Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Questions about accuracy

This section is referenced entirely of liberal (so-called "progressive") sources and is POV IMO. One piece that would support Limbaugh's assertion that man-made global warming is a hoax is here: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFjMDkyNTljYmEwYzUyNTkwZWJkMjEyODJjZTM3Nzc= Please consider balancing this section. Sparkal2526 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when did the National Review become an objective publication???--76.79.192.35 (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The same time that Extra!, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), Al Franken, Media Matters for America, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Los Angeles Times, and MSNBC became objective. This section needs objectivity and balance. 7 citations from "progressive's" (aka Liberal) and zero from "conservative's" isn't exactly objective and certainly isn't balanced. I'm sure other (non-liberal) sources can be found to support his views.168.166.193.254 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

“James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times quoted Limbaugh as saying after the 2008 election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States that the Democrats will "take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund." [89] MSNBC claimed there is no Democratic plan to do so.[90]” “claimed” ? The fact that there is no evidence to support Limbaugh’s claim should be reason enough to consider it untrue. Maybe not. Let me try this standard. If Limbaugh said the editors of this article are pedophiles, then Wikipedia could write: “… the alleged editors claim they have no plan to do so.” (I am assuming there is no evidence to support Limbaugh’s claim about you.) Do dittoheads need to make Limbaugh’s lie seem legitimate by adding MSNBC "claimed" it isn’t true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.62.138 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Ric Edelman has an excellent description of this controversy here: http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/education/article?articleId=852. In any case, it is unfair to say that Limbaugh *lied*. Clearly he did not start this controversy.Jarhed (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reread the section in question, and I believe that it is appropriate and accurate as it is. Everything in the section appears to be correctly stated and cited, and the reader can make up his own mind about validity. I recommend removing the section header and leaving the section alone.Jarhed (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

wanting Obama to fail

Though this deserves to be a "controversy" the original edits were outragius POV stating that Rush wanted Obama to fail, and then stating that he clarified by saying he wanted socialism to fail as well. That is a flat out lie, and big time POV, Rush has said several times and in the context of the "controversy" that he only wants Obama to fail if he pushed a socialist/liberal agenda. Please wikipedia if you want to be taken as credible you must BE credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the way you wrote it was POV, because he only casually mentions socialism, yet you made the entire issue about socialism. In fact, the original wording was NPOV because Limbaugh focused his criticism on wanting Liberalism to fail. You are conflating liberalism and socialism together, and they are not the same things. --David Shankbone 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Limbaugh himself said, "I want him to fail. If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?" I believe that was the basis for MASTERuser's edit. Soxwon (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Some people say" is not Limbaugh saying Socialism. So the revision is unsupported, and he mainly talks about liberalism. So it is more accurate as it was, than to pair socialism and liberalism together. --David Shankbone 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He also references collective ownership and gov't control (2:14-2:18). Perhaps his feelings that some of the policies are socialist should be added then? Plus, while you and I may see the difference between Liberalism and Socialism, I don't know that Limbaugh does.Soxwon (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add some of Obama's positions on these issues as well, we can, but otherwise, Limbaugh's stance on issues is irrelevant to this particular controversy, and are found throughout the article. But if you want to blow this up and up, then it will have to also explore where Obama is at. Whether Limbaugh doesn't sees the difference is irrelevant without a citation - we aren't writing this article from Limbaugh's perspective, and less we are not divining his thoughts without WP:V. We are writing it from NPOV. But if you find a cite, that could be added as relevant. --David Shankbone 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He described it with the word socialism both on the show in question and during the interview. Perhaps inserting the direct quotes would be better? Soxwon (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include that giant quote about liberalism AND the "some people say" quote then we can do that, and we quickly have a section getting larger and larger. I think it's fine as it stands now, explains it completely and with the nuance. It reads NPOV, but if you don't think it does, and you feel we need to keep expanding this section, it might be worthwhile to bring this to the BLP board for more eyes to discuss it. Let me know if that's where this is headed, and I'll get a note up tonight. --David Shankbone 05:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the original comment on the show: "Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism?" But the way it is now is fine (I made that comment before seeing your new edit). Sorry for the confusion. Soxwon (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Rush clearly stated that he did not want Obama to fail unless he was to be socialist or liberal. This quote, from the source of the controversy " So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR -- if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal -- why would I want him to succeed?" Give me a break thats big POV to claim that he wants Obama to fail, and in addition liberalism. Thats false, he wants liberalism to fail, and Obama if he goes along with it. This is ridiculous. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125106.guest.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I would agree with you except I believe Limbaugh equates Liberalism to socialism in this case. Obviously that's synthesis and inadmissable, but really since he didn't come right out and call Obama a socialist we can't put it in the article. Soxwon (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have ever listened to Rush's program you would know that you need to listen to him for an entire show, otherwise you will become confused especially if you catch him in a "skit" or hypothetical rant. Rush is against Socialism and Liberalism, and has distinguished between the two on his program. I have an issue with people in this Discussion section who want to put forth their bias and push their agenda on a supposedly neutral Wikipedia. Rgoss25 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I read an article that said Limbaugh's reps commented on the situation, they said he wanted to do a comparison to the people that support the troops but not the war. Do you think this should be included in the section? I think if anyone can find the article it should. Chasesboys (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, whether he equates socialism with liberalism does not matter whatsoever. Whether you agree with his comments or not, he only stated he wants Obama to fail if he is "like FDR". This article to a nuetral reader would think he wanted Obama himself to fail, and even more so if he was liberal/socialist. Its false to state such. He clearly stated he does not want Obama HIMSELF to fail, he wants Obama's policies to fail! This should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MASTERuser (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This back and forth over Obama as a person and his policies is nuance. Mr. Limbaugh clearly stated he wanted Obama to fail. It doesn't matter if he was talking about Obama's policies or him as a person because in either situation, the ultimate intention of the words is for Obama to fail. Obama's policies can't fail unless Obama himself fails. It's a ridiculous excuse to try and cover up a controversy. Tiefoon (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiefoon you are an idiot. Policies fail all the time, but that does not mean that the individual politician is a complete failure. You cannot expect people to believe your horrid equation. Let me run through your logic "failed policy = failed politician", "failed politician = failed policy". Hmm, seems to me there is something not right about that logic. Hypothetically, Obama puts forth stimulus package and it bombs, however, he puts forth a healthcare package and it works splendidly. Now what? One policy worked while the other failed, is he a failure??? You can want someone's policies to fail while you may not want him to fail as a politician. One does not have to agree with someone in etirety, and I hope you are not brain washed in anyway. Rgoss25 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CIVIL.Soxwon (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Tiefoon, I did not intend to attack you personally. The first sentence and the last should be omitted from my statement. Rgoss25 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The below commentary has been retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)": by Furtive admirer (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh v. Michael Steele v. Rahm Emanuel

Why did you delete his words? It is his page, not Steele's or Emanuel's, yet you retained their words. The old history should be deleted, not the new clarifications. There is no reference to the cpac speech to which was the Steele commentary. The reader deserves a quoted explanation, not an "interpretation" of his utterances on the issue. Please reinsert the quote and delete the prior verbage; it's old news. thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote that you added was far to long for an encyclopedia article. The quotes form Steele and Emanuel are of an appropriate length. If you would like, feel free to quote a short (2-3 sentence) piece from Limbaugh or link to the complete transcript. --Leivick (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh needs more editors on it

This article is only being edited by editors with a pro-Rush Limbaugh POV, who typically cite only to Rush Limbaugh's own website as a source. I am posting here to ask for more editors on the article. An example is the I Hope Obama Fails section. The section is written only explaining "Rush's" side (the editors on the article call him by his first name in the text). This section only presents Limbaugh's statements that he hopes Obama fails, and why he would say that, with no explanation about what made this controversial, or who found it controversial. User:Furtive admirer, backed up by User:Soxwon, are putting in a WSJ op-ed piece that I read and has nothing to do with the "fail" controversy (that also had a race element to it), but Limbaugh continuing to criticize Obama. That's Limbaugh's job - to criticize Obama, and it is distinct from the particular controversy. User:Furtive admirer uses POV language like "The Democrats escalated the issue", and when I revert, I get bizarre talk page messages about how liberal I am and how Obama needs a teleprompter to speak. I'm no longer watching the article, so it could use other editors who care more about WP:NPOV than about their own POV. --David Shankbone 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

I understand that you are no longer watchlisting this article, but I think you should come back. I agree that the article needs multiple POV, but you should also understand that Limbaugh has a lot of fans, and he has them for good and defensible reasons. Citing Limbaugh's website is not unreasonable, considering the fact that the article is about him and his radio show, after all.Jarhed (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone, for some reason is not able to express his frustration concretely. Now he is using ad hominem attacks, projecting that I am "bizarre"??? Now, what is THAT all about?? Rush Limbaugh is a serious subject for him, but David does not endeavor to edit the semantic lexicon; it's easier to revert it completely. So I'll substitute my word choice -- "escalated" to "continued" since Obama's side has made 2 consecutive responses in a row: (not to mention creating a unilateral news media feeding frenzy for several days this week)

1. On Friday, January 23, 2009, President Obama was told by his advisor(s) Rahm Emanuel et al. to reference Limbaugh as a thorn in the side of Republican support for any legislation he wants passed during his term in office. He began the impulsive anti-Limbaugh campaign after only 4 days in office. See: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,"

2. On January 27, 2009, The DCCC created a petition to test the market, requiring email addresses (to add to their fundraising email list) and "continuing" the controversy by agitating and egging Limbaugh on. All it did was give him more material ("show prep" for the news media, as he calls it) to use on his program.

So, David, if anything, the bias is with the Obama warriors.

David, do you watch the US newscasts? Are you American or Israeli, because you seem oblivious to the sources and methods of Washington politics? Besides, we are not in the Gulag. Dissidence and Freedom of Speech is a right, not a privilege. Obama's attack dogs are the ones who continued this -- it is called "the War Room" created byJames Carville, who is one of 3 of Obama's "morning Joe coffee talk" FURTIVE advisors (Stephanopolis and Begala). Subsequently, Limbaugh responded civily, in writing, in a conservative newspaper, which most likely, requested him to so do.

As of this writing, there have been no additional responses from Obama, nor the release of the number of people who signed the anti-Limbaugh petition. He is obviously backing off.....until the next opportunity, which we will write about on Limbaugh's article page, whenever that happens!! Furtive admirer (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The way you respond to a claim of bias isn't exactly the best way to convince editors there's no POV being expressed here. You're making unsuported allegations, and asking other editors for their backgrounds. None of that seems to help gain a calm consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone wanted an explanation so now he has a complete one. Maybe others should air their concerns also. Why did you revert my timeline? The Presidential PR was a sequence of events and is relevant. Furtive admirer (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Furtive admirer I will try to act civil here, I think I should warn you about the NPOV polocy at wikipedia. There is no evidence that supports you claim that David is acting on POV, while in uour case there is. On his talk page you said Obama is teleprompter dependant and continuing with the phrase "Ahh ahh ahh ahh". Of course I would like an explanation from you why that is not POV. Also saying David is too liberal to understand is an un civil action and can be punishable if you continue. Thank you for your time. Chasesboys (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have become aware of several editors on both sides of the issue that have been chased away by threats such as this. I have read the existing talk quotes thoroughly, and in my opinion, you would have to be very thin-skinned to be offended by anything said here. I agree that we all should be civil, but this is a controversial article. Please reserve threats for real abuse. I prefer to have engaged editors working on this article, not just regulars. Have a nice day.Jarhed (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's counter attack

This is interesting as a counter-attack aimed at Rush Limbaugh and should be added in the article: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/23/obama-quit-listening-rush-limbaugh-want-things/ --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We need to add that into the article. This is an absolute outrage that the liberal editors on wikipedia, who vastly and disproportionately outnumber the conservative ones, are taking his comments so far out of context. They are all liars and want to polarize the poor man. its a travesty. "not JUST Obama, but socialist..." that is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.24.239 (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Steele not fit to lead RNC

This statement is quite dubious since I could not find it at the reference 2Mar09. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched and could not find one, either 4Mar09.Jarhed (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deafness / Drug Abuse

It has been forgotten that his deafness was the result of side effects of his drug abuse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.152.57 (talk)

Medically and in every other way, ascribing post hoc ergo propter hoc in a BLP is not generally accepted. Collect (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That is opinion not based on a published source.Jarhed (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall Bias of Article

It seems (and I've checked this article periodically over the course of two years) that there is a fair amount of bias towards Limbaugh in this article.

Read over the sections and please find ANY negative statement that is not immediately refuted and overshadowed by a slew of praise. I assure you it is quite difficult to find.

This should be reviewed for bias and have a massive fact check done, using first or second party sources, and should be locked so only members can edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.142.33 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, none of the controversy sections seem very flattering, nor is the prescription drug usage. Is it a bit biased in his favor? Perhaps, but a biography isn't really the best place to go blasting a person WP:COATRACK. Soxwon (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

With all honesty, there is no way to avoid BIAS. Newspapers, TV news programs, individual reporters, etc. all have a personal bias. The problem with Wikipedia is that we all assume that there is a perfect article. This can never happen because we are all bias. If you say you are not bias then you are lying. Therefore, we must do our best to form a consensus on the materials to include in this article. Which is why we have the discussion page. I have actually found bias for and against Limbaugh in his article. Rgoss25 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great way to approach. It can't be perfect, so why bother trying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.11.108 (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consider the possibility that the article seems that way to you because he is not nearly so bad a person as your preconceptions permit.Jarhed (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush, I am the leader of the Republican party - RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele

Who is the true leader of the party? none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glunnbuck (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Glunnbuck (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Steele is the Chairman of the RNC, while Limbaugh is a leader of sorts of the Conservative Movement. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that he is an opinion leader. He has no position in any political organization.Jarhed (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CPAC

Should Limbaugh's speech at CPAC (February 28 2009) be mentioned? Maybe one sentence referring to his speaking there, not mentioning anything within the speech itself, because it was his first televised speech to the nation. Blahmaster (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that "first televised speech to the nation" stuff is a Limbaugh-style joke. Fox televised the speech as a news event. Second, the speech is mentioned twice.Jarhed (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It was also covered by CNN and CSPAN.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

His father the lawyer

This article goes in depth into the fact that his grandfather, cousin and uncle were successful lawyers and speaks of their exploits. Perhaps it should be mentioned that his father fought for years against racial integration in South-East Missouri. This might help people understand some of his own views. And is a much more relevant piece of information then his cousin's job or his uncle's job. 72.89.212.216 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)ahassan05

That is a minefield in and of itself. Was he against integration or simply trying to enforce the law (after all, civil disobedience is still breaking the law and a lawyer doesn't have a choice in the matter if they're say DA). You need to provide sources. And the history of his relatives is notable considering the prominence they seem have attained (as opposed to the father). And you also, the relationship between his views and his father's cases needs to be referenced, not your own speculation. Soxwon (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation on the removal of 'dozen democrats perpetrating the hoax' section

The paragraph that ended with the line about a dozen democrats continually perpetrating a hoax was based entirely on two completely editorial sources with an obvious point of view. Let me be aclear before the accusations fly. I agree that there is a strategy on the democratic side to paint him as the leader of the republican party and even as a democrat I don't particularly agree with it. But the paragraph in question was a clear NPOV issue given:

"have an almost daily morning conference-call "coffee talk" and decided"

and

"As many as a dozen top Democrats are continuing this hoax"

Referencing clearly biased editorials to back it doesn't fix the NPOV issue or make it encyclopedic. The paragraph was strictly opinion, at least in the way it was stated. aremisasling (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It should be written in a more NPOV manner, and be sourced accordingly with non biased sources if it is to be added Lemniwinks (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to know the radio station in the NE to be able to listen to Rush

Can someone point me to Rush's radio channel and times he is on live. I live in New England-Massachusetts. Thank you, Anne Mickevich71.162.70.227 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a directory, this is the type of information that is not listed in either the article or the article talk page. I would instead recommend you try Limbaugh's homepage and follow the "Stations" link in the page banner to locate the information you desire. --Allen3 ^talk 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased Controversy

I have noticed that on the Barrack Obama discussion page ([1] as a quick example), there i heated argument to add or remove controversies. I was wondering why if one person with questionably controversial actions can go without a controversy section/article, then how come another person that just happens to be the opposite party from the 'normal' American has a rather large one. I thought Wikipedia was aimed to be a non-biased encyclopedia. So two people that are well-known should either both have a controversy page, or both not have one, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.140.27 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Barack Obama is a more controversial figure than Rush Limbaugh? If so, you need to check your own bias and stop whining about Wikipedia.--74.237.241.122 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say, yes, Obama is a more controversial figure than Limbaugh. Only thing is, it's the media that takes offense at Limbaugh, and normal Americans who take offense at Obama. Therefore, Obama backers see Obama as a uniter (which is a pretty big laugh) and see all opposition as fringe radicalism. 98.197.128.131 (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Defender of the Constitution Award", signed by Benjamin Franklin, given to someone "who has stood up for the First Amendment...Rush Limbaugh is for America, exactly what Benjamin Franklin did for the Founding Fathers...the only way we will be successful is if we listen to Rush Limbaugh". [142]

There should be no personal comments on Wikipedia. "the only way we will be successful is if we...blah, blah, blah." This is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention "signed by Benjamin Franklin". Gee, that would be a feat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.1 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a quote to me, here is a link: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/28/listen-rush-cpac/.Jarhed (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Defender of the Constitution?

In reference to the "Defender of the Constitution" Award, is it not both significant and ironic that Limbaugh misattributed the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause from the Declaration of Independence to the document of which he is supposedly the Defender? Granted, it was but one line within a longer speech, but given that he was being honored for "defending the Constitution," how is it not noteworthy that he misattributed words to it that are not written in it? — Anthony J Fuchs, 02:01, 6 March 2009.

It's pretty funny and certainly gives those of us who don't like the man much something to laugh about, but really, I don't see it as terribly relevant in a biography. When you take it for what it is, it's just a silly little gaffe, the kind political personalities make all the time. I might see it as more appropriate to point the comment out if it came when he was accepting the award for "Defender of the Constitution", but as it stands, throwing it in here, especially in connection with him winning the award, would seem to be editorializing. Furthermore, I haven't seen any significant news coverage of these comments, save left-wing blog posts and Stephen Colbert. Perhaps if there was a bit more back and forth between Rush and his critics or even major paper/network coverage, I could see its importance. -Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.253.225 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Anthony J Fuchs, 19:58, 9 March 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.94.251 (talk)

Article written by paid RL staffers?

It sure sounds like a giant billboard written by Limbaugh worshippers/apologists. And I'm a registered Republican (I just don't worship anybody, let alone a drug-addled bully).American34972 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Too bad you don't have a user or talk page that would give you credibility as a regular editor. We'll see on Judgement Day whether you fair better than a drug-addled bully. Good luck. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your criticism. The article looks pretty NPOV to me, and the discussion page shows plenty of constructive chatter. Why don't you contribute?Jarhed (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at this article off and on and noticed that edits came and went and it seems that it's a complete waste of time to do anything to it, unless you're a dittohead. Many edits were clearly unprofessional and right-wing with revisionist intent. There is a good bio of Rush Limbaugh on Time Magazine this week. It's much more useful. StPall (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are implying that Limbaugh fans are incapable of NPOV. That is an unjustifiable opinion.Jarhed (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

why all the attacks on emanuel in the article? he's irrelevant to the question at hand. Shdogg (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please point to the attacks. I don't see any.Jarhed (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If this article is written by people paid by Limbaugh, he should consider not paying them. It's quite poorly written. I only read parts of it because of the op ed in the New York Times today about how Limbaugh was played like a fool. All the arguments about POV are irrelevant until someone begins to pay attention to the poor structure. This is what readers get in that section:

Well then obviously Rush did not hire professional writers to do this article. Next. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 1, 2009 CBS's "Face the Nation" asked chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel: Who represented the Republican Party? He answered, it was Limbaugh.

On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Rahm Emanuel.

On March 3, 2009, The Wall Street Journal opined that Mr. Emanuel is more preoccupied with malevolent partisan conflict than beneficial "economic leadership".

In remarks aired by CNN on March 1, 2009, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said that Limbaugh, is "an entertainer".

Steele later telephoned Limbaugh and apologized. Limbaugh stated he would not want to run the RNC in its "sad sack state".

Subsequently, it has been reported that the White House paid strategists, Emanuel, Paul Begala, James Carville, George Stephanopoulos, and Stan Greenberg have an almost daily morning conference-call "coffee talk" and decided: trying to drive a wedge between congressional Republicans and Limbaugh was unlikely to work, and their better move was to paint the GOP as beholden to Limbaugh. As many as a dozen top Democrats are continuing this hoax.

On March 4, 2009, Limbaugh challenged President Barack Obama to a debate on his radio program, offering to pay all of Obama's expenses: travel, food, lodging, and security.

Just this one section. What a mind-boggling mess of language this is. Someone who either loves or hates Limbaugh should endeavor to overhaul this article to make it coherent. Who could discern any kind of ideas from this? --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am wearying of editors who say that this article is subpar. To my eyes, it looks like typical quality for a Wikipedia article with multiple editors. If you think the article is sub-par, then FIX IT. Good lord, it is like you need an engraved invitation. Strive for NPOV and cite your sources. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Rush Limbaugh is a Pundit ?

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Rush Limbaugh appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. --Mhking (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He is just a Radio host. He wrestles while talking, he screams and cannot organize his talks. Contents are not rational. Refer to his recent talk in D.C which appeared on CNN. Citations needed to justify. Glunnbuck (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The characterization you use (i.e., his "screaming" as evidence that he is not a pundit among other things) does fly in the face of NPOV. Please seek consensus as opposed to imposing said NPOV. --Mhking (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Read Pundit. NPOV doesnot say that this radio host is correlated to Pundit. I'm seeking consensus and therefore I'm posting this on the Limbaugh's talk page. Someone made a mistake and I'm correcting it. Please talk to me over there. I did say many things, not just that he is screaming. He is far to be called as Pundit. Thank you. Glunnbuck (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to cite the sky is blue, we don't need to site Rush Limbaugh is a pundit. It's obvious to anyone who has any common sense and shouldn't need to be cited (I can't remember the policy that says you don't need to cite everything, can someone help me out?) Soxwon (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• For those who don't think the sky is blue [2]. Will remove fact-tag now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Forbes - Sean Hannity is a pundit. Does that say Rush Limbaugh is also. Otherwise we need to put back the fact-tag. Sky turns black, white.... How about Rush Limbaugh? Check http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/21/pundit-americas-top-oped-cx_tvr_0924pundits.html Glunnbuck (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You just repeated the link I provided above but didn't bother to read yourself so let me quote from there for you:"Each one of our top 10, along with near misses like Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann, are brought to the public domain primarily through television (radio superstar Rush Limbaugh is the only exception in the close-but-no-cigar crowd). ".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a new fact. I did not find either - very interesting. Atta Patha (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That means all hosts and DJs including me are Pundits. Thanks. Athos, Porthos (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it as offence or not (the pundid link and whatever comes with it). That is entirely up to you. But I'm wondering why you changes your editor's name from Glunnbuck to (aka) Atta Patha? If you want to try a fresh start establish a new account (even so I shouldn't advise you so right now since I'm sure you would "out" yourself in a matter of hours). Anyway, personally I would delighted if you would provide us with a reason regarding this change but more importantly would be an explanation why you think talking about "pundits" has anything to do with you. You know, here in WP we go by WP:RS and it seems like whatever we provide you in this regard is meaningless for you yet you don't provide reliable sources by yourself to proof "us" wrong. Why is that so? Check your personal WP:POV at the door and go from there. Nothing more to say I guess.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

All political commentators are generally called pundits in the US, as well as some other kinds of commentators. Perhaps you can expand on the details of your disagreement. If you care to conduct discussion on this page, I would appreciate it if you would stop switching your user name around. I don't care why you are doing it, but it appears deceptive.Jarhed (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Links supporting claim he's pundit: [3](in the freakin title), [4], [5] (meh not so much), [6], [7], and [8]. Is that enough? Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not for an individual

This article is not for an individual. It is about the so called Radio host business. The rules that apply to an individual cannot be applied here. I donot have time to fight with wikipedia or anybody about it.

• Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message and any part in the article.
• This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.

Keep all the things, not just the one sided story.

It is good not to involve in editing such articles. Let me shut my mouth. Thanks. Athos, Porthos (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is about a person and the rules do apply. The radio is only a part of who Rush is (or did you miss the entire sections on personal matters, early life, family etc.?) and to argue otherwise is nonsensical. Soxwon (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be asserting that this article about Rush Limbaugh is not a biography of a living person. You need no time to argue about it, because such assertion is preposterous. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Drug Addiction

Why is it "prescription drug addiction", drug addiction is drug addicton. It doesn't seem fair to sugarcoat it. If it was cocaine, heroin, meth, ectasy...etc, it would be "drug Addiction." He was a drug addict, and should be mentioned in that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.38.75 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that his speaking out against the use of illegal drugs is in contrast to his addiction to prescription drugs is totally out of place. They are completely different issues. The only common denominator between the two is the word 'drug'. Prescription drugs are firstly legal, and therefore used for a valid medical condition. Some of these Rx drugs are addictive, and that is the issue at hand here with Limbaugh. Trying to equate the two issues in the same section is obviously biased and inappropriate. If you want to write about his views on illegal drugs then start a separate section on it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not find that the phrase “prescription drug addiction” to be a sugar coated term, but one that is objective and accurate. However to disparage the comparison is also in error. Oxycontin is a class II narcotic, and is strictly regulated by the DEA. This drug can only be purchased from a licensed pharmacist, while processing a valid prescription. The charge levied against Mr. Limbaugh was the purchase of this drug in a parking lot, from an illicit dealer, without a prescription. This was the entry in the West Palm Beach police blotter. This is illegal drug activity and is punishable by both fine and imprisonment. The legality of the drug cannot be classified by the drug itself, but only by the law. For example, marihuana can be, and is sold by licensed providers to those with medical prescriptions in California; completely legally under California law, yet simultaneously, still a federal crime. It is the situation, jurisdiction and present statue, and not the chemical substance, that determines legality. Therefore "unsigned' and The Founders Intent’s arguments both fall short, and the wording should not be changed. -Lee [Special:Contributions/66.194.19.120|66.194.19.120] [User talk:66.194.19.120|talk] 05:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., is Judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri.

He's not on the Missouri Supreme Court anymore. He's on the federal bench. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamusikfan (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh being misquoted in this article.

In this article it claims that Rush Limbaugh was being "critical" of Feminism when he made the statement: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." This is nothing more than a malicious misrepresentation to make Limbaugh look like a monster. With this quote he was actually stating how wonderful it is that all women can have access to intellectual circles despite their outward appearance. You see, Limbaugh himself is a feminist and he sees ugly women as people just like you and me. He wouldn't say that women shouldn't be allowed in the mainstream society. He thinks that everybody, male or female, ugly or attractive should have access the same rights as you and me. This needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.209.197 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your analysis of Limbaugh's views on feminism are really reaching. Limbaugh has sport with feminists all the time, especially outspoken, political ones. Saying that he is actually on their side is a stretch, a big one. Limbaugh wishes that they all would fail.Jarhed (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Lost of feminists disagree with other feminists! It doesn't make you not a feminist. He said that thanks to feminism, unattractive women now have easier access to mainstream society. What about that statement is not feminist? Do you even know what feminism is? 38.118.23.20 (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In the sense that feminists disagree with each other, then you could declare Limbaugh a feminist. But honestly, that would negate all political distinctions that have meaning. Just because Limbaugh is an egalitarian and does not care about the sex or race of individuals, that is not enough to presume him a feminist. I believe that is going too far. I am no expert on this subject, but merely an interested editor.Jarhed (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For your information sir, feminism is merely the belief that women are equal to men. You've just stated that he does not care about the sex or race of individuals. He obviously disagrees with many feminists on certain issues, particularly abortion, but he believes men and women are equal, and thus, is a feminist. This article misquotes Limbaugh and makes it sound like he believes unattractive women should not have access to mainstream society. If you do not think he is a sexist, then why should this portion not be corrected? 38.118.23.20 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yike, I did my best to avoid your definition. There is a substantial political component to feminism which Limbaugh does not support. While you might be able to make the case that Limbaugh is a feminist, that statement would be extremely controversial, and I do not believe that such a controversial statement is appropriate for a bio page. Have a nice day.Jarhed (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of argument lets say he is not a feminist. Do you think Limbaugh is being misquoted in the way I specified, or is he sexist as this article currently implies? ...or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.209.197 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He is being quoted with the words out of his mouth, I can't imagine how that could be unfair. Your interpretation of what he said is reasonable, but in order to put it in you need a source. Sorry.Jarhed (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NEXT: Rush whacks Newt: 'He wishes they were running TV ads against him'

"I'm frankly getting tired of talking about Newt. I mean, it's a pointless exercise," Limbaugh said of Gingrich's dismissal of him on Meet the Press. "I'm surprised by nothing when I'm dealing with people in the media who think they're in politics.... They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time -- and you can't count on them. You can't depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they'll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time."

"I mean, next week Newt could come out and profess his total admiration and love for me if it would serve his purposes," he continued. "They're running TV ads against me. Newt Gingrich wishes they were running TV ads against him."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/Rush_whacks_Newt_He_wishes_they_were_running_TV_ads_against_him.html
GDJo3 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this be included? Maybe we ought to start a whole separate article on each person that Rush whacks. NOT. Are we planning to include every single person he's ever disagreed with? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Draft Status

The article states: "Limbaugh's birthdate was ranked as 175 in the Vietnam War draft lottery. No one was drafted above 125. However, he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to either a football knee injury or a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.[8][4]"

According to the Selective Service history of the draft, January 12, 1951 ranked as 152. Still would not have put him at risk, but he still sought out a 4-F status. It would be interesting to know the timing of that classification versus when the groups were being called up. Loch cache (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A plausible reason that he sought 4-F status was that he had a legitimate reason for doing so. But if he was not at risk for the draft, why is further discussion about this nothing more than a POV smear?Jarhed (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Being born in 1951 Limbaugh was subject to the draft lottery held on July 1, 1970. That lottery "determined the order in which men born in 1951 were called to report for induction into the military". There was no way of knowing if the 152 group would be drafted or not. The prior lottery had called through group 192 so it would have been plausible. I don't see it as a POV smear to ask when someone sought a change in status. Also, it is not a POV smear to question the legitimacy of that change in status.

Fact is, Wikipedia is quoted, often without citation, as being factual. What are the facts: He was born January 12, 1951; that date was assigned #152 in the lottery, not 175; at the time of the lottery, no one would have been able to predict if that was a "safe" number or not; Limbaugh was classified as 1-Y and then sought a change to 4-F, timing unknown.

(Late Edit: Since I am new to Wikipedia I do not have the ability to edit the article. The fact is Jan. 12, 1951 would mean his draft number would have been 152, so can someone please edit that? Loch cache (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that may be WP:UNDUE Soxwon (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding Rush Limbaugh page

While a student at Central High School in Cape Girardeau, Rush worked at radio station KGMO as a disc jockey using the name "Rusty Sharpe". KGMO was owned by William Bryan one of the original seven owners of KGMO. Rush Limbaugh's father was another of the original seven owners of KGMO.

Source is me (Jim Smith)who worked at the station at that time.

Jdsmit8 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR is not allowed. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is very interesting. Find a published source and put it in.Jarhed (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reread the article and the Sharpe reference is already there. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NOT an Honorary Member of Congress

The opening paragraph currently states that Limbaugh was made an honorary member of Congress in 1994. There is no thing as honorary membership in Congress. We can find a more accurate mention of what actually happened in the 1990s' section: shortly after the 1994 midterm election, he was a keynote speaker at a workshop for 73 incoming rookie Republican congresspersons. (The workshop was not officially given by the Republican party: it was sponsored by two rightwing advocacy groups.) He was, quite unofficially, dubbed an "honorary member" of the Republican freshman class at that event. I am going to edit out the first mention, although it will most likely get put back on. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say it has to be official? If they gave him the title it can be mentioned. Soxwon (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is no such thing, Congress does honorary things like this all the time. If I had the resources to search, I would bet that Pope John Paul II was declared an honorary member of Congress. Please calm down. I think that it is worth mentioning because that election was historic, and the freshman class of congressmen believed that they owed a lot of their success to Limbaugh.Jarhed (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ps - You can see Newt Gingrich's copy of the "Contract with America" at the Smithsonian if you ever go. You should. It is a laminated page from TV Guide.

I corrected the wording and provided a better source. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 03:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Horrigan, I kind of insist that you come here to discuss your disagreement on this issue before reverting. I don't necessarily disagree with removing the cite, but you must get agreement for your revert here. I will do anything to avoid a revert war, other than roll over and die because you like to shout. So far, I count three editors against you only. Would you like to explain how you justify reverting in this instance?Jarhed (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was reverting the edits because the original version of the story was, how shall I put this, maybe because it was UNTRUE?!? All that happened is that Limbaugh got an award after giving a talk to some freshman legislators back in 1994. It's really not that big a deal. In any case, he is not now and never has been an honorary member of Congress. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Horrigan, I get it that you like to revert other editors and yell. Perhaps you don't get the process of collaborative editing of Wiki articles. I implore you to make a little bit more of an effort. Once again, I don't necessarily disagree with your edit, but please don't revert again without discussing it here. There are other reasonable editors that disagree with you, thanks.Jarhed (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Timothy, I need a source from you on that. If you're such an expert on this then provide the source, I did. Did you revert my edit? Hmmm? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources which describe what happened in December 1994. I believe one is cited in the article. (I do realize, of course, that just because something can be cited, that doesn't mean it's true: published sources can be--- and often are--- incorrect.) The Heritage Foundation put on a workshop for incoming Congresspeople and all 74 incoming Republicans showed up. Limbaugh was a keynote speaker at the workshop, and he was given a plaque or something of that nature dubbing him an "honorary member" of the freshman Republican caucus. That is NOT the same thing as being granted a honorary membership in Congress. There is no such thing as honorary Congressional membership--- repeat NO SUCH THING!--- and if there was, it wouldn't be within the Heritage Foundation's or even the Republican caucus's purview to grant it. 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And so I revised the content to relect that fact from the NYT article, so why are we still debating the subject? Let's move on. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This "honorary member of Congress" stuff was well known back when it happened, but I suspect that Horrigan is right in this regard: the Republican Caucus probably voted him an honorary member of the caucus, not of Congress. What did the reference say? In any case, I think this should go back in the lede.Jarhed (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Right 99.0% of the time..."

Can anyone write about the company that tracks Rush's statements and says he is right 99.0% of the time, as Rush announces on most every show? I'm interested in how they decide what statements of Rush's to test for accuracy, how long they track those statements to see if they're accurate or inaccurate (such as with Rush's predictions), and the mathematics of calculating the percentage. Is there any public visibility of this analysis? Rush says a lot of things--if they tracked every statement he says that would be a pretty big undertaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.139.62 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Several days ago I inserted a sentence at the bottom of the "Claims of inaccuracy" paragraph that explained this. It was removed by an editor that said that it was unnecessary. Because of questions such as this one, I disagree that the cite was unnecessary, and I would like to revert the delete.Jarhed (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a reliable source, include it. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh and Pro Football

I was the one who took out a section about Limbaugh and Pro Football. Limbaugh may indeed be a big pro football fan, but that hardly sets him apart from any average American male. (Although, on the other hand, he did work for a pro baseball team, and he did some sports in local radio.) I ended up deleting one relevant incident which is briefly mentioned in the 2000s section: his brief stint with ESPN. Actually, speaking as a liberal, I might like to see more about the ESPN incident which was a major embarassment: aside from the 1990s TV show it was the only time he stepped outside the rightwing talk radio sandbox, and like the 1990s TV show, it was a major flop.

<<It was NOT a big flop. TV was, as it is TODAY, CHOCKER-BLOCK-FULL OF PC LIBERALS. DID YOU EVER watch? I'll bet my legs you DID not. I have been listening to Rush since day one. I am a 24/7 member. To quote Dr Savage: "Liberalism is a mental disorder." And, don't me started on Algore or Mikey Moore." >>

(Limbaugh's failure as a football commentator does not mean he is a failure: I am sure John Madden or Keith Jackson would flop if they tried to do a daily political talk show.) The old version did have some quotes which amply demonstrated his usual style of argumentation: to say something outrageous and then prolong the resulting controversy by attacking those who attacked him. The ESPN incident might warrant more coverage here.

<>

The rest of the section dealt with two or three things which might have happened but didn't. Even if they were cited, these non-events didn't need to be in the article. First, he could have gotten Dennis Miller's gig (which proved to be shortlived) on Monday Night Football--- but he didn't. Secondly (and thirdly), he told a reporter in 2008 that he was thinking of buying the Saint Louis Rams. In the end he didn't buy them, perhaps (uh oh, now I am speculating!) because the team was not actually up for sale. He said he wanted to buy the Rams to prevent them from moving back to Los Angeles, which was a move which might have happened were it not for the fact that no one was seriously pursuing such a possibility. As a general rule, the Wikipedia is not the right place to catalog events which might have happened but didn't. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

TOTUS

Soxwon has editied this with the comment "sources should demonstrate that both eyewitnesses agree". He has misunderstood the text. I am reverting it but without the word "both", which seems to have caused the misunderstanding. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be having a problem as my computer inserted something else...sorry for the confusion. Soxwon (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really relevant to the biographical article. The other controversies have had a significant impact on his public image and seen consistent referencing in media and other accounts of him, but this one is more of a recent blip than a major controversy. I think there is still an essay or guideline at WP:RECENTISM or WP:RECENT. If not, WP:NOT#NEWS is probably still there! Avruch ^T 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, controversies have to start somewhere, and I would maintain that it could be deleted later if in fact it proved to be less important than it seems at the moment. Readers do look to Wikipedia for up-to-date information on current issues. Morag Kerr (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As this article is about Rush Limbaugh and not Barack Obama's teleprompter usage, I must agree with Avruch that this is not an appropriate location for this information. Limbaugh has made satirical comments about prominent persons with whom he disagrees for years. There is currently nothing to differentiate this particular joke from hundreds of others that Limbaugh has made over the life of his radio show. --Allen3 ^talk 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And an article on Barack Obama's teleprompter usage (not initiated by me) was deleted, with the comment that it was about Rush Limbaugh rather than Obama, and might be better in this article. Morag Kerr (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Banners that need to go

This article contains two banners that I think are obsolete:

I think these need to go right now. They do not document anything currently relevant with the article.Jarhed (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "expansion" tag should go. As for the POV tag, as long as the tag in the controversies section remains in place, I see no problem with it going. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Jarhed (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So, are we ready to delete the banners?Jarhed (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Rush Limbaugh may well be the voice of the Republican party, but he is also a man who has been consistently criticized over his career for making comments that may have been disparaging. Not addressing this criticisms would be to present an incomplete picture of Limbaugh's life, career, and persona. This isn't to say that a section should be included simply to reiterate attacks on Limbaugh, but it is absolutely necessary address these criticisms in a manner that would provide the curious with a more full picture of Limbaugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.52.112 (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment in this section is about removing obsolete banners, not changing content. I think the above two banners are obsolete and need to go.Jarhed (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the neutrality of any article on Rush Limbaugh will always be in dispute. Banners just obfuscate the article.Ricardo4max (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Salary

Why is Rush Limbaugh's salary listed below his image on his right? It is the first article I have seen on a political commentator where this is included so prominently. I checked Chris Matthews, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck, Randi Rhodes, Mark Levin, Matt Drudge, and Rachel Maddow, and none of them have their salaries listed. Is this really that important to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylesellers (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is because of the fact that many of the salaries of those whom you listed are not released to the public. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be better incorporated into the body of the article since it's not a particularly salient detail.  EJNOGARB  01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/business/media/03radio.html) Limbaugh’s salary will be about $400 million through 2016, a $50 million a year salary, which amounts to a raise of about $14.4 million a year over his current contract set to expire in 2009. This salary is one of the highest in the TV and radio industry if not the highest. It comes during a period of declining radio industry audiences (over the past decade) and more recently declining advertising revenue according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus and Arbitron. Given this remarkable income achievement, I think his salary should be noted prominently on wiki. Maybe it should be given status under a “salary” heading.

New Photograph

There recently used to be a different photograph of Limbaugh at the beginning of this article. The current one, the newer, is very grainy, and should be switched back to the old one. Opinions?  EJNOGARB  14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The most recent predecessor, File:Replace this image male.svg, is a placeholder requesting a suitable image and is thus not an appropriate replacement. The image used before that, Rush_Limbaugh_2004_cropped.jpg, was deleted from Commons due to a license issue. As a result the current image appears to be the highest quality image currently available. --Allen3 ^talk 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I requested help with another, we'll see. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What about his mug shot? Is that in the public domain? For a copy of the photo see here. The image is pretty high quality and would make a good replacement if mug shots are in the public domain. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The mug shot was created by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office and is thus controlled by the laws of the State of Florida. Unlike works produced by the U.S. Federal government, works produced by state governments are usually not in the public domain. An examination of the website for Florida's governor also includes a copyright statement pointing to this page. While I am not a lawyer or expert in Florida law, these items combined seem to indicate that Florida retains copyright on works by state workers. Without clear evidence to the contrary, the mug shot does not appear to meet the licensing requirements needed for download to Wikipedia. --Allen3 ^talk 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Should go without saying, but a mugshot as the main picture on a bio page violates NPOV.Jarhed (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Non-free mugshot TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton Liberal Democrat?

I take great exception to Bill Clinton being labelled a, "liberal democrat." He is not now and was not then. He is a centrist Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.39.246 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton is NOT a liberal Democrat. He generally represents the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. He was president of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group working to move the Democratic Party to the political right--away from its traditional working class populist positions. To Illustrate the conservative nature of the DLC one should look at other past DLC presidents, men like, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia, Sen. Sam Nunn, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and Former Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee.

May I suggest an edit?

In 1992, conservative leader of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, won the Presidency, enabling Limbaugh to spend the rest of the decade satirizing the foibles of the scandal-prone President Clinton and his outspoken First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I would advise against such an edit. Clinton was a moderate, lets just stick to labeling him a "Democrat" or a member of the Democratic Party. No need to hash out here if Clinton is a liberal or a conservative, because there are degrees of each, and areas where you could be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, or vice versa and everywhere in between and all around. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Thars, labels should be used sparingly (as I've come to realize after a recent edit war over them). But getting to another point, "liberal" may not be true but it sure as heck fits better than "conservative. In any case, no label is best IMO. Soxwon (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Since the principle editors of the Barack Obama page have made it clear that a controversies section has no place in a good article, I am removing that section from this page (which is inordinately long as it is). If someone wants to incorporate some of the criticisms into regular sections, they may obviously do so. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh give me a break, how about reading WP:CSECTION and getting aquainted with how wikipedia works before making POV-warrior edits. Soxwon (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be "a temporary solution until the article is restructured to integrate criticism into each relevant section." How do you propose they be integrated, since this particular section is so long and fills up the entire portion on his talk show? It can't be done, and therefore needs to be removed.Ejnogarb (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting this section with a statement referencing your rebuff on the Obama page has made it clear you are not here to try to improve the article, merely to troll. Soxwon (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't participated in Obama's article, haven't been rebuffed, and it is my intention to make this article better. This is about approaching both articles fairly and equally. If such a section is inappropriate on one page, it also is for this article. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order please. What is going on at other articles, especially at such a high profile article as the POTUS, does not predicate what happens here or what belongs or doesn't belong ect. Please try to base how you want to improve this article based on policies and guidelines. Thank you, --Tom 16:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

According to guidelines, a controversy section should be temporary. Such a section is tolerated until it can be incorporated into relevant sections. If someone can propose how this can be done for this article, given the size and dominance of the controversies section, then let's do that. If not, the section should be removed. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is reasonable to have a section. My issue is that it has grown beyond proper proportion to the actual article -- and could stand a thorough trimming. When a third of an article is "controversies" it is probable that trimming is needed. Collect (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What parts would you edit out? The very least that could be done is condensing each controversy into a sentence or two and putting them together into one paragraph. If that can't be done, the whole section should go. Ejnogarb (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. If there are relevant controversies, they should be worked into the relevant sections, or perhaps another article. This section needs to go.Jarhed (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that all the controversies are related to his show. The only difference that would result would be listing them in his show, which unforetunately would lead to them dominating that portion. Soxwon (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did some very minor trimming. Unsourced material, repetitive material etc. are not needed in an article which is supposed to be a biography when all is said and done. And useless words simply are not needed at all. Collect (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

After careful reading, there is some weasel wording indeed. I also think that the section is a bit large and should be a little more summary and a little less play-by-play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing, but it unfortunately is not enough. As an example, I think the size, scope, and tone of Al Sharpton's controversy section is very appropriate. If we could at least trim Limbaugh's controversy section down to the current size of the "Operation Chaos" subsection, that would be better. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disgree with removing the controversy section. Limbaugh is popular, or famous, BECAUSE of his controversies. To remove them, or try to relegate them to something other than controversies takes away from the article. Because there are so many, and that is one of the most notable things about him, is the very reason they should stay. Controversy sections, as described by policy and guidelines, are refrencing putting controversy section on otherwise non-controversial articles to give it the controversy undue weight. In the case of Limbaugh, it would be undue weight to let any one controversy to consume the article, but it is in no way undue weight, or a violation of policy, to have a controversy section on a person, who almost by definition, is a controversial person. I think you are trying to prove something here and would direct you to WP:POINT. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ejnogarb I believe is. However, I do agree w/Collect that the controversies did need a bit of trimming. Soxwon (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So many political commentators are "controversial" figures, and yet their articles have more manageable sections for controversy. Even George W. Bush, who was a "controversial" president with a low approval rating doesn't have a section entirely devoted to controversies. Furthermore, it is your personal opinion that his controversial nature is what makes him popular, but there is no foundation for such a claim, and so that opinion should never influence the structure of this article. The very least that should be done is to trim this section down substantially and immediately. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you havne't been paying attention, but Collect and I have been doing just that. Soxwon (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect and Soxwon, I just reviewed the article, and I believe that you guys have made substantial improvements over the last 24 hours. Hooray for bold edits. Kudos.Jarhed (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions so far. There is still a lot of work to do, so keep it up. Ejnogarb (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose the subsection "I hope Obama fails" should be removed entirely because it doesn't cite any sources that claim it as controversial. Without such a reference, it is only POV. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am on board with removing anything from this section, since I have already said that the entire section should go away.Jarhed (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous assertion, imho, but I'm not going to edit war about it. I'm confident that ten years from now, this will be prominently mentioned in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and w/o consensus the article is to remain as it was. You are the one making the changes Ejnogarb, you need to attain consensus.

Guys, I am most likely the editor that started this issue over on the Obama page, and I apologize. I merely was trying to achieve bio parity. I think that is a resonable goal. Please have a great evening.Jarhed (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Hello folks. I am new on wiki and I just met Rush Limbaugh thanks to your article. It appears to me that a whole article should be devoted to Limbaugh's controversies, as this deliberate strategy seems to be part of what makes his success. Perhaps could it be included in a section about mass communication. Rom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.230.169 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In the section about him being the leader of the republican party. Is that really a controversy? Someone says something about you and it becomes controversy. You can't control what others say about you. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlbarton (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed after reading both this article, the George W. Bush article, and the Barack Obama article and his related articles, that the controversies are not included on the main artice. That being said, I suggest that we create an article based off of 'Controversies of Rush Limbaugh' or something similar, and remove it from the main article itself, because in truth the controversies section of any living person shouldn't be on what appears to be the forefront and focus of the article. Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Public Perception

The polling data in the Public Perception heading is now out of date by about two years. The PPP put out the results of a much more recent (23 Feb 2009) survey, which is more representative of his current favorability. Could someone with access update the stats? The survey can be found here: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_223.pdf -Eric 67.142.130.38 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the section with the new data, as you requested. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Retire

There are rumors about his retirement circulating across the nation and who will replace him, does anybody else know about this??? 204.133.215.130 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep dreaming. Rumors are not to be believed, ever. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely within the foreseeable future. Limbaugh's current contract runs for about 7 more years and he has previously stated, "I'm not retiring until every American agrees with me."[9][10][11] --Allen3 ^talk 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He basically said that from Day One. I think he's still working at it.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh is critical of environmentalism and climate science.

I believe that this is a biased and untrue statement. Mr. Limbaugh is neither against the environment (as this statement would lead one to believe) nor is he against climate science. What he is against is the using of environmental issues to masquerade a political agenda. Ditto with climate science. Mr. Limbaugh believes that the AGW (man made global warming) scare mainly promoted by Al Gore Jr. and James Hansen is a hoax and a political tool used by the left. He has covered many articles and had learned scientists on his program to support his views. He is actually in favor of more climate science research and less climate science religion. I would change that sentence to read ...critical of extremist environmentalists and Global Warming proponents.

I agree with you completely. Limbaugh isn't critical of climate science. He is just critical of the climate science that is researched by the major institutions that society has come to think of as reliable.

As for the controversy section. Mr. Limbaugh is only controversial because the vast majority of the media community are leftists and feel threatened by him. Calling his topics and issues controversial helps them to discredit Limbaugh, in their point of view. Ricardo4max (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the controversial section. Mr. Limbaugh is only controversial because he is a recovering drug abuser and the vast majority of hot air that comes out of his mouth frequently distorts facts to paint republicans as the master race. 193.1.52.12 (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article criticism

I have been following this article for several months, and to my eyes, it has gotten substantially better of late. Is it time to renominate it for good article status?

WRT the new picture: I have several problems. First, while it is a good one, it is a mug shot. It is hard for me to believe that a more suitable image can't be found for a bio of a living person. Second, the image claims to be in the public domain because it is federal property, but it is clearly attributed to a county sheriff agency. I suspect that it is NOT public domain and is mislabeled. There is extensive guidance around here somewhere about using mug shots.Jarhed (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Jarhed, a mugshot is a blatant violation of NPOV, and a BLP should not even have relatively ambiguous violations, and is probably not in the public domain. Other than that, the article seems to be ready, although the controversy section still hasn't been integrated into the main article, and there are a few minor and questionable violations of NPOV buiried in the text. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This artical forgets to talk about how keith olberman tends to call Rush Limbaugh "Mr. Bouncy Bouncy" sometimes and also has a picture of Rush Limbaugh jumping on the corner of the screen sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qsxxsq2 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that belongs in this article, things like that tend to violate NPOV and make the article too long over time, even if sources can be found. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 02:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservative/right-wing

I have a problem with describing Limbaugh as "conservative" without qualification, as that word can mean a lot of things. I realise it's how he describes himself, but that's only valid in a particular context that's very US-specific. I disagree with the implication of one user's edit summary that "right-wing" is a "partisan" "label". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit in question -- the usage was not NPOV to be sure. In the US, the use of excess adjectives is not considered proper usage, and piling on adjectives to make sure your position is very clear is unnecessary. "unecessary as he's labeled conservative)" does not impoute "partisan" by the way. Using "partisan" as thought it were implied in such an edit summary is inapt. Collect (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your revert says "see talk" but you have added naught. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for a more coherent response to my points. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Try using WP:NPA Collect (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think 'right wing' is a somewhat partisan label, just the same as 'left wing' would be, and by the way, 'right wing' has many meanings outside the US, just as 'conservative' does. Just my two cents. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the reason for replacing a widely used descriptive term that is embraced by the article subject with a term used by his political opponents? The standard practice for politically charged labels is to use a self selected label when such a label is available and it provides a meaningful description. This is done for several reasons. The first is that this practice satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Second is that self-selected labels minimize Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. Using a label created by a third-party brings with it the question of what biases does that third party add to the debate, a problem easily avoided with a self selected label. Using a term either shunned by the subject or used primarily by the subject's opponents just adds to the neutrality concerns. As noted by Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that label, "The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

The term "conservative" has been used by the U.S. press to describe Limbaugh for decades (e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) and Limbaugh himself uses the term as a self descriptor as evidenced by the repeated use of "we conservatives" in his recent CPAC speech.[17] The term "right wing" however lacks the same widespread use and is not used by Limbaugh and his supporters. While there are examples of neutral usage in the foreign press (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic for reasons not to use these as a precedent), the terms primary usage is as a pejorative by the political left. This is analogous to relabeling "progressives" as "liberals" despite efforts by those on the political left to avoid the term.[18] --Allen3 ^talk 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that "right-wing" is a perjorative, see Vast right-wing conspiracy.Jarhed (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about calling him a "self described conservative"? That basically fixes this issue, no?

"Self described", doesn't that more or less apply to everyone? However considering others have described him as a conservative talk show host, I'd say he's beyond "self" described. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

ESPN

Limbaugh's commentary accused all Philadelphia sport media of conspiring to only say/print positive things about McNabb. This is not racist, but is untrue, and certainly contributed to his dismissal. I think the ESPN section should be expanded to include this. Glkanter (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what he said, and I think that the whole thing was just a media stunt to begin with so really it wasn't supposed to end "well." The current version appears all right to me. Soxwon (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found various slightly different wordings of what he said, and I indeed overstated the 'media' portion. It was, as the article states, racist. Glkanter (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really. Please provide a source that says so.Jarhed (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I know why He talks the way he talks......he is uneducated!! Coming from a family of so many highly educated people he has a complex!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.199.247 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How could what Rush said be racist? He said that the press wanted a black quarterback to succeed. That's not racist. I wanted a black quarterback to succeed too. I'm black. Does that mean I'm racist toward my own race? In my opinion, "that's racist" is becoming a worn out mantra in the U.S. and I'm tired of hearing it.

WtF?

why do you guys continue to revert my new lead?[19] John Asfukzenski (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What we are trying to do is cover what is important to the article. The guidelines for the lead sections have the size listed as about 15,000 to 30,000 characters. While your edit brings it more towards that range, it also includes some not so WP:NPOV additions and a lot of uncited material. If those things were addressed (and if you want assistance I'd be happy to help), then I would have no problem. Soxwon (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Give an explanation how my lead was not NPOV? John Asfukzenski (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, it has an overkill on conservative/right-wing. Does it really need to be mentioned 5 times? Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your change is no improvement. Also, we already had the discussion about "right wing".Jarhed (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is about as influential to the conservative cause than anyone in the United States. I do not see what the issue is. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it brings the lead beyond reasonable length, it's neutrality is questioned, and that it removes some content. Imagine if the lead on Barack Obama mentioned liberal or left-wing five times in the lead. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 02:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also imagine what would happen if someone rewrote the Obama lede without discussing it first. This is a controversial article, and there is a warning at the top of this page to please discuss substantial changes before making them. I don't think that is unreasonable.Jarhed (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama is a liberal left-wing and limbaugh is a conservative right wingthey are not offensive terminology I do not see where this argument is comming from I know I am far after the discussion but the fact people are taking offence to non offensive terminology is really bizzarre--69.146.148.56 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearing loss

There have been numerous examples of deafness being caused by oxycontin. Limbaugh's deafness, while officially attributed to AIED, is largely believed to have been caused by years worth of drug addiction. This appears no where within the article, even though there are a number of sources that could provide the both the links between deafness and oxycontin abuse and the theory that this is what caused Limbaugh's deafness. I believe it should be included. Thoughts? Erikeltic (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide some of these sources? The Incident (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than casting doubt on the integrity of Limbaugh's doctors and causing potential embarrassment to Limbaugh, what are encyclopedic benefits of this proposed addition? The physicians that examined and treated Limbaugh have provided the official diagnosis of Autoimmune inner ear disease and even confirmed this diagnosis after speculation began as to other causes.[20] While media contains reports of other physicians speculating as to the cause of Limbaugh's deafness, such reports are just that, speculation.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Including speculative optional causes from "experts" who have never had the opportunity to perform a professional examination of the subject when a perfectly valid explanation has been provided by knowledgeable experts positioned to have full knowledge of the true causes is neither conservative nor responsible.--Allen3 ^talk 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What they said. Your theory lacks a source to prove it.Jarhed (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Diet

Is it just me, are has Limbaugh REALLY lost weight lately? Wow. Seeing him in his recent interview with Shaun Hannity, he has noticeably lost weight, enough to certainly affect his visual appearance. I believe its claimed that he lost 27 pounds in his first 27 days, that he's lost up to 63 pounds total so far, and claims he will continue his plan for another 75 pounds before he stops.

His amazing weight loss has been coming up a bit on his show as of late, and though he doesn't want to talk about it much, he did address it a bit to callers on his show. He refuses to post the diet, but has provided clues that its some sort of low carb one (mostly from his April 20th show I believe). If someone can help get the facts straight, then I think a diet section underneath the personal life category of his page should defiantly be considered. Like him or hate him, when a public figure manages to accomplished such weight loss, its certainly to be commended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHolyDarkness (talk • contribs)

Politely put, whether something should be commended or not doesn't make it notable. And didn't Rush lose weight a few years ago also? Dayewalker (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I heard him say this week he was down to 220. Regardless, what is the standard for determining if this should be mentioned? The Incident (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I marvel at people who obsess about how much Limbaugh weighs. No way is this notable.Jarhed (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh was morbidly obese until he became a drug addict. Then, he lost some weight and is now, simply fat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordstool (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New infobox image?

About Limbaugh's main picture, isn't it technically a mug shot? I mean, I know he was arrested but he's not known for being a criminal or is this article about him being a criminal. Anyone else have an image of him doing his one of his radio broadcast or something? I think that's more suitable than the current photo. -- R32GTR (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the image that was previously used, File:Rush Limbaugh at CPAC (2009).jpg. The image is of lower resolution but has the advantage of not casting its subject under false light. --Allen3 ^talk 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care which image is used here, but the mug shot photo doesn't look like a typical mug shot, and I wouldn't have thought that it was a mug shot if I didn't look at the description. It is in focus, well lit and the subject is well dressed, smiling and wearing nice clothes. --rogerd (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Father's military record

Need a source for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Birther

On his website I have seen several bits where he brings up Obama's birth certificate. If he is indeed a "Birther" (there is an entry on this site) Should this be mentioned? If a well known liberal pundit happened to believe 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration and used his program to spread this it would probably be mentioned. No? I don't think it violates NPOV since it is an extreme view and is notable in the context of the business Rush is in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.91.247 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Linked that for you. That's the first I've heard of it (the term, not the nutty conspiracy theory). Yes, if the de facto leader of the Republican Party is a "Birther," then it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

He is not a birther. On his show, he says repeatedly that he just wants Obama to release his birth certificate. Most major Conservative Leaders (Ie: Not the nutjobs on the news) simply want Obama to release the birth certificate so the debate can be dropped. (I listen to Rush daily) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.75.51 (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that means he is at least affiliated with the "Birther" camp, much like Lou Dobbs can be. Both can plausibly deny being a Birther while calling Obama's birth certificate into question (which, for the record, is what a Certificate of Live Birth in Hawaii is).--70.21.185.72 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The lack of knowledge in this country is astounding. People don't "release" their own birth certificates, they are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD. ANYONE..can legally obtain a copy of them. Jeez.

One thing

Discussion collapsed, section about subject, not about improving article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article forgets to mention that good old rush likes to ignore science and label everything about the Obama Administration as a Nazi and then when he gets grilled he "clarifies" his statements. This article also forgets to mention that he is also the only human being in history to be born from pigs. (... yes, okay i know thats a POV... but its practically true..) :D Tdinatale (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Goes both ways. State-run media channels claim that opposition to the Obama Administration is racist... yet when called on it they backstep and claim ignorance. If there are similarities between the Obama Administration and the Nazi Party, so be it. A lot of his policies reflect that sort of behavior, but apparently it's wrong to state them without violating NPOV. Imagine that. Gpia7r (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not following. What state run media? Tdinatale (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I can't think of a reason you'd say "...which is a policy the Nazis also held", regarding Obama, unless you intended to compare him to the nazis. There's no relevant reason to do that, unless you want to cast an unfavorable light on him not for his faults, but for those of the Nazi party- basically, if you want to sway opinions about him. Same thing with the "racist" claim. It's an attempt to discredit someone so that people don't hear them out- to the point that their opinion is completely disregarded. Ad hominem attacks are very effective. I'm not sure how you could make a case for either of these methods being NPOV, being that their intention is to make people think particular people are 'bad' with little to no actual evidence. --King ÖÖmie III 20:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC) YUP totally agree... and the fact that Nazis started as conservatives... and obama is liberal... I dont get it either.. only the far right could use such a weird and false analogy. Tdinatale (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) PS: side note: Rush couldnt even finish 2 years of college. What an overpaid megalomaniac genius that 10M+ Americans should listen to. What a clown.Tdinatale (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Not a place to start a flame war. Gpia7r (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I didn't come here to insult Limbaugh, Tdinatale, but thanks for showing us all that you can edit objectively. --King ÖÖmie III 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshot

Is it appropriate to include Rush's mugshot in this article? The Incident (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We would have to have a copy of the mugshot to add to the article. Until we have that picture in wikicommons, with a proper fair use rational, its a moot point. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this it? [[21]]The Incident (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes File:Rush Limbaugh.jpg is the mugshot, which is probably one of the nicest mugshots I have ever seen. His hair is in place, he is well dressed and with a slight smile, and there is no apparent police signage visible. I think that if you didn't know that it was a mugshot, you would think that it is a decent portrait. --rogerd (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Shopping v.s. Fraud

The artilce refers to "Dr. Shopping" and the photograph in that section refers to "fruad". What is the right term for the article? While there is a wikipedia article for Dr. Shopping, it seems that the proper term is fraud. It seems more accurate in the article to say that the warrant for his arrest was for fraud. I realize that might be controversial, but it seems that it would be more accurate in this case. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The proper term would probably be Substance abuse if you are talking about the oxy indicent. For the viagra it would be something like Sex Tourism. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Current weight lose

Rush has lost 80 lbs in 5 months. He is currently 210 lbs. his is noteably because he was always known as being overweight withc he is no longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Any WP:RS's for that which report it as a fact and significant?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rush has made this claim and it can be seen by looking at photos of him during that time period. It has been reported by many including ABC. This is noteworthy because his critics have razzed his about his weight, most noteably Al Frankin with the title of his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He's probably losing weight the same way Anna Nicole Smith lost weight.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation

What ever happened to the donation to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation -- when exactly was it made? Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It was an annual event for a long time. I assume he still does it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked the Marine Corps Foundation to send us the press release they issued on the donation. Rjensen (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Eugene B. Casey Foundation bought the letter and did donate $2.1 million to the Marine Corps Foundation according to their tax returns. The press release has not yet turned up for Limbaugh's donation. Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why doesn't this page point out the liberal propaganda thats saying Rush didnt use to always be straight. They stoop low, Rush aint no man lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.32.108 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is due to Wikipedia's policies regarding Biographies of living persons and Verifiability along with Wikipedia not being a forum for gossip or scandal mongering. --Allen3 ^talk 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also not a soapbox to lambaste Limbaugh's enemies. Also, is "man lover" clinical terminology? --King Öomie 00:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

'Unclear'

"It is not clear whether Limbaugh also regards similar tactics being used on captured US personnel as acceptable."

You don't have to like Limbaugh. But this statement drips with just as much passive-aggressive jabbing as repeatedly referring to Obama with his middle name (hi, Conservapedia!), and is unacceptable for the same reasons. Find a source that mentions both his position and your point, or don't re-add it. --King Öomie 13:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bio pic

Gel on the lens (to smooth wrinkles) and a 'sunny afternoon' yellow filter. Suitable for 'happy golden family' cornflakes commercials, but not a bio pic. Anarchangel (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Or it's a webcam. Cute attempt at being witty, though. Better luck next time, Broseph. 68.44.212.4 (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Only a conservative would think that picture is appropriate, it looks like a romance novel cover... It's kind of cheesy, but definitely not a "neutral" POV picture.--Enemy010101 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Profile Picture

In the light of his recent loss of over 80 lbs, I'd have to say its appropriate to change the profile picture since Rush looks so much different. 72.54.93.138 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The currently used image was chosen for two factors: the image is freely available (Suitable Creative Commons licenses, GNU Free Documentation License, public domain, ...) and does not cast the image subject in false light. If you or anyone else can provide a more recent image or equal or greater quality to the current and which satisfies both of these factors then we would be glad to update the image. --Allen3 ^talk 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rush's song today

Can you send me the words to Rush's song today or a web site I can get it from? Billie ><> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.194.167 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

What do you mean, "Rush's song"? Do you mean the theme song of the broadcast? Or do you mean the parody singing of several songs he uses? These you can find on his website http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ as sung by White comedian, Paul Shaklin.
hth, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Rams

Should we bring this up [22], [23]? Soxwon (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For the time, no. If Limbaugh becomes an owner of an NFL team then it should be included. At this time however it is still speculative as to what will happen. There are still plenty of details to be worked out (finding needed partners for financing, league approval of the new owners, ...) and the deal could collapse with the same speed at which it initially materialized. Until we know with certainty how all these future events will work out, it is better to Wikipedia:Let the dust settle and wait for events to unfold. --Allen3 ^talk 12:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should necessarily be put in now, but I do think that it shouldn't just be ignored just because he doesn't become one of the owners. I would argue that it would become a notable event if Limbaugh can get together a group of partners and a serious bid. It would seem to go well in the section about his brief Monday Night Football stint.Zappa2496 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If Rush becomes part-owner, I'd suggest we create a separate football section, which can cover MNF, McNabb, the Rams, and the Environmentalist Wacko method of choosing winners of football games. We could almost do it now, but not quite yet.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Point of View Section

The little bit confabulating Rush's ridicule of Obama's winning the Nobel Peace Prize with Islamic fundamentalists' treatment of women isn't accurate or NPOV and should be removed. I would do it but I'm not an established user yet.Chelydramat (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

criticism and controversy section

Rush Limbaughy has a prodigious amount of criticism and controversy tied with his name.

If there is not one made by Saturday then I will make one myself. 173.50.251.104 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's going to be quite a challenge for you to tie genuine controversy and critisism while staying neutral. Most controversy is what the media makes out of him, and 95% taken out of context. Gpia7r (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Be prepared to lock the page, since Rush Limbaugh has just listed the page as carrying uncited information about him. Oh, already locked I see - well, get your act together people. Cite appropriately.72.54.93.138 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can help! The page is only semi-protected, so if you have an auto-confirmed account (four days old, ten edits), you can edit it. --King Öomie 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

i think this page was actually very unbiased, which actually surprised me. the writer stated what controversies there were, what rush actually said, and what the media took it as. good job. the only thing i would point out is that there is a good ammount focused on controversies and personal problems, like the pills addiction, yet president obama has nothing negative on his page. just for thought. 136.160.191.18 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

no you cannot has nfl team

so why not a section on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP - This is not a page for debate about your personal opinions of Rush. Neither is the NFL contraversy necessarily over. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Pre-deal

Rush Limbaugh about fifteen minutes ago claimed wikipedia to be the source of a widely publisized campaign against him, and the source of untrue quotations regarding the St Louis Rams. He has said he is bring legal action to bear against all the parties responsible, which is bound to include the wikimedia foundation. We need to quickly provide rock solid sources for the statements or we need to probably get them oversighted and removed asap. I propose we get some admin intervention. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the quotes as they are now are almost certainly a violation of WP:BLP. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see those quotes at all, actually. --King Öomie 17:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He did not say that at all. Get your facts straight. The source is an unknown "blogger" somewhere on the internet. He mentioned Wikipedia as one of the places that picks up the information and presents it as fact, one of the many media outlets that are wrongfully doing so. The pending litigation is against the originating person that made up the story. Gpia7r (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the facts right, he plainly said he was taking legal action against EVERYONE who has repeated the quotes to have them retracted and formal apologies made. If we picked them up, then that would include us. He accused the wikipedia of making the little known blog comments widely known, for obvious reasons. He also alluded to, but did not say, that the blogger himself was responsible for the edition on wikipedia. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am searching also for other claims he made.. But can't find evidence on them on here. I am not trying to make controvesy here. Just trying help us avoid a big problem. On it.wiki a similar thing is going on, a hige lawsuit that coudl destroy the whole thing by a politician who is claiming libel. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What quote is he on about? this one? That was literally on the site for 4 minutes. I can't see anything else even remotely relevant. --King Öomie 17:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the only one I saw too, and that is what I was refering to above. I am trying to find the others still that he claimed were here, but am not having any luck. He claimed the false statements were quote attributed to him in which he supposedly said he was in favor of slavery and made racist remarks. He claims the quotes to be a complete fabrication. I cannot find those anywhere in the history of this article though. I have also checked the Rush Limbaugh Show and have not found them there. Better safe than sorry though; I am going to keep looking just to be sure. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen that claim on Wikipedia, at least on these two pages. If there are any comments on the NFL, Rams, McNabb, or other pages... I haven't looked for it there. If it isn't there, I would think he just mentioned Wikipedia due to the popularity of wide-open sites like this, and comparing it to the type of place that took the story and ran with it. *shrug* Gpia7r (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought he said Wikiquote, not Wikipedia.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! They are still on there too. [24] —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific statements in question. [25] --King Öomie 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that wiki's policies.. I made a note on their admin notice board. [26]. I guess someone there can look into it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's up to that book's sources being solid. It's only libel if it's not true, so if there's a recording... --King Öomie 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He said they've gone through their past shows for 20 years (which, sure, that's a bit much... but pretty strong words for someone stern about this sort of situation) and there's no trace of any such comments. Gpia7r (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I... well, let's say that that doesn't give me any new information over whether or not he said any of that stuff. Facts haven't held back Limbaugh's mouth before, why start now? --King Öomie 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, pretty much everything Rush speaks is the truth, no matter how much some would wish it wasn't. If it is libel against it, it needs to go pronto.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. BLP comes from the Wikimedia Board, it must surely apply to WikiQuote too.. I think we are encouraged to err on the side of caution in situations like this. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is looking less like these moderators are fair and balanced as the statements by King Öomie prove above. He has a predeterminded point of view with regard to Rush Limbaugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.32.16 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I was fair and balanced. And it's hardly predetermined. I've determined it myself. You'll notice, however, that I don't make content edits to this article for exactly that reason. If you have a REAL problem, take it up the chain. Otherwise, leave me alone. --King Öomie 18:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"I don't even care about th... Wikipedia is irresponsible as anything else." He's ranting right now about the people that actually matter in this situation. Ran off a list of people that will be receiving notification to produce the website/source. If they cannot, they owe him an appology and a retraction of the libel. Fun stuff. Gpia7r (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He did mention Wikipedia and that the quote had a "citation needed" tag on it. He was using Wikipedia to show that "even wikipedia has questions about this quote." The quote that he has questions about is the one where he reportedly said that slavery has merit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He said, "I mean, everybody in the world knows you don't believe anything on Wikipedia because anybody can go in there and put anything on that they want to unless you succeed in getting your site locked, and I don't even care about that. Wikipedia is as irresponsible as anything else. Anybody can post anything they want on there." I think Wikipedia needs to fight for a better reputation. I've heard this stuff before. When Rush says things, people listen. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I take notes daily on the Rush Limbaugh Show, and today he said: “To everyone who repeats these lies, we are going to send a Letter and demand they back it up. If they can’t, we will demand an apology and a retraction. . . . They are attacking my profession, credibility, and character.” You can read the whole transcript, including a montage of commentator speculation, that was broadcast by Rush Limbaugh today at: http://www.RushLimbaugh.com or at http://www.RushLimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101309/content/01125108.member.html

He said they know the identity of the anonymous poster on Wikipedia.

Hope this helps. Honesty is the best policy. Keep up the good work. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that a couple of people have done quite a bit of editing. I didn't notice any quotes with tags needing citations. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another article about the alleged identity of the anonymous poster. They know the alleged building (allegedly a progressive law firm that whose ideology is the opposite of Limbaugh's), and the computer foresnics experts will possibly try to identify the exact person. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle. Any RS for this? No, of course not. So just let editors who can and are willing to find such sources handle this. If there are some they will find them; You won't because you still don't understand the difference. God bless you, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, the normally "reliable" sources have published false, made up quotes. Therefore, we must look outside the mainstream to find the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

After being here since April 26, 2007, you might want to read wp:source. Enjoy, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, i hope the people at wiki learned something over this. and its funny to see a few people with predetermined views scramble to try and cover their asses. Take a lesson from this: Be a little less biased, check ur sources. 136.160.191.18 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Dittoheads are making a problem where none exists. Of course, Wikipedia is not particularly reliable; it couldn't be otherwise. The chances of Limbaugh winning a lawsuit against Wikipedia are nevertheless extremely close to zero (and it's certainly a hell of a lot more reliable than the Limabaugh show). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.96.81 (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Post-deal

Yesterday, Rush said he sees this is not about him, not about the St. Louis Rams, not about the NFL, but rather it is about liberal-Democrats trying to silence Conservatives. He referred to Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee repeating what she learned from others on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It is important that we at Wikipedia maintain neutral-point-of-view and be noted for that. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: It's been found, so far, that the corrupt source came on Wikipedia from the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP they mention is blocked. --King Öomie 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our old buddy Eleemosynary was blocked some time ago, but his "good works" on the WMF projects continue to cause damage. My inability to get much support in neutralizing this guy's edits was one of the reasons I stopped editing almost two years ago. I hope everyone who stuck up for him, and in turn took swipes at my character, are all very proud of themselves now. - Crockspot (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To follow-up, I posted a note at Talk:Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler for future reference. I also archived of one of the firm's press releases here. (That particular link goes to a side project of theirs, as noted by my previous post above. It's interesting but it may not turn out to be relevant.)

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say I am quite shocked at the level of destruction caused by wikiquote. One person puts up a fake quote, then copied into a book, published nationally for a week straight on every news channel, and having direct impact on a major buisness deal. This is a worse case scenario for our projects, no oversight, false information remaining on the site for years until it is picked up, then reference back in a circular source. Goodness. Theres a news story on fox news right now that legal experts say Rush has a basis for a lawsuit, and you know in the end it will end up where the quote originated... right here. I really feel we should be proactive here. Maybe if someone from the foundation contacted Limbaugh to offer an apology we could avoid any possible litigation. I know it is on wikiquote, but it seems like there is no one in charge there... —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about the paid professionals who did zero fact-checking on the information they pulled from a wiki? --King Öomie 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact-checking staff was given a respite after spending all of their time on an SNL skit. :P Gpia7r (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a law suit will end up here (though I'm no lawyer). What would be the point, and there's no money. It's the NFL folks and MSM that apparently spread lies and misquotes that will likely see litigation. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Theres a news story on fox news right now that....":

I think this pretty much sums up "Charles Edward"; he believes what he hears on Fox "News". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.96.81 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox News running an AP story = WP:RS —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell the Truth

Good source of info regarding media malfeasance in pushing false Rush "quotes". http://www.mrc.org/splash/TellTheTruth.htm 216.153.214.89 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No Rams or quote controversy?

Is there really no mention of the St. Louis Rams bid or the false quote controversy? All politics aside, these are pretty substantial news stories. If people want to make the argument that they aren't significant enough to warrant mention, fine, but the article currently mentions that Rush once appeared on Letterman (as has every celebrity on the planet), appeared for about 10 seconds on Family Guy, was on the cover of Cigar Aficionado, etc. How are those more significant? There is also a very long section on painkiller addiction, and a whole separate article on Barack the Magic Negro (which I realize is about more than just his show, but is still pretty Rush-centered). Doesn't a national, widely discussed news story like this get at least a few sentences? -R. fiend (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of inclusion, however, since Wikipedia/Wikiquote is kind of up to its neck in this thing, we have to be extremely careful. No self-sourcing of WMF, extremely neutral treatment, the most solid sources only, no original research. Basically, by the BLP book in the extreme. It's also a still-unfolding saga, so it wouldn't hurt to let the dust settle a few more days. - Crockspot (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think much of that goes without saying, or should, at least. I see no reason why we can't have a brief paragraph covering the basic facts neutrally. I think the main problem is once we start people often wiki it up and turn a concise paragraph into a rambling, long-winded treatise attempting to cover every single aspect of the incident. I think we can probably prevent that, if we try. -R. fiend (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, if only to make a point of debunking the false quotes that were attributed to Rush. People are going to look this up after hearing about the story, and our article should present a brief but clear and neutral summary. Now... who wants to be the one to try to write it? :) Robofish (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a story I've really been following, so I may not be the ideal person to write it, but I can give it a shot when I have a little more time. As I said, I'm just looking for a short paragraph of the basic facts, so it really shouldn't take too much expertise. The trickiest part I guess will be covering the false quotes, as where they originated will be pretty important to the section, and from my brief examination of the issue it seems that matter is still somewhat up in the air. -R. fiend (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this page which is about the book from which the quotes in question apparently originated. It seems to cover the situation decently and fairly, though perhaps a bit more in depth than this article warrants, although much of it seems to me to be out of the scope of that article as well. I don't want to do a cut/paste, but perhaps a summary of that here, using the same sources (assuming they're good; I haven't really looked) would be a quick and easy way to cover the incident without doing a bunch of research. -R. fiend (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Missouri State University should be changed to Southeast Missouri State College, which is what it was called when Rush attended there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Missouri_State_University —Preceding unsigned comment added by PashaNatanovich (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leader of the Republican Party

Why is this under "Controversial incidents". He did nothing. Rahm Emanuel made this statement. And what does the sentence "On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Emanuel" have to do with anything?Rlbarton (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who knows anymore? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the dust has settled we can place it in the proper location. Soxwon (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Heart Attack Today?

Just saw on cnn.com he was in a hospital in hawaii with chest pains, listed in serious condition. someone want to add this?98.117.145.168 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Rushed To Hospital

http://www.khon2.com/content/news/developingstories/story/Rush-Limbaugh-in-Serious-Condition-at-Honolulu/sBGSbb4mO0q1VdQdEe4goA.cspx

paulfromatlanta I've added the heart even but we still only have one primary source - KITV a local station. The CNN report even sound a little skeptical saying that its a coincidence that it would happen while he is vacationing at the same time in Hawaii as "his nemesis"(CNN's words) We could still really use a second primary source as everything I can find right now leads back to KITV - specifically to http://www.kitv.com/politics/22094469/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfromatlanta (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta Reuters, The NY Times and CNN allreport trying unsuccessfully trying to get a statement the hospital and from Rush's people with no success. I'm watching the DirecTV news mix and none of the news channels are covering it as more than a heart event and serious condition. I don't see how we can conclude he has died with current data. God rest his soul if he has passed. But this is an encyclopedia and we don't have a primary source. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

Paulfromatlanta CNN just went live to a reporter at the hospital who had an unidentified source saying Rush would be staying the night but that there would be nothing official tonight. So it looks like things are stable for the night unless something unexpected happens. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

From RushLimbaugh.com, apparently an official "release""

ALERT: Rush was admitted to a Honolulu hospital today and is resting comfortably after suffering chest pains. Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes. He will keep you updated via RushLimbaugh.com and on Thursday's radio program.

Looks like he's going to be okay, so that's good. UnitAnode 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)