Wikipedia

Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 11

< Talk:Rush Limbaugh
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 66.87.66.89 in topic Vaccination
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Eh?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, this is like a Bill O'Reilly for the radio? FeyBart (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Worldcat in EL

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Add template to external links:

Hospitalization for chest pains

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am completely at a loss as to why this section exists on the article. It makes the article look unpolished (the article as a whole looks just like a bunch of news stories slapped together in a patchwork fashion by disparate editors). The chest pains section is not notable - at most it deserves a sentence in a consolidated section about his health: Limbaugh suffered chest pains in 2009 but was later released. Colipon+(Talk) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh an antifeminist?

Latest comment: 12 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

I think we should plainly say that Limbaugh is an antifeminist, that is, someone who is against equal rights for women. Many scholarly sources call Limbaugh an antifeminist, or list him in a group of examples of the type, or discuss his antifeminist stance in very clear terms. Limbaugh coined the term femi-Nazi. Limbaugh is one of the shining examples of antifeminism, so why hide it?

  • Michael Kimmel, respected sociologist who helps us define antifeminism on Wikipedia, classifies Limbaugh as an antifeminist crusader on par with Lionel Tiger, Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers. (Misframing men: the politics of contemporary masculinities 2010, p. 67, Rutgers University Press, ISBN 0813547636.
  • Jacqueline Foertsch, associate professor of English at University of North Texas, quotes Limbaugh in what she calls "a typical antifeminist tirade", one that denies women's political claims. American Culture in the 1990s, 2010, p. 69, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0748622225
  • Kimberly Chabot Davis, professor of U.S. literature at Bridgewater State College, writes "anti-feminist media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh". Postmodern Texts and Emotional Audiences, 2007, p. 87, Purdue University Press, ISBN 1557534799
  • Susan J. Douglas, a professor of communications at the University of Michigan, describes Limbaugh as "simultaneously reasonable, combative, and avowedly antifeminist." "Letting the Boys Be Boys: Talk Radio, Male Hysteria, and Political Discourse in the 1980s", p. 499, in Chapter 23 of Radio reader: essays in the cultural history of radio, 2002, Psychology Press, ISBN 0415928214

I see many more examples in my searches, but four scholars saying he's an antifeminist, versus none saying he is not, is pretty decisive. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He's also a jerk, a nationalist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a big fat idiot, unofficial spiritual leader on the Republican Party, an addict of hillbilly heroin in recovery, a Viagra popin' tourist, and what else you got? Every single one of those I can get major and minor sources, including tin horn professors. The lead is not a place of condemnation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't trivialize the issue. The lead is a place for context and an accurate summary of the man's life. His fame comes from his political beliefs, and one of his prominent beliefs is that women should not have equal rights. This fact should be mentioned in the lead section and developed in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
WHOA WHOA WHOA! Show me where Rush does not believe that women should have equal rights. That is a pretty strong statement to make, you better to be able to back that up. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
As a suggestion, and not a command, a more civil phrasing could have been "You may have trivialized your argument". But I think my humor has masked my belief that Rush has all of those serious failings,which may all qualify the lead following your rational. When we say he is a "conservative", enough is said. The intelligent reader will know he is opposed on many women's issues and can get the details in the body.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Such statements do not belong in the lead of the article, IMHO. If the references are to be added to the article, it should be within the body somewhere, and the content should not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Conservative" is by no means equivalent to "antifeminist". We need to state the two separately. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Per burden, find me a notable conservative routinely aligned with feminist activists and causes. Probably because, due in no small part to Rush, intolerance of ideological deviance is so strong, e.g RINO, I can't think of one.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You did not include those who are neutral or silent on the topic. I can find plenty of conservatives who have not spoken against feminism or for antifeminism. Even so, strongly pro-feminist conservatives can be found at Feminists for Life and Susan B. Anthony List, including Sarah Palin, actresses Kate Mulgrew, Patricia Heaton and Margaret Colin, and of course SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. GOProud, Log Cabin Republicans and others who support gay conservatives are feminist and conservative, including Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, Chuck Muth, Margaret Hoover, Grover Norquist, Jimmy LaSalvia, Christopher R. Barron, R. Clarke Cooper, and Patrick Guerriero. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Even though a lot of work and thought has gone into Bink's argument, and such effort is a plus to not be dismissed thoughtlessly, consensus has not apparently changed. And I'm still not swayed for one reason: The rigidness of conservative makes conservative anti-feminist, and anyone of like mind, i.e., Rush, is not unusual. In a Bizarre world, if Rush had at lest one feminist bone in his body, that would be notable enough to be in the lead. As it would be if he had a third arm or a degenerative condition like that of Stephen Hawking - which is mentioned in his lead. We, however, don't mention that Einstein had all limbs functioning properly. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
In this discussion I'm not seeing any solid WP:Consensus against putting the word "antifeminist" in the lead section, just a !voting bloc of editors who don't like it, opposing a large collection of sources that support the word, and editors who are making better arguments. Glaringly absent are scholarly denials that Limbaugh is an antifeminist. Per WP:LEAD, we should summarize text that appears in the article body, and in the body, Limbaugh is described "critical of feminism" which I consider too weak per the sources. I propose that the article text be beefed up to match the stronger term "antifeminist" which is supported by scholars, and then the lead section should mention the word. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
An army of one, not matter how righteous it may feel, is not a consensus bloc. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - I find "reliable sources" calling many of the individuals you cite as being "anti-femminist." Sorry - that is a "weak argument." Collect (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. Try this one for size: [1] COULTER: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. That is such a categorical dismissal of her gender. I wouldn't ever call her pro feminist. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
there is a wide consensus from many, many reliable, verifiable scholarly sources saying that he's antifeminist. it's not "condemnation", it's what has been written time and time again by academics and it is notable. here's some more:
Constructing Masculinity by Maurice Berger http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xEcHahwJNDMC&pg=PA286
Aesthetic Subjects by Pamela R. Matthews http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CEpQybKalXIC&pg=PA127
Going Rouge: Sarah Palin: An American Nightmare by Betsy Reed http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LcZxEJ4KniwC&pg=PA286
Eight lessons in love: a domestic violence reader by Mark Spilka http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jwq6pJwyEDEC&pg=PA13
Women in higher education: a feminist perspective by Judith Glazer-Raymo, Estela Mara Bensimon http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Id8_AQAAIAAJ (pg 63)
There's a Word for It!: A Grandiloquent Guide to Life by Charles Harringto Elster http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MKZc3ZrUED0C (pg 130)
The Nation vol 207 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6dFNAQAAIAAJ (pg 91)
A not so foreign affair: fascism, sexuality, and the cultural rhetoric of American democracy by Andrea Slane http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_piHZ-C6mVcC&pg=PA87
Contemporary feminist theory and activism: six global issues by Wendy Lynne Lee http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2xrfr-dyuTUC&pg=PA2
It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office by Jennifer L. Lawless, Richard L. Fox http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X3PkMhfHxM8C&pg=PA72
Motherhood and feminism by Amber E. Kinser http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eI3irDuAQXEC&pg=PA96
Psychoanalysis, Historiography, and Feminist Theory: The Search for Critical Method by Katherine Kearns http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lv6plgMnhewC&pg=PA20
Feminist approaches to social movements, community, and power, Volume 2 by Mary Ann Tétreault http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7UMSz2oTnhYC&pg=PA2
Big girls don't cry: the election that changed everything for American women by Rebecca Traister http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cQ0ciqF3F5gC&pg=PA148
Ranting Again by Dennis Miller http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vvdvpZBSIj0C (pg 92)
The New York Times biographical service, Volume 21 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EUUoAQAAIAAJ (pg 1196)
Women's issues, Volume 1 by Margaret McFadden http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=IBRfT6SpHeSp0QXyxe2qBw (pg 61)
American Decades: 1990-1999, Volume 10 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uCkOAQAAMAAJ (pg 384)
Climbing the Hill: gender conflict in Congress by Karen Foerstel, Herbert N. Foerstel http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gM5e21TrpecC&pg=PA140
some news and paper publications:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/magazine/the-rush-hours.html?pagewanted=9&src=pm
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1997-06-06/entertainment/18028270_1_rush-limbaugh-equal-time-fund-raising
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/106303/sayonara,_sarah_palin/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33278077/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/t/countdown-keith-olbermann-friday-october/#.T18dO22VWSo
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-07-19/news/1993200167_1_limbaugh-conservative-and-liberal-ron-smith
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-05-25/features/9705250283_1_feminism-word-overalls/2
etc. there's more if you need any.
Paintedxbird (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Limbaugh did not coin the term "feminazi" and a few other misstatements, it is clear that Limbaugh opposes what he views as "extreme or radical feminism", but that is not exactly the same as being anti-feminist, or opposing equal rights for any group. The idea of a BLP is that it presents an NPOV overview of the person, not that it seeks to compartmentalize them in any way. WP:BLP/N has a discussion where some of the "sources" are shown to use opinions quite heavily - hence are citable as the opinions of those holding them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

i think what you mean is "it's clear to me, because i like rush limbaugh." didn't you try to like say sandra fluke wasn't notable for inclusion on the article as well? "extreme and radical feminism" yeah, or according to rush... feminism. antifeminism according to OED: "one opposed to women or to feminism; a person (usu. a man) who is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights." http://oed.com/view/Entry/8617 Paintedxbird (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? When you dissemble that way, I wonder what you are trying. I said that Fluke did not merit a separate BLP per BLP1E. And that is all I have said on that matter -- and that is what the clear consensus was at that AfD. And as the OED does not say Limbaugh is "antifeminist" that definition does not have any bearing on the discussion here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So there are opinions by other individuals who view the subject of this article as being anti-feminist. If said material is to be added somewhere within the article it shouldn't be given undue weight, and the OPINION of those other individuals should be attributed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there really a dispute over this - in the world outside Wikipedia, I mean? He's as much opposed to feminism as Phyllis Schlafly is; she's just more polite about it (not to say, ladylike). The only question is whether his antifeminism makes him "anti-woman" (i.e., waging a War on Women as his opponents might say). There's more on this at Contraceptive mandates#Framing the issue.

On the other hand, in light of BLP, it might be better to cite those who have labeled him an "antifeminist".

  • College professors such as (this list of four) regard Limbaugh as antifeminist,

Let's not confuse "reliable sources" with "objective sources". None of the four lady professors mentioned above has a Wikipedia article, but they're probably notable enough for us to report what their viewpoints are. That doesn't mean what they said is true, only that it's verifiable. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since several reliable sources consider him "anti-feminist", of course, the subject belongs in the article. In fact, Rush Limbaugh himself would proudly to wear the label, provided we don't correlate it with "anti-woman," since the two are not the same. Whether the term should be used in the lead, however, depends on the degree to which the issue defines him. In my view, feminism is just one of many liberal causes he opposes and to use "anti-feminist" in the lead would make more of it than other characterizations that could also be supported by sources but opposed by editors, such as "patriot" or "anti-environmentalist". 71.242.92.164 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If the content as proposed by Ed Poor is to be added the appropriate section would be Balance and point of view as there is already similar content in that section.
That being said, the article already has a statement stating that the subject is critical of feminism is that sufficient to meet WP:BLP#Criticism and praise? Is that not enough weight that further inclusion of other person's OPINION of the subject is required? Is it to much weight already as it is presently written and should the sentence be removed? Is the present content sufficient and no addition is necessary?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Feminazi: Hazlett or Limbaugh?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Aside from the fact that Limbaugh did not coin the term "feminazi"... Collect (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC) (another editor moved this single line - my actual post is above, and I make this note so people will know that I do not approve of redacting my comments and posts in this manner - Binksternet should know better than to do this sort of "edit") Collect (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding copying part of your post and moving it to start a new topic, I have no problem with doing this sort of thing again if it strikes me as practical. Your disapproval is registered for the record, but this sort of practice is not disallowed at WP:TPG. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It is only highly discouraged. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted seems reasonably clear - and is what you should have noted and not "but it is not illegal." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I've got two scholarly sources saying Limbaugh coined term femi-Nazi. The only source saying he did not is Limbaugh himself in his first book, and he contradicts himself in his second book. It's a matter of who appears to have coined it making it so: somebody other than Limbaugh—his CATO colleague Tom Hazlett—may have been first to utter the term, but the public did not find this out, so what does that matter? A tree falls in the forest... The net result of Hazlett's inaction and Limbaugh jumping on the term is that Limbaugh effectively coined it for large scale consumption, and he is thus forever linked to the term. S. T. Joshi notices that Limbaugh contradicts the story about Hazlett in his second book: in The angry Right: why conservatives keep getting it wrong, Joshi writes on page 241, "Limbaugh has, of course, gained notoriety by his popularization of the word feminazi (but remember, he doesn't want to offend anyone). In his first book he states that one Tom Hazlett coined the word (W, 193); in his second he states that he coined it himself (S, 88)." Joshi's citation style indicates that the specific passage is in See, I Told You So on page 88. So who do we believe? Limbaugh who contradicts himself, or scholarly sources? Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Your only problem is that it appeared in 1989 in the LA Times. As being on a sign - and not from Hazlett or Limbaugh. [2]
Los Angeles (CA) Times
4 July 1989, Los Angeles (CA) Times, “It will be the poor women that are hurt” by Eric Bailey and Lynn Smith, Metro, pg. 1:
“The day of the unborn is here,” the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Orange County-based Traditional Values Coalition, declared to cheers and cries of “Amen!” from anti-abortion activists holding placards reading, “Thank You Lord for This Victory in Life” and “Feminazis Go Home.”
So I tend to believe the first noted appearance in print from 1989. YMMV, but I suggest that saying a person created the term after 1989 would not fly. Collect (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the possible precedence of a verifiable source in the Los Angeles Times in 1989. Do we know exactly when Hazlett may have used the term, or when Limbaugh first broadcast it? He began airing his show a year earlier than the LA Times story, so he could still be first. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
We do not - but Merriam-Webster seems to cite the 1989 date. The stories usually ascribe Limbaugh's use to the "early 1990s" which is after 1989. I found no printed source for Hazlett's use. Collect (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

edit request

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This sentence has major grammatical issues. Someone might want to take a stab at either fixing it, or just removing it.[3]

In 2012 Limbaugh's questioning law students virtue which led to repudiation of the comments from political figures and and advertising boycott, both of which preceded an apology by Limbaugh for the comments.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC) The template documentation says be specific. So my specific suggestion would be remove the sentence completely at this time.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparison vs called

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a simple empirical matter: Rush never compared Fluke to a slut, he never said her testimony makes her like a slut, he said it makes her a slut, and a prostitute too. Sources used do not say he compared or likened her to a slut. And a Google search for "rush compares fluke" without quotes produces no RS that calls Limbaugh's insults comparisons. It is POV to cut RL waaay more slack than he deserves to tone down what he said. The reader may wonder what the big deal is since it was presented as far less egregious and insult, and not the defamation it actually was. - The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

WSJ 2005 opinion piece

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I tagged the 2005 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece section as undue emphasis because it purports to define the conservative movement but it does not complete this mission—it does not say how Limbaugh's definition, such as it is, contributed to the conservative movement. I wrote a hidden message in the article, "The editorial must be shown to be significant or influential. Third party comments are required or the section should be deleted. There is too much emphasis on Limbaugh's words, cherry-picked by a Wikipedia editor rather than selected by a notable observer." The section must be radically altered, either by deletion or by expansion to include third-party comments about Limbaugh's op-ed piece. The header must be changed to accommodate the content.

Patsw added the section way back in November 2005. I think it should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This notable observer standard is nonsense. Op-eds in publications like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal represent judgments made by their editorial boards to print significant points of view not necessarily in agreement with them. It's a source for the views of Rush Limbaugh on being a conservative by Rush Limbaugh, and when I entered this into the article 7 years ago, it mostly contained the views of Rush Limbaugh according to (or projected by) his detractors. It is due weight for his views in this article.
He at present is the nation's most prominent conservative, and for the Wikipedia editing consensus to choose to delete his view of what it means to be a conservative does not demean him, it only brings disgrace upon Wikipedia. I have restored it. patsw (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Support this restoration - all to often the thoughts and positions of the person the article are about (part of what you really want to know about the person, who he is, what his beliefs that define his notability are) are removed and replaced by what partisans and opponents think about them. Youreallycan 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Patsw is opposed to any consensus he emotionally labels a disgrace. In short, he is opposed to the very foundation of WP. So far support for inclusion is based on because it is true, but not one supporter has dealt with the OR issue or that it's all from a primary source, both of which were mentioned in the edit summary. Primary sources such as this, and selective editing of the source is WP:OR. There are plenty of secondary sources that can fairly flesh out RL's views, and a diligent editor will have no problem using them. - The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As of 2012-03-15, it is the second Rush Limbaugh item. patsw (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Until it is brought over here, it is not part of this discussion, and I trust Patsw to honestly relate the distant discussion. ~ The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
What? Any noticeboard discussion about an article will most certainly have ramifications on that article. I don't understand what you think would have to happen—what "brought over here" means—before it would be "part of this discussion." It already is part of this discussion.
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rush Limbaugh op-ed piece. I think it is good that Patsw initiated the discussion there. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Article stand alone, and I am interested in what point Patsw is trying to make. An editor is not obliged to respond to arguments not made on a talk page. And I am not of a mind to interpret or guess at what Patsw's point might be. _ The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Purposely not paying attention to relevant noticeboard conversations is hiding the head in the sand. Ignoring the discussion does not make it go away. No article stands alone—that's nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are claiming that there's a violation of guideline policy and I dispute that, then a posting on the noticeboard is to involve the community outside of this article in resolving the application of the guideline or policy. The disputed content is not self-published, it appeared in the Wall Street Journal. patsw (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Makes her a slut"

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In a good faith attempt to establish verifiability of an opposing edit. I have not found a RS that calls RL's defamations a comparison in anyway. He said her testimony "makes her a slut". Where is the comparison in that? And after that, the RS we need to say any variant of "comparison"? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Lindberg seems to hold those traditional conservative views that unmarried mothers wanting taxpayer funded abortion on demand at 24 weeks gestation and free contraception and morning after pills are not good living religious girls, it seems hair splitting to focus on whether he called her a slut or said her actions were slut like. Youreallycan 10:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup, he called her... Not compared. Agree with your sentiment. - Xcal68 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters

Latest comment: 12 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

Though I think Media Matter for America accurately reports, I don't think we can use them in this case: they were instrumental launching the advertising boycott. _ The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

All accuracy is selective and is there a great reporter who had no bias? -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
My main issue is the source and the information being attributed to them. They're certainly not the ones who should make a claim of what constitutes an attack by someone they are against in the first place. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop removing, factual, well-sourced, highly relevant information from the article. Please stop deliberately falsifying the narrative. — goethean ॐ 16:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'v e added three sources and can add an indefinite number of citations, since this is a widely-reported, common-knowledge fact which you have twice inexcusably removed from this article. — goethean ॐ 16:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • First, I don't care what YOU call inexcusable. That's simply your opinion and I am allowed to not share it. Keep your bad faith allegations to yourself sunshine. Second, if you have all these sources, then use the non-advocate one. MM admits they exist to go after conservatives. That means their wording etc will often reflect their bias. Can't you simply use a mainstream source that doesn't have a mission statement proclaiming their bias? Is that so difficult? Lastly, your alarmist wording looked more like a case of making a point than a case of worrying about clarification. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please do not remove well-referenced, widely-reported, common-knowledge, highly relevant facts from the article in a partisan attempt to falsify the article's narrative. The information can be sourced from hundreds of articles. Stop removing this information from the article. — goethean ॐ 16:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For the second time, stop with your bad faith allegations. I did replace the word "assail" because it does have a very negative connotation. Just made it a little less POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I'm not sure how else to accurately characterize your substitution of Republican fantasy for well-documented facts. Now haranguing someone on the radio for three days, calling them a slut and a prostitute, isn't attacking or assailing them, it's simply "using some words". The double-speak here is Orwellian. But I've used up my reverts and so you've won! Congratulations. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 1) You're not sorry. Don't insult anyone by pretending you are. 2) Who are you talking to? I haven't put in any "fantasy". I, personally, have made one removal of a source that I felt was suspect. Obviously other editors felt the same. I didn't contest the info being inserted, simply implored you to use a non-biased source. So how you make the leap to me repressing the information makes no sense. In other words, stop addressing me like I've personally been responsible for everything. Address me over what I personally have done. Lastly, I stand by my removal of the inflammatory wording. Now, you can start acting in good faith, stop making allegations to editors that aren't accurate and try to do something productive or you can continue your hysterical agenda driven tantrums. You choose. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)'
  • You removed well-sourced, factual, relevant information from the article, the removal of which will give readers the false impression that Limbaugh only called Fluke a few names. Now that I've supplied three other reliable sources, which took me about 5 minutes to collect, you water down the wording on the nonsensical grounds that calling a private citizen names over the radio for three days straight is not "attacking" or assailing" them. Orwellian doublespeak. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Argh, You expose your battlefield POV, win lose, us and them mentality - an attitude that only serves to disable consensus discussion and the good faith of others. Youreallycan 16:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, my inclusion of well-known, well-sourced, common-knowledge, widely-reported relevant facts to the article is nothing but an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a battlefield. And the other editors' attempts to remove these well-known facts is only because they care about nothing but Wikipedia neutrality. You've got me all figured out! — goethean ॐ 17:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The repetitive use of that phrase to try to make your POV sound better exposes something else, but it would probably be a personal attack for me to discuss that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Gone from yet another editor. And what does he say in the edit summary? He doesn't contest the info. He contests your POV sources and inaccurate representation of the others. Get unbiased sources and make a NPOV entry. It's simple. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Goth, I think you meant to post on the other article.
No, he meant to post that here - he is saying that on the event article - the addition is currently included in that article supported only by the media matters citation and he in the manner of WP:Otherstuffexists invites editors to go there and remove it in a similar way as has occurred here. Youreallycan 19:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, we can do this civilly and leave out getting butthurt over silliness. I would like to include text that says the attacks continued for 3 day, and if true, we should include that he continued to defame Ms Fluke. I can look for it and I hope other try to do so too. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This [4] would probably work? It mentions the 3 thing right in the start. On a secondary note, I personally would like to see words like "assail" and "attack" left out, unless directly quoting the source. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Works great and has been used. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Now see, wasnt that simple? Just find a reasonably mainstream source and write it in a NPOV format, then nobody contests it. Kinda shoots the conspiracy theory about "partisan" attempts to "falsify" right out of the air. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke comments - overlarge

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This section has again recently been expanded and considering it has its own article its overlarge - I was going to template it but will look for opinions first - Youreallycan 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I am also considering a article top NPOV template - this living person seems to me to be under attack from partisan editors. - Youreallycan 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, has suggested POV, but we have no way of knowing for what reason. It would help consensus to have the view substantiated, not alleged with no details. As for notability, baselessly defaming a citizen as promiscuous, and losing almost, if not all, national advertisers. Forget about Mr Obama and Mrs Pelosi, major Republican figures have often retracted any criticisms of Rush, ,but this go around, Mr Boehner, Mr Santorum, Mr Romney and others repudiated the comments as undignified. By any math, that is striking and notabe. Rush may think it is overblown, and those sympathetic to Rush's plight may agree with him that he is the victim of media unfairness, but the high bandwith the scandal has generated would make it POV to restrict and diminish the defamation and its reprecusions. As far as I know it's the first time he has been compelled to apologize, not faux apologize as he did with Michael J Fox. That is, flat out admit to being wrong, not possibly wrong. But however certain I am of that, notability is something consensus will determine, and in which I am glad to participate in a civil manner. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding S Fluke - the issue has its own article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy - content coverage here is supposed to be akin to a concise summary of the issue. Youreallycan 22:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Show me, please, the guideline or policy that limits what a article can say due to another article. WP articles stand alone. - The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually - the idea of linked articles is that the main article only has a summary of the sub-article. Making multiple articles with large overlaps is contrary to WP guidelines. See WP:SUMMARY. Collect (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Do tell. I'll take that guideline to heart for the moment. Forget that, I already may seem to have done so; my edit is somewhat shorter one,though not by much. I do think, however, that holding RL accountable resulted in my edit not being bulky And without conceding the point that the non policy of Summary is a good one, I'll nonetheless in the spirit of compromise make the section less precise. verbose than YouCan. And anyone restoring long ass committee names is acting against the Summary guideline. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

I'm glad to report that per the consensus of keeping the Fluke section brief, I have been able to reduce it by almost 2,500 bytes (:--}> - Anytime, y'all. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Make that almost 3,300 bytes. -The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It need be only 1 paragraph, everything else belongs in the subarticle. It should be short, concise and neutral.
The sub-article should also follow BLP & NEU as it is a sub-article of this article.
Last time I was involved in something like this was the major pile on by those opposed to then Senator Ensign. It appears that this article is experiencing the same.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no policy making an article contingent upon a secondary article. The RL ad boycott is unprecedented and will make his obitruary. Remember, he baselessly defamed a private citizen. Reports are noting how remarkable that the scandal has not faded. Also, POV forking is a concern. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The above is editorial opinion. As I said before the sub-article is still subject to BLP and NEU. Any information here should be brief and written in a neutral manor that neither advocates for or against the subject of the article.
As it stands the section is much better than it use to be but can use some tweaks to improve it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, its better, thanks mr AKA, but I agree it could be better still. If I have time later I will write a summary of the events. Youreallycan 10:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Clarify timeframe template added

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

WP:DATED states "Avoid statements that date quickly, except on pages that are regularly updated..." This page is regularly updated. Also, your given reason - for adding the template - is WP:SPECULATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcal68 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC) And here's a bbc link [5] less than a couple weeks old referring to him being #1. - Xcal68 (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I should probably link to what I'm talking about. :) This [6]. I undid it and put in a recent reference. - Xcal68 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
That's all I wanted. Thanks for your edit. -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

When to reconsider moving Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy to Rush Limbaugh

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

As with all recent events pages, at some time, it becomes necessary to re-evaluate significance. At this point, a page narrowly devoted to RL-SF is losing its relevance by the day. Advertisers have bolted, ratings decline, then ratings go back up, advertisers come back. A one month dip (which it is looking like) in ad revenue will no longer look like a big story. As long as the focus is narrow, the relevance is low. Either there has to be some change that warrants a topic with broader implications (and NO, not the Sandra Fluke page) or the move will have to happen. Not necessarily NOW, but at some time209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Really. Which advertisers have "come back? Are any of them national advertisers? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
According to Talkers Mag (Radio industry mag), ratings for the RL show are better than in years209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Non sequiter. Or, what is your point? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Such content, referenced to a reliable source should be included in the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy if anywhere.
If it is found through another AfD sometime in the future as consensus can change, or through a merger discussion, that the subject Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy no longer meets WP:EFFECT then the content there can be summarized to bare bones and merged back here in the appropriate section. One can argue WP:RECENT, but as it stands it does not appear such arguments would be currently persuasive to those who seek to keep the article alive as a separate (but related) subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This is hard to understand, as in impenetrable. It would be clearer, perhaps, if it were not one tortuously long sentence. You might think algebraic logic is needed to crack the code. When citing policies (or quasi, krypto, neo sorta, kinda, but not really), no one is obliged to read them when the editor has not pointed out how those policies/guidelines apply. We are simply left to guess, and I have to confess complete failure to figuring it out what arguments have been so poorly attempted. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that, while it may have seemed significant, 3 weeks ago, based on what the controversy MIGHT have produced; either the removal from the airways or a wide-ranging debate, the whole flap is dying out, therefore, is becoming just another Rush Limbaugh controversy. It is perhaps notable in that it became bigger that previous campaigns because of the coordinated use of social media and mass media, but otherwise, no. Use of bad words and shock at use of bad words is not in and of themselves historic. Admittedly leading indicators (allowing that something may happen) are i) that the major coordinators of this campaign, Media Matters, have stopped (1-2 weeks ago) posting daily reports of RL loss of advertisers. ii) the same org is now having to BUY time to attempt to keep this alive (essentially an admission that the campaign on the internet is failing) iii) reportedly RL ratings are back up to beyond what they were pre-flap; a leading indicator that whatever damage to be done has already been done, and advertisers inevitably follow. iv) media coverage of RL comments is now restricted to partisan blogs of both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Very brave to speculate what RightLeft tried to convey, but since none of the explanation actually refers directly to the post, I will rather wait until the editor being explained can actually tell us what was meant. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because an editor does not agree with the opinions of other editors, that doesn't mean that the other editor's comments should be ignored due to laziness to read the underlying guidelines and essays that are relevant to our current discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Arguments have to be made, not alluded to. Referring to a policy w/o explaining its relevance makes for no argument at all. Other editors who read them will have to guess how they apply. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Too many quotes

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

[This section was attached to an much earlier discssion and thereby made more difficult to follow.]

The section that should summarize the main article has to many quotes and by doing so makes the section too long and does not keep a neutral POV that can summarize the reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary for the direct quote to be part of this article, it is not necessary for the direct quote to be included in the article, or partial quotes from the apology or Fluke's reaction. Such information can be neutrally stated in prose. To leave the quotes creates undue weight to this section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We work by consensus, not by the view of one editor, and we don't go deleting RS's that accurately report what happened. There is no way to fully convey RL's egregiousness except by the quote, and POV words like 'contentious" need a RS. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


In the clearest case of POV pushing I have seen, RightCow removed any mention of Rush saying "slut" or "prostitute". That fact alone is damning. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. But if one quote is in, the apology quoye also belongs in per UNDUE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
They are not equivalent, and WP is not a negotiation. It needs to be explained what is inadequate about the prev quoting and summarization of RL's apology. A word count is not a valid argument; substance matters, not RL's verbose repetition of the same idea. I can't think of anything beyond the quoted defamation that can convey it the scope of it's mendacity". I would suggest censoring the words and only allowing that they were "contentious" is the poorest possible attempt. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry -- but POV is showing in your above post, and in your edit summary of ""contentious" is not supported or used by source, but "branding" as a slut is - his apoology is fairly described and the full quote adds nothing, the shamlessness of the defamation can only be understood by a full quote and in your edit summary of as hpocritical as this is, he sure did think it, and he said again and again, it is nonetheless the record and RS to state otherwise is needed. WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know POV was bad, bad, bad on Talk pages. Hmmm. The myth of fair, balanced and unbiased perhaps? Really, why is there no talk of the RS's used. They're inconveniently accurate in relating what a scumbag Rush is? Ooops, DOBBY MUST NOT USE POV ON TALK PAGESThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

infobox picture

Latest comment: 12 years ago39 comments11 people in discussion

This pic is not a picture of the standard requested for the infobox of a biography and I have replaced the previous more MOS compliant picture - The user that removed it User:Andrewlp1991, nominated it for deletion at commons where it is so far snow Keep.Youreallycan 15:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The caption says only - Rush with the star of 24, Kiefer Sutherland - nothing about any website - Youreallycan 08:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
READ THE FLICKR CAPTION: "Kiefer Sutherland (note that the Limbaugh website spelled it wrong)..." Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
That says nothing about the copyright status or ownership - the uploader/flikr account could easily be the owner - they have a strong level of copyright at flikr and there is no reason to assume they are not the photographer and they gave the pic to Limbaugh to use. Youreallycan 21:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
But a lot of copyrighted photos do get tagged with free commons licenses incorrectly at Flickr. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe no info box pic until a suitable one is found? - Xcal68 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I have remove the pic Andrew is repeatedly inserting - its in violation of - WP:MOSIMAGE in a biography - the discussion is still snow keep at commons for the previous pic and as such there is no reason at all to repeatedly remove it from this article no matter what Andrew thinks.Youreallycan 08:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a bio of a living person and pictures should be of a decent quality and represent them in a decent way , preferably in a portrait style - that pic falls well below the standard we are requested to aim for as is detailed in WP:MOSIMAGE Youreallycan 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Please let me start by saying that I haven't decided what image I think should be used. But I am having a problem with your declaration that this one "violates" the MOS. What is "preferred" is not what is required. Similarly, what "should" be doesn't mean that it must be. Now then, I looked at MOSIMAGE and I don't see the requirements you are repeating. Are you perhaps repeating something you read at WP:IMAGES? Now, the pic in question..... does it represent him in a "decent" way? I'd submit it does. Neatly dressed, in the process of delivering an address to a large, respected convention. I don't see where that damages his reputation in any manner of what is less than "decent" about it. Could the quality be better? Sure it could. But I don't think it is of such poor quality that this article would be better off with no image in lieu of this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It looked blurred and if you didn't know it was him you would struggle to recognize him, any sensitive reading of WP:MOSIMAGE rejects such a picture in any BLP - Yes, we and the subject and the reader are better off without a crap picture. Youreallycan 16:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't disagree that it isn't high quality, but I do think you're being a bit dramatic when you call it unrecognizeable. I'm not convinced we're better off with no picture. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
So we disagree regarding reading and interpretation of WP:MOSIMAGE - The wheels are not dropping off - the older picture is still currently snow keep at commons - if you insist on being desirous of inserting the picture I oppose then wait for more comments or open a WP:RFC - A picture in a BLP infobox should represent the subject in a decent way and not be a poor, low quality reflection of the subject. Youreallycan 16:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • We disagree that MOSIMAGE even says what you claim, let alone the interpretation of it. I can't see the part you keep repeating anywhere in it. Thus far, I haven;t insisted on anything, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't create the false impression that I have. The TRUTH is that I haven't expressed an opinion on what pic is the best choice, only that this one is better than none at all. You keep repeating something from MOSIMAGE that I simply don't see written in there. Lastly, I think your talking about RFC is very premature and might indicate something to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, get back to me when you have an opinion or desired edit or when you feel to share what has been indicated to you - unless it is in support with , my position that interprets wiki guidelines and policy that images of living people should be of as high a quality as possible - if available pictures are of low quality then consideration should be weighted as to not inserting such pictures. Youreallycan 19:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSIMAGE does not say what you have repeatedly claimed. I'd like you to QUOTE the exact part of WP:MOSIMAGE that says it. Can you? Yes, I support the CPAC pic over no image at all. I don't need a policy to "prove" why the image is better than having none at all, that part is opinion, which is often how consensus is formed.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

- Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used. Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article.Wikipedia:IMAGES - a crap picture demeans and poorly represents a living subject - it doesn't need pointing out its obvious. Youreallycan 20:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for not quoting what you keep claiming MOSIMAGE says. I knew you wouldn't/couldn't because you keep chanting something that it doesn't actually say. What you keep saying it your personal interpretation. First off, can you stop claiming that MOSIMAGES says things that aren't said? Especially when you are talking about things said in WP:IMAGES, but acting like it is in MOSIMAGE. They are different pages, please stop acting like they are one. It is either lazy or dishonest, you can tell me which one. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What a joke. You are the one battling my friend. The photo doesn't present the subject in a way that damages his reputation. There is no BLP issue here. Falsely citing it as a reason, hoping you will be able to avoid the 3RR won't help you. You shouldn't have removed the image based solely on your personal interpretation of the MOS. Since it was truthfully a question of image quality (not a faux BLP issue), you should have left the image there while we discussed the merits. Fine, you removed it, but then it was restored. Now YOU are the one battling. Perhaps instead of telling me what I should read, you should take the time to review WP:OWN. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The image currently on the article is of laughably terrible quality. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the source of the other photo

Here. (Turn off JavaScript or else the link won't work, it's from the wayback machine.) Someone pointed it out over at the commons deletion request. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh clearly is not the photographer and as such is unlikely to be the owner to the rights to this picture - Youreallycan 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What authority do you base that claim off of? In fact, Premiere Radio Networks has always claimed copyright on all the original content on Rush's website. Go to the website and scroll to the bottom. In fact, see here. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The photographer owns the rights to pictures - unless its a promo picture and that picture does not appear to be such - do you have any evidence of rights ownership? _ in regards to this specific picture? no? - the flikr unloader does appear, under my primary investigations of his uploads to be trustworthy as regards his copyright statements - Youreallycan 22:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan 22:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 
I deleted the copyvio picture. How about this one -> ? It seems to be good quality (although perhaps a bit embarrassing since it's from a mugshot). Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Preferable to the other one, which is associated with Youtube videos mocking the subject. But, per WP:MUG, not ideal either. --JN466 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
As the photo isn't being used to present Limbaugh "in a false or disparaging light" (quite the opposite actually), I don't think it fails WP:MUG. It's certainly preferable to the other one. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I disagree with using this photo, since it is a mugshot from an arrest, being used in the info box. The last reason given for its inclusion partially stated "nothing in the photo cues the reader to perceive it's a mug shot". So we count on dumb readers? - Xcal68 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that that the type of reader who carefully probes into the origins of the photo will either have already heard of Limbaugh's legal issues or will read about them in the "prescription drug addiction" section of the article. As I read WP:MUG, it's intended to prohibit the use of an image which, say, shows a person disheveled or disoriented when that is not their typical state. The image, actually, strikes me as one of the more visually flattering of Limbaugh... --Wormcast (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It is however well known as a mug shot, and, is a mugshot - and as such clearly should not be in the infobox of anyone except them being primarily a criminal - this person - even the charges , minor as they were, were dropped. - Youreallycan 19:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not see what the objection to this image is. If I were not reading the comments alongside the picture I would have been unaware of the nature of the picture. The background to the picture may not be flattering to the subject but the actual picture is high quality and is a rather flattering picture of him based on a simple google image search of him. I don't see a problem with this picture especially in light of the apparent difficulty in finding a suitable picture. Just my $.02. Ayzmo (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Additions of Politifact and and other fact checking organizations

Latest comment: 12 years ago45 comments8 people in discussion

Since there is a section on claims of inaccuracy, I added summaries and rulings from politifact and factcheck. Those were removed, though I haven't received an answer as to why as of yet (just requested it from the user who deleted it). Fact checking organizations are important barometers for judging politicians and pundits, and I suggest the addition of these entities into this article. Happy to hear counterarguments. Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR example:
"The fact checking organization PolitiFact has rated the majority of his claims to be less than truthful..."
You said that, not a source. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So why don't we reword it? How about Politifact has reviewed a number of Limbaugh's statements and given the following ratings. Sound good?Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's still your statement, not some RS reporting on it. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides for summary statements. Saying you can only draw direct quotes from 3rd party sources is absurd.Jasonnewyork (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Show me the sentence/paragraph of a WP:RS where you are summarizing that from. I've looked at the source to my example, and they don't make that statement. It's your personal observation. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Please WP:INDENT your replies with : per indent.
Since you deleted I can't be sure I linked it correctly. This should be it: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/ All of his ratings are on the same page. I think I simply said these are the ratings. That's all I was trying to communicate regarding politifact's statements, and then I listed those actual ratings. If you're having trouble with the wording I used, I'd welcome you to take a stab at it. Perhaps you can phrase it in a way that satisfies your concerns. If you have a concern with the quality of the source, I would highlight that they won a Pulitzer for their reporting.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
'"I think I simply said these are the ratings."
This is the crux of the issue. You said it. You need to report on someone else saying it. Politifact, your source, doesn't even make the statement in my example. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. I'm just quoting the information on the page at Politifact. "Limbaugh statements by ruling..." If NBC says something, I don't have to wait until CBS reports on it. I can just quote NBC.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
We're going in circles. We need others input. - Xcal68 (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe you have a misunderstanding of what original research is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Two other editors have reverted your deletion.Jasonnewyork (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Read the example I put above. Now read the very first paragraph on the OR page. You're violating the policy right there alone, without even examining the rest of the entry you wrote. Where does Politifact state anything like the "majority of his claims to be less than truthful"? No where. You are stating that by a flawed deduction of your own. How many statements has Rush made? How many do they review? But it doesn't matter now. Someone else who doesn't understand OR has reverted me and I'm skirting 3RR and can't touch it. So enjoy having your misrepresentation in the article. - Xcal68 (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
They rate on a scale of truthfulness. Since they rated 0 true of the 13 claims they evaluated, that is "a majority less than truthful." However, I see your point, and I will reword that opening (as I previously said I would).Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in hearing why this organizations opinions (because yes, much of it is interpretation and opinion) belongs here. We already have the topic covered, so I'd have to ask what makes this one so special that we need to expand even further. Are they really bringing that much to the table that the existing sources don't really cover. (Please, don't talk about a specific issue, but the notion in general that some orgs have said he is wrong in general). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess your question as to whether these organizations are valid sources for inclusion in an article is one for an official at Wikipedia. I don't think I'm the one to make that call. It seems obvious to me that they add color and depth on issues of accuracy. As to what they bring to this specific article that hasn't been covered, they provide a broader, less-biased perspective on politicians and pundits. For example, while you've got Franken, a progressive dem, providing criticism re Limbaugh in this section, and that's of course valid, what's missing is an unaffiliated entity that rates accuracy on both sides of the aisle (both left and right leaning pols and pundits), and that's what fact checking agencies provide.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • There is no "official" that determines these things. It is a discussion and consensus process. In this case, Franken, himself a notable person, got a lot of media coverage over his criticism. Just adding "color" isn't really much of a reason for inclusion for an article that certainly has no lack of color. Depth also doesn't grab me when there already seems to be sufficient depth and all the new one would do is echo the same things the existing sources say ie that sometimes Limbaugh twists things for his own purpose (as if he is unique in that regard). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact checking organizations are closest thing to experts within the field of measuring one's accuracy. It seems silly that this is even being debated. Let's see what others have to say.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • That presumes that the so-called "fact checking organization" has no agenda of their own. Orgs like Media Matters, for example, are held out as "experts" and make declarations about checking facts, yet have a clear bias and agenda. While you find this "silly", at least one established editor took issue with your inclusion and I'm also questioning the reason why it needs to be included. So this may not be as black and white as you personally see it. Moreover, this isn't even a question of who is more accurate about their "fact checking". The fact that some have taken issue with Limbaugh and his accuracy is well documented in the article. The specific percentage will vary during whatever limited time period is reviewed. We shouldn't update the article every time some new group studies a new time frame. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Factcheck and Politfact are bipartisan, neutral, with no agenda, or wild-eyed extremists of one sort or another. With WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV being followed, as it is in this case by Jasonnewyork, the reader knows who said what, and can make his own determination. The addition is perfectly fine. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Binksternet: You are mischaracterizing what I said. I did not say that they can't be allowed just because they are biased. Read that sentence again. Ok, now read it again. Now that we are clear, let's look at what I DID say and not talk about your incorrect summary of what I said. I said that they don't really bring anything new that isn't already covered. It's just more of the same, which leads to an WP:UNDUE issue. We already have the issue addressed and based on a much more notable source than Politifact. Since we can't (shouldn't) list every person/publication/org that has said Limbaugh is inaccutrate, my questions reamin: What makes this org more notable and what new info do they bring to the table? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you reverted me, and are now taking partial ownership of the entry, I have a question for you.
Your reversion cited WP:CALC.  Explain how this adds up.  The entry states (my bold):
"The fact checking organization PolitiFact has rated the majority of his claims to be less than truthful..."
Politifact has reviewed 10 cherry-picked statements out of thousands available.  How does this justify an editor, like yourself, making the statement it's the "majority of his claims"?  The source does not even make this assertion!  How does CALC override OR on this BLP?  It doesn't add up. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
How about, "Out of ten Limbaugh statements analyzed by Politfact..."? Binksternet (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Blinsternet, we're on the same page. LOL, I just wrote the exact same thing to the above editor. I'll change the opening to reflect this decision.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoa......hold on friend. What "decision"? There is no "decision". this matter is under discussion and there is clearly not a consensus to put it in the article at this time. Maybe there will be in the future, but there certainly isn't one now. You can't just reinsert contested material just because you found a person to agree with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't "just reinsert contested material." I addressed the concerns of the last editor to revert (Collect). He said that Politifact only rates a subset of Limbaugh's facts, and that the opening line was undue. I agreed and changed it to read "Politifact rated 13 of Limbaugh's statements." So, we have 3 editors who were fine with it as is (Goethe, Blinster and me), one who took issue with the opening (Collect), which was fixed (and I hope it address his concerns, because I agreed w him), and I was under the impression that your concerns and XCal's were addressed, so I'm unclear what is still being debated.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Then let me make it more clear. The wording should be agreed upon HERE, on the talk page, then inserted. The article shouldn't be your sandbox where you experiment with different ideas. The fact is, you haven't convinced many people that the material belongs at all, let alone worrying about the specific wording. You're bordering on a 3RR issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I've only done one revert. Try to stay calm. Hurling threats is not productive.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You're right, I thought you'd done more. Regardless, there was nothing that needed your "stay calm" silliness, nor was there a threat. Don't try getting snarky with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I consider the section to still be misleading as Politifact made no statements at all about the general reliability of Limbaugh's work -- that is, unless you have stats on a random sample of claims, I consider the stress on a non-random sample to be UNDUE here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that's asking too much. None of the information already included in this section included a random sampling of Limbaugh's comments. I understand your point, but by that guideline, no one would ever be able to claim inaccuracies by pundits or politicians. How would you ever determine if the sampling of rated statements were representative?Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You can not rationally make any statistical claims unless they are based on random samples. Probability and Statistics 101. Clearly that does not preclude reliably sourced discussion about individuual statements, but it is a strong argument against the claims being attributed to Politico. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you and agree with your points. Still, no statistical claims were being made in the entry. There was simply a listing of the ratings of the 13 statements made by Limbaugh. There was no extrapolation to a broader percentage of his total statements.Jasonnewyork (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Which makes it your analysis - WP:OR. - Xcal68 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
XCal, I think you're the only one on the original research page. If Collect wants to take up that argument, I'll address it.Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jasonnewyork. Let me try this; the way you stated this makes a claim that Politifact did NOT make. YOU stated that a certain percentage of Limbaugh's claims are false. Politifact does NOT evaluate the whole corpus of what Limbaugh says (he makes THOUSANDS of claims), but only picks and chooses INDIVIDUAL issues as they come up or are brought to their attention. It would similarly be inaccurate and a misrepresentation to say that Politifact has stated that Limbaugh has only been wrong 7 times in his life. To extrapolate that the individual "evaluations" therefore imply a comment on Limbaugh GENERALLY is YOUR point of view. Hope this helps.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Better, but still putting a POV that the ref does not say. Reference to the number or percentage still implies that the the fact of a "nomination" says something that it does not, and that the percentage is a statement, which it is not. Great as a source for INDIVIDUAL claims, and are all gathered together, but neither makes that claim that they are making a GENERAL statement, which is what your take wants to say.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless it is in response to a specific issue already within the article this is little more than a POV pushing point. RL has made thousands of statements over the years, the fact that Politifact found a few that they claim are false is of little significance and it is certainly undue weight to highlight those incidents in order to imply that he makes a lot of false statements. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no point in trying to use the PolitiFact breakdown of Limbaugh's statements as an overall guide to the percentage of statements he makes that are true or false. PolitiFact usually only evaluates statements that are particularly interesting or significant with regard to their truth or falsity. They don't evaluate all the statements that anyone makes, nor are the statements they do evaluate a random sample of the person's statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
While I believe that an average reader would understand that Politifact's overall rankings of Limbaugh's statements are not a random or exhaustive sample of everything he's ever said, I understand your point (and can sympathize with it), and I am inclined to concede the argument based on Metropolitan's and Collect's statements. The other arguments claiming it was original research were unfounded and argumentative. Having said that, I'm dropping my defense of this addition. Thank you for the cogent arguments presented.Jasonnewyork (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You read that I conceded the points of Metropolitan and Collect, right? And that I'm dropping my defense of the addition? They provided reasoned, civil debate points, and I appreciate that. They didn't seem to be focused on winning the debate no matter what but were instead engaging in logical discourse. I'm an advocate for that type of engagement.Jasonnewyork (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I read it. If I hadn't read your response, how would I know what you said about the OR argument? Just because you said you are dropping it doesn't mean that whatever you say will go without further response. Maybe next time you decide to disengage, you should disengage and not try to take a parting shot at the editors you disagreed with. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no way to accuse someone of taking a parting shot without being guilty of the same crime. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, where did you see me announce my departure? I didn't, thus there is no "parting shot" from me. Thanks for sticking your 2 cents in though, no matter how off-base it was. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Additions of additional criticisms

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I tried this before and was roundly outvoted, but as I see this page take on an increasingly conservative bias (at least in my opinion, it includes everything from "pervasive liberal bias" in the opening paragraph to moving criticisms to the bottom between "use of props" and "charitable work") I'll try one more time. I fully expect this to go nowhere. But I think Limbaugh is seen from the left (and even from the center) as making regular, inaccurate and misleading claims. It's a major part of his DNA. As it reads now, it sounds like only a handful of far left progressives have criticized him, while he's been hit by everyone from George Will to David Brooks to fact checking agencies (which was what was outvoted last time). I'm happy to do the research and add this stuff, but before I do so, I just want to make sure that it isn't a giant waste of time, and I'll be hit with an immediate rebuttal of "undue." I know this is a controversial page, so I'm attempting to open up civil dialogue before editing. Jasonnewyork (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite that sections of this article does not adhere to NPOV as it has a liberal lean. When editing this page we need to be extremely careful to adhere to NPOV, RS, and BLP;.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick Citation Fix

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In researching the Fairness Doctrine I realized the citation to "Rush for Victory" did not lead to the intended spot. I have found the article via google, here is a link: http://tm.ermarian.net/Academic%20Junk/Politics/Media/Domestic/Fairness%20Doctrine/2005:04:25-%20WSJ%20Editorial%20Argues%20that%20Fairness%20Doctrine%20Repressed%20Conservative%20Commentators,%20and%20that%20Repeal%20of%20Repressive%20Fairness%20Doctrine%20Explains%20Popularity%20of%20Conservative%20Talk.pdf Matthew Chase Whittemore (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

Latest comment: 12 years ago59 comments18 people in discussion

His 2012 attacks on this law student, on three consecutive daily broadcasts, calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" for advocating health insurance coverage for contraception, and his demand for a "sex tape" from her, and the critical response to it from across the political spectrum, and cancelling of advertisements by some of his sponsors, should be included in the article. See NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, SFGate, Washington Post, Fox News, and Forbes. Rush's response should be included for balance. Edison (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Added under "controversies". Please feel free to improve. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Completely WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. – Lionel (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
so you removed the whole thing? you didn't tag it, nor did you elaborate or attempt to discuss exactly on what you objected to. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If we added every controversial thing Rush said over his decades long career we would quickly run out of diskspace. This is Friday. It's a slow news cycle. This incident will be forgotten by Monday. This is an encyclopedia-not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). – Lionel (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Rush Limbaugh says this flap will be bigger than the "Phony Soldier" where he was misquoted and maligned by Senator Harry Reid but turned it around. Limbaugh has a lot of points to make that editors here should note before jumping on to attack. [8] Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

this thing isn't going to end soon. also, just so it's stated, i have a lot more sources describing his comments as an attack as well as many other synonyms, but have been told that there's enough.Paintedxbird (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
can someone have a word with this guy? this is getting significant coverage internationally from a variety of quality sources and is absolutely notable. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If this section is to be included it is too long for something so recent with the story still developing. We don't follow the story--we're not a newspaper. We document established facts. This is per WP:BLP. – Lionel (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No WP:BLP concerns here because all the sources provided so far are some of the finest sources out there. The length is appropriate considering the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. As this is seen by Dems and the media as the newest installation of "the Republican war on women" media interest is unlikely to wane. I wish you luck keeping this information out of the article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
this is just as important as the other controversies. in fact it probably has more international attention than many. i don't know if he was mentioned by so many senior politicians previously, but there was nothing non-factual about what i wrote. did you even check my sources before you went deleting? everything is attributed and verifiable. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Painted, Sonic, WP is not a newspaper. Recent events, no matter how important you may think they are, should not dominate any article or section relative the entire article. Sonic, just because you have RS' does not mean that there cannot be BLP concerns. Painted, NPOV and Weight are overriding policies for Verifiability. If the only current reasoning for such an excessive section is "It is getting a lot of attention in the news right now" then Lionel's point is made and WP:RECENT applies. Also, don't use what you think is going to be the future outcome as rational for current events. Unless some good rational can be given the section needs to be removed as undue weight and non news for the immediate time being. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
if you call someone a slut and a prostitute would you call that a comment or an insult? how many references equating it to an attack do you need? i had about 8, i could go higher. there's nothing ambiguous about his comments. non-news? you've got senior politicians discussing this. did they discuss his NFL club ownership bid? Paintedxbird (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, WP is indeed not a newspaper -- or anyway it says it isn't, though in places (notably the top right of the top page) it conspicuously is. The question is less of how important this event seems to either of the two editors you address, or to you, or to me, than of how important it seems to reliable sources. "Recentism" elsewhere is often rightly cited to explain a bias toward 2012 events (or non-events) at the expense of 1982 events (or ditto), but reliable sources were just as able to report on Limbaugh's utterances in, say, 2009 as they are now, and the fact is that these very recent utterances have got a lot of RS coverage. (Very possibly more than they merit, but if you or I think this, it's beside the point.) And there's more besides: "Presentador calificó de “prostituta” a estudiante defensora del control de la natalidad" takes it outside the anglosphere. ¶ Unless some good rational can be given the section needs to be removed as undue weight and non news for the immediate time being. Like it or not, it is news. That it happens to be news now ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper!") as opposed to news a few months ago seems beside the point: the RS don't merely exist, they're abundant. (Compare WP's coverage of the similarly recent death of Breitbart: No editor has yet suggested "His death is in the news; Wikipedia is not a newspaper; therefore we should just sit on the matter for a couple of weeks before writing it up.") Of course it's imaginable that much of this Limbaugh/Fluke/etc brouhaha will be largely forgotten a couple of years from now, but this too is an irrelevance: most of what most people do is largely forgotten a couple of years thereafter; Wikipedia records it (in a way that meets certain standards) for anybody who may be interested. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to chime in my $0.02...I can understand the concerns of recentism and undue weight, but I think removing the section entirely is a bit ridiculous. It's a notable event that's been in the headlines for several days and has received attention from not only most major press outlets but many notable and high-ranking politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. It's no "dominating the article or section"...it's roughly comparable in length to any of the other items in that section. Sure, it's not something that should be the main focus of this BLP, but I think omitting it entirely would be a disservice to this encyclopedia as it's clearly a notable event in Mr. Limbaugh's life. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
More outside the mere anglosphere: "Obama a appelé une jeune étudiante insultée pour avoir parlé contraception", "Ringen um die Moral im Schlafzimmer", "USA: Obama mot Rush – ringde upp 'fnasket'", "Obama defende estudante após polêmica sobre anticoncepcionais", "Studentessa insultata, Obama la difende". -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
+ Обама позвонил женщине, от которой публично потребовали опубликовать видеозаписи ее половых актов, Rush Limbaugh wird ausfällig... It's in reliable secondary sources in Russia, Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden,... the story is everywhere. As of today, the Sarah Fluke incident has received more global and national coverage than any other Limbaugh controversy. Given the coverage in reliable secondary sources, the length of the section is appropriate. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You really need to step back and see how this develops before jumping to conclusions about what this will mean in a historical perspective. When Limbaugh was in talks regarding NFL ownership it was a topic in the news for several weeks. This has resulted in a reactionary frenzy right now, but there is no way to know how it will be viewed in the future, so please stop acting like you know. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As for me, I make no assumptions about what this will mean in a historical perspective. (And which "reactionary frenzy"?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This one, the one that the left is all in a tizzy about. The left seems to think that this is going to get Limbaugh off the air. I always find it amazing that what the left goes crazy about is standard fare for Bill Maher on a weekly basis. Not that I agree with what Limbaugh said, but it would be nice to see some at least an attempt by the media to not be so biased. Arzel (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well then, let's put aside the grievously tizzy-prone "left", let alone what it seems to think and what it goes crazy about. A short distance above, you're given links in Spanish, French, German, Swedish, Portuguese, Italian, Russian and again German. Are they all "left"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RECENT. Recentism is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. There is extensive coverage by WP:RSs, which under WP:WEIGHT justifies including it.

I think the tag should be removed. We discussed it in talk, and rejected it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected what? This is a recent event which is being slanted towards current events. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the notion of an event being slanted towards events. Could you elaborate a little? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Throwing in my 2 cents in support of what Arzel is saying. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
i think everyone is waiting for arzel to make a case... anyway i've readded some claims and sources that were deleted without explanation such as the public pressure. i've clarified the reaction he got rather than the preferred claim of "oh, some people didn't like it," that some other editor put. i've also put a short summary of what he said in his comments before the short quotations as many parts of his rants were criticised as well as the slut slur. Paintedxbird (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT. The section is quite fully explanatory, with a great number of references, without piling Ossa on Pelion at this point - especially since his apology for the affair. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
except you've seen to it that the claims that the references state aren't on the page, with your subjective view of weight. so all this talk of "the references explain it!" don't make a difference because no one is going to read them due to your censorship. when does weight become an argument for "i don't want people to see this"? it was fully explanatory, then you removed it. p.s why have you formatted the section after your repeated cutting so that it looks larger than it is? Paintedxbird (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a single event which already has extensive coverage in the article - and WP:WEIGHT is absolutely clear about this sort of thing. Adding in a hundred quotes will not make the affair more clear, and the amount you wish to add would violate WP:BLP to be sure. Is there any reason why you wish to add even more recentism stuff here? BTW, the "formatting" was substantially there when I first editted it - so your apparent accusation is totally sans merit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
why are you saying that i want to add a hundred quotes when my last edit kept to the more condensed structure of your edition. i didn't add more quotes. did you even read it before you undid it? i know what your opinions are, i'd asked why you thought that way. that's not the formatting i'm talking about, you added his apology quotation with a lots of spaces from the text. which is peculiar if "size is so important to weight!" adding recentism? i'm giving the complete account of the controversy backed up with various quality sources to fulfill the notability criteria, as you frantically try to trim it into obscurity. Paintedxbird (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT is clear on that sort of thing. The length of the section is in proportion to the coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if people stopped writing about this tomorrow, the story has already received more coverage than any other Limbaugh controversy has received to this day. What does that even mean "recentism", I never understood that essay. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Prove It. Prove that this has already received more coverage than anything else. If you are going to make a claim like that to back up your argument then you better be able to back it up with some actual facts. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, you claimed that unlike the other sections "Sandry Fluke comments" was undue. Please prove that the other Limbaugh controversies described in the article received more coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He did not describe or call her a "slut" and "prostitute" like it now says he did. He asked a question "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute?" We can not take this out of context like newspapers do. We need to have his full quote there from when he started talking about Ms.Fluke tell he was done about her. It needs changed. Theworm777 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see some editors rushing in to censor the article. "NOOH!" Wikipedia mustn't contain embarrassing utterances by Rush and criticisms thereof from numerous reliable sources around the world!"Edison (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
theworm777 it's not anyone's place to interpret what he said or why he said it. wikipedia publishes based on verifiability. it's not a forum. Paintedxbird (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Paintedxbird, I know thats what I am saying whoever wrote what is there now saying he is "describing her as a "slut", "prostitute" and "round-heeled" " is interpreting what he said. Theworm777 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
that's what was widely reported as the large body of sources indicate if you read them. so that's how it appears on the page. e.g. one example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17241803 "Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "slut" and suggested her testimony to US lawmakers made her "a prostitute"."Paintedxbird (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Limbaugh apologizes and calls it a "national stir" per CBS and ABC after three advertisers cancel their sponsorship. I agree with him that the incident had national prominence, and find it puzzling that some editors disagree with him. Edison (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
No one is saying that there is no national prominence, all that is being said is that WP is NOT a newspaper and that articles need to be written from a historical perspective. There is no evidence that this is going to have any long lasting impact on anything regardless how much the Limbaugh haters scream about it. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"historical perspective"? "long-lasting impact"? how many more euphemisms will you come up with for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? notability is permanent. WP:NTEMP. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Have I deleted it? No; so don't be an ass. I simply stated WP policies for articles. Seems to me like you would rather attack other editors than discuss possible problems with the section. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know I have read that. Calling someone a prostitute and saying something "made her a prostitute" is 2 different things and to protect wiki should have a cite after slut, prostitute, and "round-heeled" to a source that says he called her that not that he said it made her, a slut, a prostitute, or round-heeled is all I am really meaning here. Theworm777 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Libelous information from a newspaper should not be repeated so just because a newspaper might break a law dont mean we can repeat here on wiki is what I am saying. So verifiability might not be the only thing needed here. Theworm777 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
the rules are what they are. wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs. deviating from sourced information is synthesis and original research which aren't allowed. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree, and that is the problem here. The way it is now it is "deviating from sourced information is synthesis and original research which aren't allowed." It is defamation and libelous the way it is worded I think. Like I have said before just because a newspaper breaks a law that dont mean we can repeat it here. I dont really care either way but just thinK it could be breaking laws when it could be changed so there is no doubt to if it brakes a law or not. But I will leave that for you all and admin to decide. Theworm777 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment saying he put the matter to rest once and for all by apologizing should be removed. It's only days into the matter with fallout still occurring. To infer the story is over is editorializing. Wikipedia isn't an opinion blog, let alone the Psychic Network. 71.110.229.69 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to Nbauman who repaired it. 71.110.229.69 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

this is getting ridiculous, i think we should start a dispute resolution process over the editing on here as it seems clear that some people have a sustained desire to censor what's portrayed on the article. i think we should have a third party decide what can go on so we no longer have to hear subjective ideas on "weight". Paintedxbird (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just go re-write all the WP policies while you are at it. If you cannot follow the core policies then you should probably not be editing on WP at all. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Too long

The section here is too long, as there is a main article already regarding this event, a one paragraph summary is all that is needed here, and any detail should be in the main article namespace. Also that article should abide by BLP & NEU. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"$3,000 a year for contraceptives"

The statement in the article ...Fluke's testimony, that some students at her school paid $3,000 a year for contraceptives is inaccurate. Nowhere in her testimony did she say $3,000 a year. She said: "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." I.e. more like $1,000 a year. Shouldn't this be corrected? Writegeist (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If Limbaugh was operating on the belief that this is what her testimony was, then that belief is relevant to why he made the odd comments he made. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to furnish "corrective information" which might result in a less than neutral exposition of what Limbaigh said and his beliefs at the time he said it. What might be reasonable is to furnish cites for the claims that 'Limbaugh said he believed that she testified that contraception costs were $3,000 a year. Her testimony was that it was the cost over several years' (with refs) or the like. Collect (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Excellent point and though that detail is in the main article, I still appreciate the attention brought to my mistake. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your intelligent and collegial reply's acknowledgment of the unintended error. Writegeist (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Boycott caused by comment has been monetized

The advertising boycott caused by Limbaugh's Sandra Fluke comments has now been monetized by Cumulus Media. "A couple million bucks in the first quarter and a couple of million bucks in quarter two" according to Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey[1]. I think it would be a good idea to include this information in the Sandra Fluke sub-section of the controversies section. 64.56.156.66 (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure -- the article then continues on to say revenues are now back to normal. Dickey said the Limbaugh boycott "put some wind in the sails" for the Huckabee launch and projected Huckabee will soon be heard on about 200 stations appears to be a possible reason for this press release. Collect (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Summarize

Given that there is already a sub-article regarding the subject covered in this section, the content in this article should be moved to said sub-article, and a summary no greater than two or three brief paragraphs should be left in this article. Furthermore, such summary should adhere to NPOV and BIO, as should the sub-article. Additionally, if NPOV is not adhered to the sub-article can devolve into an attack page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and summarized the section, using the lead of the spunout sub-article. The content regarding that controversy can go there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Questionable math

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the second paragraph, "...signing a contract in 2008 for $38 million a year through 2016 or nearly half a billion dollars." doesn't work out mathematically: 38*8 = 304 million. The citation (#3) also references a $100 million signing bonus, but even then, it adds up to closer to .4 billion, and the bonus isn't mentioned on the Wikipedia page. I think it would make more sense to state his yearly wage or his most recent contract's worth, but 38 million per year for 8 years and half a billion are far apart in value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.59.171 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the heading "Deafness" The following statement is made:

When questioned whether Limbaugh's sudden hearing loss was caused by his addiction to opiates, his cochlear implant doctor, otolaryngologist Jennifer Derebery, said that it was possible but that there is no way to know for sure without performing tests that would destroy Limbaugh's his hearing completely. "We don't know why some people, but apparently not most, who take large doses may lose their hearing".

Please remove the word "his" from the following line:

"tests that would destroy Limbaugh's his hearing completely."

It is clearly a error made when the author decided to use "Limbaugh's" instead of "his" forgetting to delete the word "his". 99.229.118.62 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for catching this. RudolfRed (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Contract terms

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous version cited $38 million per year and "nearly half a billion dollars." The math didn't look right, and I'm not sure how "nearly" $400m is to $500m, so I corrected it to $400m from the sourced article.Biccat (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


Vietnam Draft

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Does the fact that he wasn't selected in the Vietnam draft lottery need to be in this article? Lots of people weren't selected and this inclusion may imply he was a draft dodger. 24.31.147.57 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think the wording implies something inaccurately, then revised it so it does not. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with anon editor. My assumption is that the sentence was put in here to reflect someone asking about it or casting aspersions, but it fails the "so what" test. I therefore deleted the entire sentence and the subject heading. Ckruschke (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Agreed. The non-draft thing is not article-worthy. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Lots of people weren't drafted, but not everybody is called a draft dodger. So of course this fact needs to be included. The very question is absurd. - Cal Engime (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are trying to establish a rebuttal to someone calling Limbaugh a draft dodger, then give the whole story. State who it is who called him a draft dodger, then say that he was not drafted. Otherwise the rebuttal of a missing accusation is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Snopes entry might raise some questions but unless real RS's pick up on this and confirm one way or the other there is nothing to see or to add on to the article. It's a BLP and we don't go with rumors or possibilities but with verifiable facts only.TMCk (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the subject (Rush and whether or not he was drafted or not) is not notable, and thus inclusion into the article would be WP:UNDUE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

chelsea clinton controversy

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following is inaccurate:

"During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program, Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown. When questioned about it, Limbaugh claimed that it was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea"

This incident never happened. It is a long, old urban myth about Limbaugh. There was indeed a mistake regarding Chelsea and a pic of a dog, but that isnt it.

The articles cited that refers to this incident are equally misguided. Let them come up with a transcript or video of this incident. So far they have not.

Here is what really happened:

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

24.190.67.39 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right about this, but you'll need to find a more reliable source to subtantiate it.--Cjv110ma (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a rather extensive Google search and could find nothing to substantiate the anon's claims other than the website she posted so I am inclined to agree with Cjv110ma that the section should stay as is until further information is offerred up.
On the other hand, almost all the sources that talk (extensively and with wringing hands) about the incident are left-leaning sites (such as Daily Kos, Huffington, Media Matters, etc) or are newspapers directly quoting Ms. Clinton herself from the last 5-10 yrs. I'm not saying that either the lefties that support/supported Clinton and/or Chelsea herself are lying or are making a bigger deal out of this than is warranted, but they definitely would have an axe to grind against Limbaugh. My opinion, which doesn't matter, is that as this show was broadcast very early in Limbaugh's television career (some sites I found point to it being recorded in his first week), it MIGHT HAVE BEEN an honest mistake - as Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed.
That being said, I don't have a problem with the sentence as curently shown on the page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Bias page

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I feel a quote in the 'drug abuse heading would be a fairer way of showing this mans views. The source of the content in that section is very gentle and doesn't do justice to his opinions... it basically plays down his position.

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country.

this is the first line of text in the referenced article and i think it should be on his wiki.

this website is not here to act as abio in which everyone has to look a nice guy... this man has been spouting this stuff to his audiences and has since been proven to be a hypocrite - you wouldn't get this from his wiki page regarding drug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.225.6 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

      • I am no fan of his but including an anchor link to his section on: "See also: Prescription drug addiction" within his views section is a clear presentational bias by someone who dislikes him, and is precisely the sort of unencyclopedic stupidity that results in people not taking Wikipedia seriously!!***
Good point IP. Why don't you remove it? NickCT (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama Policy Comments as "Controversy"

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As I don't watch this site closely, I'm curious as to why Limbaugh's comments about President Obama's policies are listed in the "Controversies" section (or are even listed on this page at all). Why is it a suprise that a "right wing hack" like Limbaugh would disagree with Obama and want to see his presidency fail? Volumes of books could be filled with politicians and political commentators of both parties disagreeing with their political adversaries and calling them every name in the book - why is this particular incident noteworthy? Simply because he spoke out against President Obama early in his presidency when everything was still peaches and cream? I was just going to delete it, but I thought I'd forestall the firestorm by at least posting the question on Talk. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The question is whether the content has undue weight or whether the event is notable and has receive continuing coverage to be considered notable within the context of the subject, which this is a biography article. The content is referenced to reliable sources, and is a short paragraph, but a debate can still be made that it has undue weight within the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked to the talk page after noticing the exact same thing. Using the rationale behind adding this to the article, anyone who is critical of Barack Obama should have a controversy section added noting such. That's ridiculous. At best this is a case of WP:UNDUE, at worst it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Trusilver 08:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, that the content is not controversial. Should the content be moved to the Views section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Views section" would be better. "Liberals consider it an attack when you quote them" says Rush Limbaugh. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Theorem

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

News outlets have picked up on what Rush Limbaugh coins as, "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." But, of course, media outlets do not credit Limbaugh for thinking of this first. His Theorem is that Obama policies (including Obamacare) are very unpopular in America, but not associated with President Barack Obama, himself. Rather, he is seen as fighting the problems his policies cause. Today, Limbaugh modified his Theorem to apply to the elite leadership of the Republican Party, as he puts it. He says they run the party but blame Conservatives and anybody but themselves for their losses in elections. I searched the article here and find nothing on "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can CES provide reliable sources for this? It may have enough coverage for weight in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cal Thomas of FoxNews Watch TV explained the Limbaugh Theorem about president Barack Obama.[2] ”Well, Rush Limbaugh has a theory on this, expressed again this week. He calls it the Limbaugh theorem, and that is that Obama is above everything. He's out campaigning constantly and never connected with any of the scandals or other things that are going wrong in Washington. And the media won't hold him accountable, because they are all out covering his non-stop campaign." The TV segment is called, "Did the media soften coverage of Obama's [Berlin] trip abroad?" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh may have learned from Larry King

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I don't have a source but I remember this from when I used to listen to Larry King's nighttime radio program, probably in the mid to late 1980s. When he took phone calls, he said they were not screened. King said on several days that he had never met Rush Limbaugh. One day King had just told someone that they were off-topic (I forgot the topic). Right after that, a new caller said that this is off-topic too but that he (the caller) is Rush Limbaugh and that he and King had met long ago when Limbaugh was known by another name (maybe his birth name but I don't remember what it was) and was just learning radio and King had given him some valuable advice. In subsequent shows that I heard, when King mentioned Limbaugh King stopped saying that they had never met, and may have acknowledged meeting (I'm not certain of the acknowledgment) although he continued to state his disagreement with Limbaugh. Maybe one of them put this into verifiable print somewhere, either in something for a general audience or in a periodical for the radio industry, or may have mentioned it in a verifiable interview. I only found one hint in Wikipedia that might either relate to or contradict this: Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 10#Mutual. I did not Google this or check literature databases. I posted this, virtually identically, at the other host's talk page, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two questions, can the above be verified to a (or multiple) reliable sources. And if it can, how much weight should it be given in the article, and where?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a source, as I noted, but my hope that someone would recognize this information and know of a source is why I posted this in the talk page. As to weight, depending on what the source says, the appropriate amount would probably be some weight but only a little, i.e., a mention in the context of his learning his profession. That King disagreed with Limbaugh is useful for its irony of from whom Limbaugh learned but if we were to list every notable person who disagreed with Limbaugh we might need another article. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I was attempting to find a source for the statement above as well, and did not come up with anything. Perhaps my google-fu was not strong when I attempted to use it the other day. If we can find a source, I am more than happy to revisit this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've listened to Rush Limbaugh a lot and never heard him say he learned anything from "Larry King, Alive" (as Rush Limbaugh refers to the Larry King Live TV show.) Also, I find nothing with Google-search. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Content removed by subsequently blocked user

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Before The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous was indefinitely blocked for repeatedly violating BLP, he deleted a fair amount of relevant, well-sourced, neutral material from this page. It would improve the quality of the page to restore that content. DoctorCaligari (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, so we can see the content which was removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
He removed this content allegedly because it represented prohibited Original Research. I disagree; the stricken content was, in its entirety, a quote from the cited source, written by the subject of the article.
He removed this content based on, as far as I can tell, his singular opinion that it wasn't noteworthy.
He removed this controversy and this controversy because, in his sole judgement, they weren't controversies.
Some of these he has stricken on more than one occasion.DoctorCaligari (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
OK why does the subject's definition of Conservatism in the United States need to be included in this article? It was tagged with an undue tag, and although the removal can be seen as hasty, I can understand the reasoning behind it. Why include a statement by the subject of this article about an opinion piece written by David Ehrenstein? It does call into a question of WP:WEIGHT? Does the song sung by Paul Shanklin have any major significance about the subject of this article? Again a weight question. A neutrally worded section about the views of the subject on the Obama Administration would be appropriate, but I don't think that it's a "controversy". If anything the "controversy" about Comments on Obama's policies can be rolled into one section under Views within a subsection about the Obama Administration.
As for the removed Remarks at 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference section, does a statement by Michael Steele need to be in this article? Would it be in the article of Michael Steele?
I can understand the reason to oppose the removal regarding the NFL bid, but is that a controversy? Or can it be briefly mentioned elsewhere in the article that the subject made an attempt at being an owner, which was opposed by some others?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Conservatism in the United States You can see the reasoning behind the removal? About how it was "original research"? Can you elaborate, because, again, that's all directly quoted from RL. So, if the objection is to be WP:WEIGHT instead, I'll offer that this is a distillation of the subject's views on what is, basically, the exclusive root reason for his notability.
Paul Shanklin/David Ehrenstein Point about weight taken (and the song has its own page). Your suggestion about a "Views" subsection strikes me as a good one, though then I wonder if that doesn't just beg for such a subsection on his views about, at the very least, the Clinton Presidency, and possibly the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Remarks at 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference - My perspective is that Steele's comment and subsequent apology give a clear picture of the degree of influence RL had/has over the GOP. Does it belong on Steele's page? Interesting question.
NFL bid - Was it a controversy? Unquestionably. His fondness for the football is well established, he clearly wanted to have an ownership role, and when that became known, there was a great deal of publicity surrounding the effort; he was unable to fulfill his wish as a direct consequence of his polarizing public persona. On the other hand, this is *not* in the vein of his basis for notability, and at least on of the original sources on that topic no longer fetches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorCaligari (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I just checked, and the whole Steele kerfuffle is thoroughly documented on Steele's page. (remembering to sign and provide a summary this time)DoctorCaligari (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement by the subject of this article regarding Conservatism in the United States isn't original research, but is it so important to have weight in this article? Personally, I beleive that it more belongs in the article about that subject, along with other promenant conservatives of the modern era and how they view Conservitism in the United States. That way the differing opinions can be shown, and what the range of promenant opinions are be included in that article. In regards to the importance of the subject, as a biography, I think it can be included, but is better located elsewhere on the encyclopedia.
A subection in the Views section of the subject's views of the different administrations would be interesting, but it would have to be done in a neutrally worded and balanced manner. With what complements and criticisms that are promenant that were made of the different administrations/
Here's my biggest concern, everytime something occurs regarding the subject of this article, it is so easily added to the controversy section, something that generally wouldn't be allowed by the active editors at other articles, such as the Barrack Obama article, with most active editors supporting exclusion due to BLP, WEIGHT, NEU, or some other reason. Instead, if significant events occur, if neutrally worded, and stated as matter of fact, it can be included elsewhere in the article. As I suggested, as the subject of this article has been involved in other business ventures, why not include the bid to become a part of an NFL ownership group, in that appropriate section, and include that it wasn't successful due to opposition? This integrates the content far better than creating a sub-section which highlights the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as undue weight of the statement about Conservatism in the United States, I've stated my opinion already, and provided clear logical rational. Perhaps it also fits well into the "Talk Radio and Fox News" section of the Conservatism in the United States on which you are also an active editor. Your idea about the NFL ownership inclusion in a section on business ventures is a smart one, I think. Much better than the act of just unilaterally whacking it out as was done by The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous.
I can see your overall concern of maintaining a uniform set of inclusion criteria and article organization. Applying all of those rules is certainly hard work.DoctorCaligari (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Claims of inaccuracy" should be deleted

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section does not exist in the articles about any left-wing person, including Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, etc. It should be removed here as well. NPOVismymiddlename (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because Moore, Klein and other Libs are never wrong? Seriously, its probably because the fanboys who control those pages don't allow this type of content to appear, while this page has a more balanced following. I would instead prefer that the type of point/counter-point content that is on Rush's page appear on political figures/commentators on the Democrat side, but as I stated, I believe this to be an impossibility. That all being said, I'm a big fan of Rush and I don't see a problem with airing of his dirty laundry - especially since the content is within the context of his larger work and a very small section. His life is what it is and everyone makes mistakes both small and large. Ckruschke (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

This morning Rush Limbaugh announced his new book, inspired by his wife, Kathryn. This book is a breakthrough in youth education: Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims: Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans — You will be hearing more about it. It is available from (1) Rush Limbaugh dot com; (2) Two If By Tea dot com; (3) Amazon; and (4) Other sites. It is available in hard copy, eBook, and what Rush recorded in three days. Rush Limbaugh says he is as proud of the audio recording as anything he has done. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice advertisement - hope you get a kickback from Rush... Do you have a suggested edit? Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I'll leave it to others to add this (or I will at Christmas time!) Here are some references to consider:
Use in good health. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
How about: (added as a new paragraph to the end of Rush Limbaugh#Works)

In 2013 Limbaugh announced a children's book titled Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.

Sourced to Fox, Breitbart. I'm not very happy with "announced." It doesn't properly convey authorship. I think "authored" or "published" (once that's happened) might work. Considering the fairly cursory coverage of the other books, this would probably be an appropriate weight to give this one. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking about it. As you may have heard, on the first day (yesterday) it went to the top of the of the Amazon "Best Seller" list — the audio book is at #4 (yesterday). Since it is not released until October 29th, there is time to 'wait and see'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added it to the article. I didn't source to Breitbart as it was really just repeating the Fox News story. Like you said, reception can be added later on. OSborn arfcontribs. 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll watch; thanks, again. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yea - well - since I made such a snide comment originally, I thought I should at least leave you with the impression that I might be halfway decent... Ckruschke (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I never doubted it (that you are great); and I am also 'watching' The Rush Limbaugh Show and his new 3-yr contract. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We'll see what the Christmas-gift-season does for sales. Also, Rush Limbaugh announced this is the first of a series on America's Founders. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The link to the man who produced Rush's syndicated show in the early days points to the biography of a different man named Edward F McLaughlin Jr who was a politician from Massachusetts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.210.94 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  Done — Thanks! You are right, they are two different people. The ABC exec doesn't seem to have a WP page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Right Radio" in San Francisco and "The Patriot" in Los Angeles

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Headline: "CLEAR CHANNEL MOVING RUSH LIMBAUGH IN LOS ANGELES & SAN FRANCISCO"
http://radioinsight.com/blog/headlines/86875/clear-channel-moving-rush-limbaugh-in-los-angeles-san-francisco/
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Rush Revere book/audio series

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added to the section of books and audio productions. "His book, “Rush Revere and The Brave Pilgrims: Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans,” has been on the New York Times bestsellers’ list for 20 weeks. It is the second to come out in the “Rush Revere Series,” published by Simon & Schuster. Mr. Limbaugh described the project on his radio show as “a unique way of reaching the target audience here, which is America’s young people — who are, sadly, not being taught what is in this book.”.[3] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Vaccination

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The anti-vaccination label is unexplained and misleading. He has spoken out against the idea of mandatory adult flu vaccines "precisely because" of the government encouragement. 66.87.66.89 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC) WP:SOFIXIT applies. Find a reliable source to indicate this position and then add it. Tutelary (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hinckley, David. "Rush Limbaugh boycott cost Cumulus Media millions of dollars, says company CEO Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/television/rush-limbaugh-boycott-cost-cumulus-media-millions-dollars-company-ceo-article-1.1074608#ixzz1uP2vwRXa". New York Daily News. Retrieved 9 May 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Did the media soften coverage of Obama's trip abroad?". FoxNews. 22 June 2013.
  3. ^ "Limbaugh's 'Rush Revere' puts host in the running for children's book award". The Washington Times. 22 March 2014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive_11&oldid=1152155762"