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason Keith Olberman lacks a controversies section is because he has little controversies surrounding him. More importantly, I believe that controversies play a legitimate role in undermining one's credibility. For example, I may take Limbaugh's comments about Viagra use or prostitution less seriously if I know the fact that he went to the Dominican Republic with Viagra in 2006. The controversies section in question plays a legitimate role in undermining Limbaugh's credibility on certain subjects. At the least, the public should know what topics a radio host is being hypocritical about.Buddylovely (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same Keith Olberman...? Ckruschke (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

This page does not exist to "... [undermine Rush's] credibility." I believe the general consensus is that criticism sections are to be avoided. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, yes. However, "For very long articles, such a section - appropriately titled - can be useful for users who are searching quickly for relevant information."WP:NOCRIT - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about a section of the page called "controversies", not the page itself. But I don't think that even the controversies section "exists to undermine Rush's credibility". No one said it does or should. But controversies speak to the other side of one's credibility, which is important in evaluating a media person's arguments. I don't see why criticism should be avoided if it informs.Buddylovely (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference as well between a Criticism section and a Controversy section. The purpose of a controversy section (ostensibly) is to outline notable occurrences of media frenzy, etc surrounding something the person has done, rather than just what people think about them. Mel Gibson's run-in with the police would be filed under "controversy", not "criticism", but a general statement that an individual is known for racial bias would clearly go under "criticism" (or not go at all, without a damn good source. --King Öomie 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Haney Project 2011

Should Limbaugh's season-long appearance in the Golf Channel program The Haney Project be included in this article? Limbaugh has stated numerous times that golf is a significant part of his life and as such is a staple topic in his radio show. 199.2.126.188 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, add it it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. He is the subject of a series of shows for the The Haney Project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.195.47 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done – Better late than never! –CWenger (^ • @) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh's Religion/Religious Affiliation

In order to understand Limbaugh's Easter Sunday 2011 program, I needed to find out his religion or religious affiliation. I assumed he was nominally Christian the way he was talking about "Jesus"...and WWJD...and WWJTake... But I wanted to be sure about his religious affiliation or identification or non-identification... But I didn't see anything here on Wikipedia or on his site... Can you help me out? I here he may be vaguely Methodist... Thanks. Emyth (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of controversial quotes from BLP

Several editors at Mike Malloy argue that Malloy's recent comment, asking when SEAL Team 6 will pay a visit to George W. Bush, doesn't belong in his BLP, but instead belongs in The Mike Malloy Show article. They argue that despite the fact that the comment generated more news coverage and reliable source commentary than anything else about Malloy. If that comment doesn't belong in his BLP, surely the less controversial comments of Limbaugh doesn't belong in his BLP. Drrll (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct. Also, WP guidelines for reliable sources need to be scrupulously applied to controversial statements.Jarhed (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Using opinions of a self-described "liberal infotainer" as "proven beyond doubt"

Why are contributors trying to use the opinions of a self-described "liberal infotainer"[29] to determine the truth of politically charged debates. WP:BLP requires we write conservatively (term used in the non-political sense). Depending on the word of a political opponent to determine what is or is not truthful does not qualify. --Allen3 ^talk 19:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Some people seem to be having difficulty understanding that when Al Franken documents systematic dishonesty with factual references and transcripts, this is reliable. There is no informed dissent, as far as I can tell, form the fact that Limbaugh is deliberately inaccurate. His "Reaganomics tax cut" table shows this beyond doubt, picking a date after the end of Reaganomics to include tax measures he opposes, in order to show that the poor had a "Reaganomics tax cut" when in fact tax take and tax percentage rose significantly due to those policies. There are plenty of other examples. Limbaugh is a polemicist, the inaccuracy of what he says is not even disputed by him as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)\

Franken is a self-described "liberal infotainer"[30] who since writing the referenced text has gone into politics. As such he has a clear and non-trivial bias and has repeatedly held opposing viewpoints to those held by Limbaugh. This means there is good reason to believe he has a axe to grind and is as likely to distort factual presentations for either political gain or simple comic effect. In short, he falls well short of the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" needed of a reliable source. --Allen3 ^talk 20:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Franken? Seriously? You're joking, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that for BLPs you must insist on high-quality sources. Any chance the liberal WP community would put up with using Rush's opinion on any number of liberals in their BLPs?? Drrll (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt Franken's book would be a reliable source even for a non-BLP article. And it is certainly not sufficient to state a person's "inaccuracy" as fact. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Michael J Fox

Clearly, Limbaugh is a controversial figure, and this is a tough article to balance. Not sure if this will go anywhere, but...

When I think of Limbaugh, the defining moment of his career in the last 10 years was his criticism of Michael J Fox. He claimed Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson symptoms. Hundreds of articles were written about and most news programs covered Limbaugh's perspective, as well as Fox's response. I would recommend a simple factual account of that encounter to be included on this page, something like, "On X date Limbaugh said the following:__________. Fox responded by saying the following: ________. Most major media outlets covered this exchange" I would be happy to source everything if there is agreement that this is a defining moment for Limbaugh. I don't know how new content is determined, but if # of media impressions has anything to do with it, this one would be right there at the top. It doesn't need to be listed as a controversy - could just be its own section entitled "Criticism of Michael J Fox."

I think the counter to this is that it was a short-lived story, so if it is deemed irrelevant to his broader career then I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it was a major event—perhaps not the "defining moment of his career in the last 10 years", as you put it—but quite notable. I don't think it warrants a full section though, probably just a few sentences in the 2000s section is appropriate. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Not defining, but notable. It looks like the article is locked. I'll just post suggested text here and let me know if this works: On October 23, 2006, Limbaugh said the following about Michael J Fox's Parkinson's symptoms: "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." [insert citation] Major media outlets criticized Limbaugh for his characterization of Fox's symptoms [insert citation], while Fox himself remained largely silent simply responding, "I'm kind of lucky right now. It's ironic, given some of the things that have been said in the last couple days, that my pills are working really well." [insert citation]

1st citation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html 2nd citation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400691.html, http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2006/10/27/fox 3rd citation: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/politics/main2121910.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Relevant, yes. Defining moment? What an overstatement. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, the only thing I'd recommend adding is a brief mention of what Fox was doing that prompted Limbaugh's remarks...if I recall correctly he was testifying before Congress. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, agree. Could just begin the first sentence with: "In October of 2006, Michael J Fox was featured in a political TV ad in which he advocated for stem cell research funding. In response to the ad, Limbaugh said the following:"

I can't add it to the actual article, as it's locked. Do you need anything else from me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. It is added. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, just curious, is there a way to send messages to individual editors or is everything done within article pages? It's kinda my second day here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can go to, for example, User talk:Jasonnewyork, and it works just like an article talk page. When a user's talk page is changed, they get a notification on all Wikipedia pages until they check it, and by default get an email notification as well. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Better photo

Come on guys, I think a litte better image would be in line. The probably 10 year old photo such as this one http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/rush-pubshot.jpg should do just fine. He's not a criminal, so don't use a photo that came from a low point, for which the charges were dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajabeytia (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

We cannot simply take whatever photo we want from the internet. Photos are copyrighted, unless otherwise stated. Please see the discussion above. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I think that photo is from the doctor shopping charges that were dropped when Rush paid $30,000.00, entered drug treatment, agreed not to own a gun for 18 months and agreed to undergo random drug testing. I don't think there was a booking photo from the time he was holding prescription drugs for a friend when stopped by customs officials while returning from the Dominican Republic. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look for one on Flickr. Connormah (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just contacted regarding one on Flickr...we'll see. Connormah (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest it is a pretty good picture, even though it's actually his mug shot. However, there are no signs that that is what it is and anybody who knows probably has an opinion about Limbaugh already, so I don't think we really risk biasing anybody. If there is a better picture I'd support it but I don't see a problem with this one. –CWenger (^ • @) 06:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

the current picture is great--Ambelland (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the picture as of this date; would like to see a second picture of Rush and Kathryn Limbaugh. It could be in a new 'section', perhaps covering their new company, "Two if by Tea", http://twoifbytea.com/ . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

source no longer available

Link number 62 " 62.^ "The way things really are" (PDF). Environmental Defense Fund. 1994. " is a dead link and needs to be changed or removed. TacfuJecan (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jarhed has fixed the link.TacfuJecan (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Edit request

I think the older image which was used before was a lot clearer, I would like to propose to change it to this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rush_Limbaugh.jpg

The picture you mention is more appealing photographically, but it is a mugshot, and thus violates Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) which is particularly important in Biographies of Living Persons (see WP:BOLP and WP:MUG). The photo choice is discussed in the thread above. Cheers. Overjive (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservative?

I think its misleading to call rush a conservative perhaps a ultra conservative or a neo conservative are better titles

Neoconservative is not accurate and ultra conservative is hard to define. Conservative encompasses both of these anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What does it tell you when the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) chooses Rush Limbaugh as their keynote speaker? [31] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• comment removed per WP:TPOC - Overjive (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)*

86.158.101.94 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would work real well in offending half of the Wikipedia audience! And where is your proof? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) . . .

Praising Ugandan killers - L. and the Lord's Resistance Army

"Radio gasbag praises Lord's Resistance Army, which specializes in abusing Christian children" Limbaugh embraces Ugandan killers salon.com Oct 26, 2011.91.39.97.221 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Add it in. It was addressed by multiple mainstream news sources. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll need coverage in independent reliable sources that say he "praised" them. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Claims" of Inaccuracy?

How are blatant factual distortions from Limbaugh "claims" of inaccuracy? The section should be relabeled "Inaccuracy", to account for his inaccurate depictions of the Lord's Resistance Army, among other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.138.72 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment removed per WP:BLPTALK which says, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." " When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page..." I've asked for input on the BLP Noticeboard. I request that we err on the side of BLP until they reply. Overjive (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Saw this on BLPN. Comment restored per WP:TPO -- and the fact that there's no BLP violation here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Overjive, please don't abuse WP:BLP to stiffle valid discussion on a talk page. IP-contributor: currently the content of that paragraph talks about "alleged" inaccuracies. If there is enough reason to change the text, then there would be reason to change the title. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 14:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Feedback from the BLP Noticeboard indicates I over-reacted. My apologies to the editor. I have restored the original section title. Please assume good faith. Cheers. Overjive (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Other languages red links

Does anyone know why the links to other versions of the article are red links? I checked the Japanese Wikipedia, and the title is correct, without redirection. Also, I can see the language links in other articles (e.g., Template:Cite web and Victoria Azarenka), so it is unlikely to be my browser.—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny: even if the links were to pages that didn't exist, they shouldn't appear in a different color. I mean, if there were a link [[ja:Bogus title]] to a nonexistent Japanese-language article, this should be presented in the same color (and with the same wording, "日本語") as a link to an article in ja:WP that did exist. Anyway, all looks good to me now. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rush limbaugh.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rush limbaugh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rush limbaugh.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should really bother to defend him on wikipedia, it's wikipedia, who cares? Let the liberals run crazy, we can then read it and chuckle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.156.24 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2012

the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. should be edited to read

the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. [citation required]

OR simply deleted 86.186.32.56 (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Such statements are frequently unsourced in the intro but cited in the main article; I checked and this was not, so added the tag. Dru of Id (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I cited it and put it back. - Xcal68 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Second edit request on 3 March 2012

There should be something in the lead about the controversies. It's about one quarter of the article, but nothing in the lead. 123.203.147.78 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That might be appropriate. How do you think it should best be worded? Try drafting it here and see what others think. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some editors want to wait a bit to see further how this plays out. Why make a major change prematurely? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP asks about controversies, plural. There have been a number of these. The IP should be welcome to suggest an addition, which can then be accepted, revised or rejected on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

Please change "Rush 24/7 Adopt-A-Soldier Program Limbaugh's website maintains a page where US soldiers can register for a free subscription to Limbaugh's online premium service, Rush 24/7, through memberships purchased by donors who buy a subscription (at a reduced price) as a gift.[79]"

which is currently under the heading "Charitable Work" to a heading of "Network Marketing" because the program described does not involve a donation-in-kind of goods to the military, but is a sale requiring payment from a 3rd party (referred to as "donor" in the article) to Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. a for-profit company. The program is initiated by, and results in the enrichment of Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. and does not meet the definition of "charity" as defined on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_(practice)) and therefore should not be classified as "charitable work".

Bigggs (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Paintedxbird (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Views on Immigration" section removed.

The section as it stood before my edit today, was entirely difficult.

The lead sentence reads "Limbaugh's views on immigration have changed over the years". Two comments follow, but only one is about immigration. There's no indication of any change, because only one specific view at one specific date is described, so there's no support for the sentence.

The source for the first comment came in what was originally a newspaper article about Limbaugh and ESPN that mentioned "an immigration agent" once in passing. The quoted extract, however, was wholly concerned with US jobs lost to NAFTA, and Limbaugh's opinion of Mexican people. The quote is there to support the idea that Limbaugh is in favor of legal immigration, but it's clearly NOT about immigration of any kind.

The source for the second comment is Limbaugh's own website. Unfortunately my search of it for the actual text of the source was fruitless, probably because it is now almost six years old. We might understand that his views on illegal immigration are hardline but, without a source and amplification, the sentence is empty.

Bearing all the above in mind, there seemed to be no point in having a section about Limbaugh's views on immigration, so I have deleted the entire section. Of course, if anybody has appropriate information with verifiable sources that support it, the section probably should be reinstated.Twistlethrop (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary style proposal

How about a breakout article, somewhere like Fluke-Limbaugh flap, just to describe this "breaking news" incident?

I don't think Sandra Fluke is notable, but the incident is encyclopedia-worthy. The exact same information should go in the Rush Limbaugh article, even if the Sandra Fluke article is deleted - or better yet, reduced to a redirect to Rush Limbaugh#Sandra Fluke remarks.

The problem is, we now have two different versions of the same incident to keep in sync. It's a lot easier to say that Rush criticized a Georgetown student for her remarks and use {{main}} to link to an article on the details. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Rush criticized a Georgetown student for her remarks"?? Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• That was my proposed topic sentence for a paragraph, to continue:

  Limbaugh disagreed with Fluke's logic (give details here)

  Limbaugh called Fluke several disparaging names, including "slut" and "prostitute"

  Democrats condemned Limbaugh for name-calling

  Some conservatives defended Limbaugh, but most condemned his name-calling

The point is to put a summary in the "Sandra Fluke remarks" section, and the details in a larger breakout article. The Sandra Fluke article can also refer to the breakout. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The summary is a good idea, but we have to be careful to not go over the top with the description of what happened. I removed one sentence that is a little extreme. Arzel (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, there is a big difference between a criticism of a political position and a personal attack on a private person. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh's response to critics

Rush Limbaugh's entire quote for his short apology should be included since it explains his position; leaving out the last two sentences is a disservice to Rush Limbaugh and his position and does a disservice to Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Limbaugh only apologize, or did he defend some part of his remarks? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can find WP:RSs who say that it wasn't a sincere apology, or wasn't an apology at all. --Nbauman (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't Limbugh's ENTIRE apology not posted?? A it is now it's just selective editing.

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Davemartin7777 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Davemartin 7777

Rep. Ron Paul said an apology by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke for calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" was not sincere, and was made only because it best served Limbaugh. On CBS News' "Face the Nation," the Texas congressman told host Bob Schieffer that Limbaugh's apology "was in his best interest." "He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off of his program. It was his bottom line he was concerned about," Paul said. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57390236/paul-limbaugh-apologized-for-personal-gain/ Ranchermannn (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea about the "entire" apology. I'll put it in the {{main}} article (see Limbaugh-Fluke flap). --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose merging Limbaugh–Fluke flap into this article ("Rush Limbaugh"), though in a much more condensed form. Wikipedia simply must distinguish between topics that it's possible to write about and topics that it should be writing about.

This incident/controversy/whatever doesn't merit its own article (especially at such a ridiculous page title—a "flap"? really?). This is a minor subtopic of a main topic (Rush Limbaugh) and should be covered in a section in the main article. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Pro: 6
2. Con: 14

• Support: as the one proposing this. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Do not support. One, the information would have to go into both articles, Sandra Fluke and Rush. This is the classic reason for a divide, now we have it. It is a big enough event for one. It has had days of national media coverage and he has lost repeated sponsors over it. Casprings (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said elsewhere, I think a separate article on this incident (or on Sandra Fluke) does a disservice to any notion of perspective and/or proportionality in Wikipedia's coverage. Simply because you can write a lot doesn't mean it's necessary. Editorial judgment requires us to make determinations about how significant this particular controversy is among all of Rush Limbaugh's other controversies. Maybe one day we'll be able to say that it fundamentally altered the rest of Mr. Limbaugh's life and career (citing reliable sources on the topic), but until then, can we at least strive for a reasonable approach and not devote pages to this? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Rush is losing sponsors. It still is national news. It's been so for about a week now. To me, that brings it to a level of needing its own page. However, one can disagree. The naming point is agreed upon and I fixed that because of pervious discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • WP is NOT a newspaper. Seriously, what is it with so many editors screaming "But it is in the news RIGHT NOW!" as evidence of historical value? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Because this summary on the Rush Limbaugh page is now completely inadequate. From reading this page, the reader wouldn't know that he called her a "slut," and a "prostitute," and wouldn't understand why there was such a negative reaction. It's not adequate to give a link to the full story. This is a POV fork, with a bland version of the story in the Rush Limbaugh page, and the full story in a less-accessible link, which will have far fewer page views than Rush Limbaugh. I think the summary with at least the full quote belongs on Rush Limbaugh. You can use Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy for additional detail, if you want, but not as a reason to delete essential information from Rush Limbaugh. --Nbauman (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  This version is good, no? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment i don't support merging the article, but i think the lengthier summary that was on previously should be put back on as it detailed the article in a concise way without purposely ignoring things as the current one does. Paintedxbird (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Merge It falls under what wikipedia is not WP:NOTSOAPBOX It can be considered defamation and libelous should be up for deletion with this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke Theworm777 (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Merge Don Imus' remarks about the Rutger's Women's Basketball Team did not get their own article and neither should this. --Oscar90 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Note: Nappy Headed Ho redirects to Imus in the Morning (section Rutgers women's basketball remarks) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Don't support merge since there is enough written about it for it's own article. However, the summary in this article should be improved. FurrySings (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sandra Fluke article is being proposed for deletion [32]. That article will probably be merged into Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy, so it will get longer. It shouldn't be merged again into this one. FurrySings (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a very detailed article and worthy of inclusion in my opinion. Perhaps when this dies down maybe then it can be merged, but now is not the time. AddThreeAndFive (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:Recent - nobody will care about this in two more weeks and the article will languish. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind - it is better merged with the Fluke article, was unaware it existed when I made my original comment. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose enough stuff and coverage for justifying a separate article. Expecially if the result of the Sandra Fluke AfD should be a merging into that article. And I add, differently from the other minor controversities in which Limbaugh was involved, this one received extensive and international coverage (i.e. Italian coverage: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38],[39],[40], [41], [42], [43], [44] and more). Cavarrone (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cavarrone. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This incident is hot news right now, but long-term notability has not yet been established. This should be a mention in Limbaugh's article and nothing more. Ithizar (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per several comments above, the incident is at present significant enough to stand on its own and a merge is premature. Whether or not it proves to continue as such in the future remains to be seen; nobody knows what effect, if any, that it will have on Limbaugh's career. Whatever happens will be a natural process for the article at that time, and a decision about the future of the article ought to be left until then.Twistlethrop (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – One of the things partisans around this issue disagree about is whether this is an isolated misstep on Limbaugh's part which only reflects on him, or if it is representative of conservatives and/or Republicans in general. By making this only about Limbaugh, that means choosing sides in favor of the view that it is only about him and not the groups he may or may not represent. Hence a violation of WP:NPOV. The title of the article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy (or Limbaugh–Fluke flap if you like) is just as much a violation of NPOV. There is wide disagreement about whether this was an attack on one woman, or an attack on all women, and there is disagreement on whether this is only about birth control, or about religious freedom, or about the wisdom of health insurance mandates. Naming it Limbaugh–Fluke is essentially damage control for those who hope to put the issue to rest and limit the fallout. At the other extreme, naming it Republican anti-birth control vs women's health debate broadens the issue for maximum resonance, and maximum damage to conservatives in general. Either of these two violates NPOV. It's going to take a lot more work to define the scope of this subject and find a neutral title. It's going to take a lot more work just to define the boundaries of the discussion of the article title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  NOTE I created an article about the "Republican anti-birth control vs women's health debate" at Contraceptive mandates. Feel free to help expand it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  You realize this all started with testimony on the Blunt Amendment, which was attached to some highway bill, would have allowed a moral (not only religious) exception to insurance coverage for any health service (not only contraception). It was for tactical reasons, on both sides, that this was narrowed to a religious freedom issue vs a contraception issue. And for many Republicans, it was any and alll mandates they opposed, not on moral grounds but because they wanted any avenue to undermine Obama's health reform. So every time you narrow this issue to something specific, you add a heap of POV. The reason I continue to feel, for now that Sandra Fluke is a good article title is that we can all agree, without bias, that Sandra Fluke's name is Sandra Fluke. Anything else you invent carries a POV. Although Blunt Amendment has a nice, neutral ring to it too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is more than a "flap". Nine national advertizers and one local station (in Hilo, HI) have droped Mr. Limbaugh since he disparaged Ms. Fluke. This is a serious blow to Limbaugh's standing as a radio commentator. The incident also has larger import in a national discussion on birth control that started weeks earlier when Obama admin issued rules on religious charities and their health plans. Moreover, guardians of Limbaugh's entry are likely to chip away at article after event falls out of news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cavarrone. -Mardus (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for current events I oppose this. Once it dies down it can be split into their respective biographies. As an example, suppose that Rush Lamburgh looses his career because of this, it could potentially go under his biography as the worst mistake of his career. We just don't know that yet. Keep it as-is for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.7.68 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the scope of the event goes far beyond Limbaugh. There was significant reaction by the media, the public, Congress, and the President. This is hardly a "minor subtopic", the uproar was enormous. --Pstanton (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a now a major event which will continue to be of importance and of debate. It is likely that this event will be one of the defining moments in his career. Ayzmo (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with the Oppose group for the present time, i.e. this is a dynamic contemporary event and many users of WP will benefit from reading this article in its present form for now. In the long run, once the controversy dies down, once we find out if this actually has a profound impact upon R.L.'s career, if its impact continues beyond the usual kneejerk reaction time of modern day news stories, then we will know if it deserves its own space. I believe that after a few weeks or maybe two months this will simply rate as another controversy in his career and at that time it should be moved into R.L. main entry. Also I see the Controversy section of R.L. as reaching the point where it should have a separate link, having enough substance to be a Sub in and of itself.

Ttommy69 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2012 T[{}]TVWVT 17:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)