Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Contents

Controversy Section

I am disappointed to find no "Controversy Section" in the Rush Limbaugh article, considering his reputation. Virtually every figure on Wikipedia has a controversy section, and the absence of one here suggests that this article is overly biased. This is not an intellectual article as required by Wikipedia's mission, this is self promotion.--Waxsin 22:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Controversy Section" for the same reason that there is no "Praise Section". Information in well written articles intentionally interweaves both positive and negative information together to provide a balanced and neutral text compliant with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view and biographies of living people. Such an effort also has the advantage of being easier to understand because all information regarding an event are co-located in the article instead of fragmented into multiple statements located in separate sections. The down side to this organization is that individuals coming to this article looking for information supporting their preexisting biases are forced to read the entire article. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advocacy site, this should not be a problem. --Allen3 talk 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Such an effort also has the advantage of being easier to understand because all information regarding an event are co-located in the article instead..." Then I wouldn't consider the "Rush Limbaugh Show" an event as it was a period in his life, while the events involving Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease and the "phony soldier" incident are specific events that occurred in Rush Limbaugh's life and were part of his notoriety from the public perspective. The reason why biographies are written is because the subject has achieved some level of notoriety in the public eye, hence a biography's purpose is also to point out and explain why that subject is famous, whether because of positive or negative reasons. As an example, Roseanne Barr has her own controversy section which helps the reader understand other references to an incident within the article and helps clarify something the reader may have heard only by word of mouth. The "Rush Limbaugh Show" has its own article already, while these incidents are specific to Rush Limbaugh, thus I do not think there would be much disorganization if a controversy section were made.--Waxsin 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Waxsin, he is controversial thus a criticism section is warranted - Allen3 is just using smoke and mirrors - having a seperate section left out means that the negative is conviently left hidden, more subtle and harder to decipher. Guess thats the way Allen wants it. ~~Sortdelay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sortdelay (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You may agree but it still doesn't make much sense. He doesn't have a praise section, or a controversy section. Controversies are mentioned as in any biography but they don't need a stand alone section. Calling it smoke and mirrors is just an ad hominem attack and doesn't do much for consensus, so please refrain. --Rtrev 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the controversies are hard to find and not really presented in a balanced way. A fairly large ratio of articles I've read on Wikipedia have had very well-written controversy sections, and Rush Limbaugh is certainly controversial enough to warrant that. The article itself reads as a "praise" section, sort of. The intro paragraph says that he "has been credited with reviving AM radio in the United States" (No citation, and I've never heard that, really) yet does not mention that he is even a slightly controversial figure. Allen3's "No praise section" argument would be relevant if nearly every other biography, like Ann Coulter, didn't have one. But they do. Big 'uns. 68.115.97.194 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Mahatma Gandhi even has a controversy section.--Waxsin 01:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

POV issues with "Questions about accuracy" section

As the previous compromise on this section has broken down and my attempt to restore it has been reverted, I have tagged the section and brought things here for further discussion. At present there appear to be two competing issues that need to be addressed to re-balance this section:

  1. The section is based exclusively on the claims of Limbaugh's political rivals (FAIR[1] and MM[2] both self-identify as progressive while Franken[3] is a self-identified liberal) and failure to mention this pertinent fact creates a neutrality problem by presenting one group of related political views as a universal viewpoint.
  2. Descriptive terms used to label the groups have been repeatedly modified with no clear compromise acceptable to all political viewpoints yet appearing.

As the previous compromise of using the cited groups self-identified terms appears to no longer be acceptable, how do we resolve these two competing issues? --Allen3 talk 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rush isn't even a reporter, he's a talk show host. Why should he care what FAIR says about him? HighPriest 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion: Those who want the word "progressive" or "liberal" removed should put forth examples of criticism from conservative media. If such verifiable sources are found, they should be included in the section. If no such evidence exists, then the only verifiable criticism is liberal and/or progressive. Davecornell

I think we should remove this section entirely. It doesn’t make much sense to include criticism from Rush's political opposition in this capacity. It is immaterial, and violates NPOV.--Leiding 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And I think the section is important - that someone can write an entire (best-selling) book about inaccuracies in facts that Limbaugh cites (not his opinions, not his arguments, but hist facts), demonstrates pretty clearly that this is a matter of importance. And yes, the criticism comes from Limbaugh's political opponents - it's a fact of life that in the U.S. (and most of the rest of the world, I'm guessing), liberals don't criticize other liberals who get facts wrong (unless they are running for the same office), and conservatives don't criticize other conservatives.
Finally, WP:NPOV doesn't ban the inclusion of criticism in articles; it merely requires it to be in neutral language. If the article said "Critics have correctly pointed out ... " or "Critics have identified ... ", that would be POV language, and the solution would be to change the language, not delete everything related to the concept. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this section should stay, then it should be balanced from the point of view that Rush is also more correct daily on many issues than other media outlets. This would have to be researched thoroughly. I listen to him 3 hours a day, every day, and I know for a fact that his facts are more often correct than what you see on T.V or read in print.--Leiding 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What you "know" to be true is well covered by the WP:NOR policy - it's totally unusable here at Wikipedia. If in fact a reputable source has done some sort of assessment of Limbaugh's accuracy [it's hard to see how this would be done - do "big" errors get weighted somehow; what is something is "sort of" true, etc., etc.], then sure, feel free to cite that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that what I know to be true is not reason enough to post something. That is why I stated "this would have to be researched thoroughly." Obviously it would have to be cited.--Leiding 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem identifying FAIR and MMfA as liberal or progressive groups, since that's what they are. The current section is a garbled mess of descriptors, and I don't see how that would help anyone. Of course, it should not be the case that our article attempt to dismiss or explain away Rush's errors because the people who point this out disagree with his politics. He does get stuff wrong, it does get covered in reliable sources, and so there's no reason not to describe it here. Croctotheface 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Isn't there some research center that examines Rush Limbaugh and finds him to be correct like 97% of the time or somthing? If anyone knows who that is, and could find it, I think that would probably be the most reliable fact. But we can add a line that says that many people disagree with those results or something? 4.179.46.47 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Rush has the Sullivan Group do an opinion audit on him every so often. His last rating as I recall was 98.7 %.--Leiding 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your source explicitly. Googling "The Sullivan Group" only brings up an insurance company. Ausman 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

M. Sullivan's bio has information about the Sullivan Group. --Napnet 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article until the dispute over this section are resolved. When consensus is achieved on how to refer to FAIR and other matters, please make an unprotection request at WP:RFPP. Thanks.--Chaser - T 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to MMfA as a "far left group" has no place in this article, or any article in Wiki. As best as I can determine, MMfA is a fact based organization that researches existing text and posts the actual words used by media entities and personalities. "Far left" is an inherently judgemental term, a politically motivated attempt to marginalize a progressively based but factually rigorous organization. Please correct this, or allow its correction. StevenAB 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been considerable debate of this topic on wikipedia specifically at WP:RS. As far as I know Media Matters can be classified as liberal (I would say "far left" is too much) and can be cited when dealing with facts but generally avoid using their opinion. I will correct it to "liberal" instead of "far left". --Rtrev 14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The proper term to use for both FAIR and Media Matters is progressive. This is because both organizations self-identify as being progressive and provide verifiability of this term on their own web pages([4] and [5]). --Allen3 talk 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

POV issue Post-protected

To tell you the truth, I am happy with the way this part of the article reads now; however, I still prefer to see the whole section deleted. I don't think the criticism of the opposing political view point belongs in an encyclopedia. From my perspective, seeing sections like this in an article makes me question the neutral standpoint and validity of wikipedia.--Leiding 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox

Shouldn't the outburst towards Michael J. Fox be mentioned here? It was the one event that has made his name known other places than the US. Madskile 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just what outburst are you referring to?--Leiding 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an outburst, it was a premeditated attack. It was on his October 23, 2006 broadcast, when Limbaugh gave his considered commentary on Michael J. Fox's appearance in an ad endorsing Claire McCaskill for her support of stem cell research. Limbaugh noted that Fox was "moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." He added, "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two." Of course, the full effect was only for his ditto-cam viewers, since his listeners couldn't appreciate the little "spastic dance" Limbaugh was doing as he spoke. In fact, Fox's tremors were the result of his medication, not of a failure to take them for effect, as Limbaugh charged. Limbaugh later issued the following non-apology: "So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." Bernie Goldberg, commenting on the incident on The O'Reilly Factor, said, "I love Rush Limbaugh. He made one mistake that I wish he hadn't. He did that spastic dance. If he didn't do that we wouldn't be talking about Rush Limbaugh, and neither would Diane Sawyer. And that's the point." The various videos, as featured on Keith Olberman's MSNBC program, can be seen here.- Nunh-huh 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks very good to have every single "scandle" regarding rush on the page. If every single thing that Rush has done to anger people were posted, this page would almost never end.--Leiding 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to be actually reading the article, I thought I'd answer your question here. It's already mentioned in the article proper. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

While the spastic dance probly took it too far fox himself admitted on abc that before some interviews and when he testifies before congress that he in fact didnt take his medicine so that people could see his impairment.that is besides the fact that he was making blantant lies about the running republican who actually supported the stem cell bill and was voted against by the democrat that fox was supporting. jsw2

Interestingly, Limbaugh chose to address these supposed "lies" not by discussing them, but by a bit of mocking choreography, and some lies of his own. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
fyi, Parkinson's drugs treat only the ('spaz') symptoms, and are eventually ineffective as the actual disease progresses. When not killed sooner by other cause, Parkinson's patients die due to Parkinsons's. AFAIK, there is no cure for Parkinson's. though there must be a Parkinson's page on wp... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease#Prognosis read "PD is not considered to be a fatal disease by itself," .. "PD may cause complications such as choking, pneumonia, and falls that can lead to death." IOW, when the nervous system can no longer keep critical muscles working, the patient dies. 2z2z 02:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why don't we just put every little "scandle" that the media creates with regards to Rush on his wikipedia article. That will not look bad at all.--Leiding 13:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is discussing adding anything to the article. Which you'd see if you read it. - 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming that I didn't read it. Anyone who does not agree with you must be uninformed. I did read this, and I assume that the first entry which states "Shouldn't the outburst towards Michael J. Fox be mentioned here?" is essentially asking, "why don't we add this to the article?" I think you are naive for assuming that there aren't people here who would love to post this drivel just to make Rush look bad. --Leiding 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything, I concluded it after you (repeatedly) have written things that fail to indicate--even yet--that you realize the information is already in the article. - Nunh-huh 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


You might also want to mention that Fox admitted to rationing his medication so that he would shake more during certain public and taped appearances. Rush was 100% accurate in his description of Fox's choreographed act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.98.49 (talk)

If you have a source for this claim, it would be great to include this. Ausman 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Fox made no such admission. It's only Limbaugh partisans who pretend he did. Jhobson1 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Draft POV

I don't really care about Rush's relationship with the draft. I find anti-military POV in this statement:

"… [failing in everything] would have normally made him eligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War …"

This makes it sound like being a loser is qualification for military service. I doubt that such a notion can be verified and humbly request that the sentence be amended. I would have it proceed:

"…according to his mother, 'he flunked everything,' even a modern ballroom dancing class. He was also deemed ineligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War, being classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to …"

Or, perhaps the failure theme could be propagated in that he failed to get into the draft. I am not sure whether anybody feels that such should be reason for disappointment, though.—Red Baron 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is that having passing grades would have qualified him for an exemption from the draft. When he failed all of his classes, he would have become eligible if not for the undisclosed medical issue. I think you are seeing a POV by thinking of it as "being a loser is qualification for military service" instead of "failing out of school is a qualification for losing draft exemption status." Perhaps the section needs to be worded better, but I don't believe there is any intentional anti-military POV there. --OnoremDil 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacks

Something on Limbaugh's views on blacks should be mentioned, since he has expressed some rather controversial views. Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall (June 7, 2000). A Color Man Who Has A Problem With Color?. Los Angeles Times (reprinted on http://www.fair.org). Silly rabbit 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Or how the media portrays rush's position on 'Blacks'....Wvfd14 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Or how Rush routinely has a black fill-in host, i.e. Walter Witman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.151.178 (talk) 18:22, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean Walter E. Williams? 12.108.61.66 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no issue with rush and blacks. Im going to delete (remove clutter) this part of the talk page in a few days if there isnt some 'real' evidence that rush is racist against blacks.Wvfd14 14:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush & Science (Evolution and AIDS)

For all of his claims of being more "objective" and "scientific" than those "political" scientists who acknowledge global warming, something should also be said about Mr. Limbaugh's own publicly stated views and positions on evolution vs. intelligent design/creationism, and perhaps contrasted with other instances when, while arguing other topics or making jokes, he seems to imply that he accepts evolution. Also, I remember him insinuating that Magic Johnson must have had sex with a gay man in order to get HIV; does this mean he believes only gay or bisexual men contract HIV (known as the "AIDS virus")? This issue should be explored also.[citation needed] Shanoman 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


"Also, I remember him insinuating that Magic Johnson must have had sex with a gay man in order to get HIV; does this mean he believes only gay or bisexual men contract HIV (known as the "AIDS virus")? This issue should be explored also. Shanoman" Get a dictionary and lookup the word "joke." 170.140.168.147 02:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If this was when Magic first announced in late 1991, that should be mentioned in the context that between gay sex and using intravaneous drugs were the only known ways (at that time) to contract it. WAVY 10 Fan 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh, no... Tainted blood used for transfusions and very rare transmission via male/female sex, almost always from male to female, were known at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.106.231 (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

"...and he was sharply critical of broadcasters in all media for claiming to be objective when, as he described it, their bias was overwhelmingly evident. His bias, he says, balances things out."

I don't think that was that was the point he has made. He said that most of the media is liberal biased, while claiming to be unbiased. Rush, on the other hand, always tells you that he is biased, and is unapologetic about it. Should I change it? Anyone disagree?

Sorry for not signing

Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox

I find it interesting that while Rush devoted an hour and a half or so of his show discussing this very topic, you only take a handful of excerpts to attack him. To all those who don't think this is a POV article from people who don't like him - you are so full of it.

Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"You are so full of it" is not the sort of argument likely to get others to change their mind.

Ausman 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that Michael Fox admitted to rationing his medication so that he shakes more during certain public and taped appearances enough to change anyone's minds? Why isn't that mentioned in the article/listing? Why are the "minds" or "beliefs" of people who dislike Rush or disagree with him the barometer for what is written? Fox purposely dosed his medication to appear other than he normally appears. That's a fact. Rush commented that he believed it to be the case, and it was the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.98.49 (talk)

Do you have a reliable source that says Fox admitted that? If so, I'm not sure why it wouldn't belong in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Media Matters Link

  • The Media Matters Organization is an organization centered on a political ideology, and therefore violates the neutrality of the article. --SirAndrew1 02:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
they are self described as "A non-profit progressive research and information center" progressive is liberal. They should be taken down for POV and bias reasons.Wvfd14 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. Yes they are self described as biased but they are generally factually accurate. This has been long discussed on WP:EL and WP:RS. The conclusion I usually see is that if the citation is a fact (i.e. Limbaugh is 6 feet tall) then it is reliable. If it is opinion (i.e. Limbaugh is a liar) then it is not ok. However, it is ok to mention something Media Matters has done in relation to Limbaugh (i.e. "liberal media group 'Media Matters' called Limbaugh a liar on national TV, Limbaugh denies") as long as it maintains WP:NPOV and can be verified without WP:OR. --Rtrev 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Truncating and placing comments out of context should be reason to remove them. By your own reasoning, they are "generally" accurate. It is their bias that they clearly take anyone with a tinge of republican/conservative out of context, and fail to mention anything against democrats/liberals. How can they be called 'neutral' when they only semi-report in one direction?Wvfd14 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Media Matters is totally biased. They were started by democrats to scrutinize conservative press. They should not be considered a NPOV. Ryratt 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless any of you can provid evidence of Media Matters taking someone out of context, I see no reason to remove them as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.28.6 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been requested.

There is some serious warring going on here, I'm saying this as a third party observer and that just shouldn't happen, my evidence to the fact, the reason I noticed this is because an IP blanked the whole disputed section. Tennekis 05:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea The White House Dog

I think we should add this under the Television Show section (2.3.2). It is sourced in numerous places and was an important event in his career and is already included in the Chelsea Clinton page.

Perhaps since this event is controversial, we should indicate that by using the following proposed wording:

Rush Limbaugh is reported as saying on the television show about then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" [[6]] [[7]]

The transcript of the show appears to indicate that it was a flub, which is what Limbaugh stated the next show, when he said "I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks."[1]

Ausman 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have read that as flub. I read it as second joke. "she can't control the way she looks" is a very dry sense of humor that reinforces the original joke. It's a backhanded apology designed to be funny. He uses this form of humor all the time. --Tbeatty 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is how I read it, too, but I was going to just post the words he said and let people make up their own mind. Ausman 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from the Lexis-Nexis entry from the Nov 6 episode, which I do not want to add in its entirety, since it is too long:

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: But I--I apologize...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. I'm fatigued. I'm tired. I really don't--in fact, you know what I'll do? Let's pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I'm a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)

I'll do it with my left hand. I--I'm right-handed, so it won't hurt as much. Do it with my left hand.

I notice that this was on the Rush Limbaugh page before but was deleted. There is also an extensive and heated discussion about it back in the Archives.

Ausman 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this proposed addition is that it is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy due to the fact there are two clearly viable interpretations of this event: a flub or an attack. Without indisputable evidence that this event was more than an innocent mistake on the part of Limbaugh and his staff, Wikipedia policy is clear on material like this NOT being included. --Allen3 talk 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In the next paragraph Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I think that this is a clear example of that kind of situation. The Washington Post is a "reliable published source," though I have contacted the author of the original piece to ask her to source her statement. I am perfectly happy to have it rewritten so that the article entry is a neutral POV, what I am not happy with is that someone just pulled it because they didn't like it. This is an important event in Rush Limbaugh's career and the biography of him is incomplete without mention of it. Ausman 19:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realize that there is no reason to believe that the Nov 6, 1992 episode of the show is the one that the Washington Post is referring to. I tried to pull Lexis-Nexis transcripts from the surrounding shows, but they are unavailable. Chelsea Clinton was a frequent topic on the show in that period, so it is possible that The Post meant another episode. I am going to wait and see what the author, Roxanne Roberts, says before going forward with this edit. -- Ausman 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention that Rush apologized in person to Hillary Clinton for his statement at the first opportunity.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the "White House dog" comment definitely deserves mention. However, mention of the fact that it was the wittiest comment Rush ever uttered would probably violate POV. Clore 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Target for Liberal Vandals.

Rush has announced that this article has recently become the target for vandals who have been traced to one of the Democratic presidential candidates' headquarters. Therefore, I believe that this article should be checked frequently for subtle damage, even though the last attempt wasn't so subtle. Rush has said that he doesn't edit the page, so it's up to his informed listeners to keep the page acurate. Flag-Waving American Patriot 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I heard that too. I've watchlisted this page. Smokizzy (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ditto (no pun intended). WAVY 10 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rush states he has never read the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.146.209 (talk)

By the way, the vandalism Limbaugh was talking about wasn't "recent". It happened in 2005. --Hiddekel 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the recent revelation is that somebody discovered and revealed who the vandals were! Isnt the web awesome! 65.219.4.7 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)jmaschle

Wikipedia has a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go to give this "article" NPOV.Escadrille Americaine 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not too shocked about where the editors came from (though I would be if such an edit were on the behalf of the DNC, rather than simply originating there). I imagine that the chance of someone who felt strongly negative about a right-wing media personality working for the DNC is pretty high. The CIA edit to the President of Iran's page was a bit more off-putting just because it was a) simple vandalism b) done from US Government equipment and c) done by someone at an organization that's supposed to be gathering intelligence for national security reasons, using my tax dollars... Oh well. -Harmil 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to see what motivates the Left to go down to the levels they are commonly found at. Essentially, the Left want to get "the cops off their backs"; to be in liberty without responsibility for what they do. The Left hijacked the democrat party with the interest of making progress in the redefining and the outlawing of common morality. They demoralize where ever they can in this regard, and then leave the rest to their representatives in Congress to make laws that make morality illegal. It makes life a whole lot easier for them. 69.108.67.193 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that Wikipedia discussion pages are to talk about the improvement of the article. They are not message boards. Trusilver 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that Rush's comments are correct about the libs having their way with his page. There is currently a lock on it, and there are blatent lies about him in the controversy section. Such as where an obviously predjudiced report/editorial claims to have heard him make an overtly racist comment. This is just the sort of thing one would expect from the left. Lies, smearing, prejudice under the guise of informed intelligence, and of course my personal favorite: burning hatred. Isn't time that you guys let go of all the anger and tried to experience a bit of joy in your lives? Or can you only get vicarios thrills from the ever waking moments that you spend loathing everything and everybody that does not agree with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.153.238.12 (talk • contribs).

Specific information about what you feel is incorrect would be more helpful than soapboxing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC story

The BBC story about CIA edits to Wikipedia, also includes this:

The site also indicates that a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic," a "racist", and a "bigot". An entry about his audience now reads: "Most of them are legally retarded."

Just wanted to be sure that those editing this page knew about the article, which was marked, "Last Updated: Wednesday, 15 August 2007, 17:46 GMT 18:46 UK" -Harmil 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

After reading the first paragraph, I think it is a little suspect (POV even) that nothing about the considerable controversy he stirs up is mentioned. Full disclosure: I usually vote democrat, but don't consider myself particularly fond of either party. But when I think of Rush Limbaugh, three specific things stick in my mind: 1) he's a conservative pundit 2) he admitted to being addicted to painkillers and that this appeared somewhat hypocritical 3) he got kicked off of NFL Countdown. Now 1 is mentioned, and 3 might just be because I'm a big football fan, but I'd wager a lot of people remember 2 as well - or remember other controversies he's caused. If he can be "considered to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's Congressional victories in 1994" shouldn't he also be, I don't know, 'considered a rabble rouser' or something? Wouldn't that be more balanced. Normally I'd be bold, but since its a first paragraph... Clemenjo 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Items 2 and 3 on your list are not included for the same reason that the paragraph does not mention that Limbaugh is a former television host, and best selling author. The core of Limbaugh's fame is based on his radio show and political commentary. After these first two interlinked items, the things that Limbaugh are known for depend as much upon the observer's perspective as upon Limbaugh himself. As a result building a list for the introductory paragraph that extends beyond item 1 on your list becomes as much an exercise in POV as it does in describing Limbaugh. --Allen3 talk 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I can certainly relinquish his addiction to painkillers, his termination from NFL countdown, and his status as a popular author/TV personality as items which are central to his fame. Certainly, all came afterwards. However, I can't quite totally discount that the frequent air of controversy surrounding him has been somewhat integral to his career. I think you could argue that it is a part of the way he conducts himself as a radio personality, and a key component of his political commentary. He certainly didn't get famous catalyzing the Republican Party in 1994 (not outside his base, at least), yet that's mentioned in the intro. There are a lot of conservative pundits, yet he is by far the most famous, precisely because he's the most controversial. Clemenjo 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The charge that Limbaugh is controversial has been discussed before and has been removed due to the fact that it is unverifiable. At the core of the issue is a confusion between the message and the messenger. Limbaugh, in his role as a political commentator, expresses a number of opinions on controversial contemporary issues. The fact that Limbaugh's opinions do not receive universal approval does not mean that Limbaugh is controversial, or even that his opinions are controversial, just the topics discussed in such a manner are controversial. The assertion that Limbaugh is famous because he is controversial is also opinion. Limbaugh has hosted a highly rated radio talk show for over twenty years, which is reason in itself for Limbaugh to have gained a significant level of celebrity. Limbaugh's show has provided a very large pulpit from which to preach his political philosophy, and at least one editorial has suggested that Limbaugh's large audience is the reason the political left has tried to marginalize the radio host.[8] --Allen3 talk 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

Since this is a place to point out vandalism or mistakes, I would like to draw attention to the misquote that claims Mr. Limbaugh said something to the effect of "...let the stupid Mexicans do the unskilled labor". This is found towards the end of the Balance and point of view section. I would have removed this quote, yet I do not know how to remove the false footnote (which in no way backs up the quote, and is in fact an article about his time at ESPN) without damaging the numbering system. Furthermore, I think that a goodly portion of the section titled "questions of accuracy" fails in noting biased sources as such. It can hardly be claimed that an organization that claims progressivism as part of it's make-up and Al Franken, consitute credible sources that should be relied upon when discussing Rush's accuracy.Rocdahut 07:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference for the quote does back up what is in the article. The comment about Mexicans is in the second to last paragraph. --Onorem♠Dil 10:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The mistake that is made here however is that the article is an op-ed piece that fails to prove that its quotes are true. The mere use of the phrase "he once said", or variations of it do not prove that the quotes are his or were even said by him. Quite honestly, they sound like absurd lies meant to impune the man's character, and thus are a violation of the NPOV. Rocdahut 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a source like that needs to be weighed carefully. It is a republication of a Boston Globe op-ed piece on a "progressive" website. I am anything but a Limbaugh fan but a good researcher has to determine the credibility of sources as well. IvoShandor 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the briefness of this, but much of the section that deals with Limbaugh's suppossed point of view on immigration is based on an op-ed piece that has hearsay as its foundation. I don't know how you go about getting it removed without someone putting it back or a bot putting it back. It needs to be changed. I see that other people have made note of it that the credibility of the sources should be determined first. However, it seems that whoever first sourced this may have been unaware (although I find it highly unlikely) of the nature of the article falling so squarely into unverifiable hearsay. I will likely edit this section tomorrow when I have more time. However, if there is someone who can find a better, more reliable source, or what they think constitutes a reliable source, please post about it in this section. As it is, I think that the entire section on his views on immigration need to be removed. Furthermore, I think Media Matters as a "creditable source" should not be allowed, as they have a dubious reputation when it comes to representing certain people in a fair light. This article needs to be about the man himself, not what his detractors say about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.155.13 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a few things to say, apologies for the length. How does one go about removing this faulty section on his views concerning immmigration without a bot or another user restoring it, and without messing up the footnoting? I think that anyone who does just little bit of investigation into this section can see, as I have said before, that the reference it based on hearsay and shows as distinct bias against Mr. Limbaugh. Also, wish to thank the poster Ivoshandor for appearing to back my conclusions about the referenced article, and his pointing out several other notable facts about the source. That being said, I don't feel like getting into an overlong debate about this with people who are from one side of the political spectrum or the other. The facts are clear and the reference needs to be removed. However, I do not want to screw up the footnoting stuff first and foremost as that would be a great diservice to those who have helped build this article. Furthermore, I am fustrated because I know that since Limbaugh is practically a "hot button issue" in his own right, that it would seem ANY modifaction of elements of his wikipedia article gets automatically reverted. I do not want to be falsely accused of engaging in a revert war by people who are interested in playing politics. I signed up for this account to help make my contribution to wikipedia, not have someone I've never met act indignantly towards me. Thankfully, I have as of yet to encounter this on any real level. However after seeing how rife with rude comments that this discussion page can be, I am loathe to alter the mistake in this article, then have someone who is more concerned with a political agenda then facts, get me banned from wikipedia for having made the correction. Consider this a formal plea to any administrator to please remove the lines in this article which alledge to represent Limbaugh's views on immigration. Thanks for your timeRocdahut 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is his name pronounced? Is it "Lim-Bough", "Lim-Bo" (as in "Snow"), or "Lim-Buff"? Rusty2005 10:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

-He pronounces it LIM baw (as in aw, gee, or "saw"). I think the pronunciation certainly needs to be included on the main page. I guess we're supposed to use IPA. Kdammers 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thankyou for letting me know! Us foreigners sometimes have difficulty pronouncing the names of people who make you lot squabble so much ;-) Just a light-hearted joke, I have no interest in this man and the arguments surrounding him but he seems important over in the US and it's confusing when you don't know how those important names are said. I'll see if I can put an IPA transliteration after his name, always helpful on names with those awkward vowel groups. Rusty2005 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review for Rush Limbaugh

Hello,

I have now completed my review of this article.

The article is very well written. A fantastic set of references, citations, and external sources are provided - over eighty in fact. The article doesn't appear to have any edit warring etc. that would affect its stability. The image used appears to be licensed correctly, though you may wish to give it some ALT text. I am quite satisfied that this article was written from a Neutral Point of View. The editors who have worked hard on this article should be proud of themselves.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

As a result, the article on Rush Limbaugh has been passed and promoted to good article status.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Congratulations, and I hope this article will continue to receive the attention that it has, and may one day end up a featured article. Pursey Talk | Contribs 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Although, I think the lead needs expanding. Epbr123 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

nobel peace prize nomination

in 2007 he was nominated for a nobel peace prize. i dont usually edit things on wikipedia, but when i tried to do it it was locked or something and i couldnt do it.

heres a web sight as proof

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.63.248 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please look through the talk page archives (links adjacent to this page's table of contents) for an explanation as to why this nomination is not included in the article. --Allen3 talk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Allen, that seems like an unreasonable request, since the archives are extensive and not well indexed. Please summarize your objection to the inclusion of a factual statement. Although such a nomination may be trivial, the man himself is trivial but notable. --Kevin Murray 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it. There is no "Nobel Prize nomination" in any meaningful sense, as there is no formal procedure and any correspondence with the committee is kept secret. Limbaugh knows this: When he mentions his "nomination" on the show, he's joking. It's that simple. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Sharpton Parody

Can a description of the parody of Al Sharpton singing " Barak, the Magic Negro" That was aired several times on his radio show, and the resulting controversy be included in this article? http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/BarackSection/Drive-By_Media_Misreporting_of__Barack_the_Magic_Negro__Song.guest.html Die4Dixie 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The parody wasn't done by Rush, and it was based on a LA Times article on Obama.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The L.A. Times reference is correct; but since Paul Shanklin does a lot of parodies mostly for Rush's show, I think if that comment is still in the article, it should be modified to mention Shanklin's involvement. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

It might just be me, but it seems that this page (as well as Wikipedia) lacks any actual criticism of Limbaugh (which there is much that is definitely substantial, O'Reilly even has a page for that, it is ridiculous that this sharply criticized figure has only two paragraphs of criticism.Planetsconspire 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to work with me to insert the "Barack, the Magic Negro!" controversy? Follow the link above. There are several audio files of the song available on line. We could probably link to one and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.We could discuss proposals on how to include it here.Die4Dixie 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's unacceptable that the page doesn't include the recent "phony soldiers" development. Commentators are very rarely rebuked by sitting members of congress. If the moveon.org page has a reference to it's "betrayus" ad, this article should mention an event eliciting a nearly identical reaction from congress. 134.84.102.150 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would invite you to get an account; Reference what you would like to put in the article and put it in.Do you have any ideas for adding the "Barack, the Magic Negro!" story?Die4Dixie 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The article can mention it, but should also mention how the claim that he called all anti-war soldiers "phony soldiers", and not just the actually phony soldier he was discussing, is a complete falsehood created by taking his comments out of context in order to attack him for his conservative beliefs. Put that in the article too. Judgesurreal777 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

johnpen1 This is incorrect. Rush was clearly not smeared on this, as on the call proceeding "phony soldiers" the caller claimed he had served in the millitary. Limbaugh repsonded, “Right. Right. Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon!” Limbaugh’s argument wasn’t subtle — the caller couldn’t have worn the uniform because he supports withdrawal. in the very next call he then used the term "phony soldiers" in reference to who the media was talking to. If you listen to the tape of preceding comments and comments after what media matters wrote it is apparent that Rush WAS NOT taken out of context.

I listened to the five minutes before and after the comment and do not see Media Matters' analysis of the comments as incorrect. However, I feel that both of these instances might be more appropriately placed on the radio show's entry rather than his entry as they happened on the show. Planetsconspire 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a very good point, I think that's best. Judgesurreal777 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If you could include a link to the previous five minutes that'd be great. It might also be worth pointing to ABC's segment on "Phoney Heroes" two days prior to the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwnW08uUCLY Alanstrohm 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI including a controversy section is pointless, Limbots sanitize this article 24/7 removing any factual unsavory information about this buffoon. You may as well include a section on his favorite vacation spots, like the Dominican Republic, which once upon a time was in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Most controversy sections are POV and create balance issues. If there is a specific issues, add it to the section where it talks about it, for example, his drug use in the section on his show for example, so it wouldn't need its own section. Judgesurreal777 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

typo

There is one instance of the word "compete" in this article. It should be "complete". I would fix it myself, but the article is locked...


Alanstrohm 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out where? WAVY 10 Fan 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


Nevermind, I guess I can edit it. Fixed. Sorry for the confusion. Alanstrohm 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

in the article on limbaugh's rise to fame, the topic of his comment on phony soldiers is brought up. the article states -quote- Limbaugh responded, "phony soldiers". The caller responded, -end quote-. this is two words out of an entire sentence that mr limbaugh spoke. the entire quote of what he said should be put up otherwise it is misrepresenting mr limbaugh. if the entire quote isn't put up the entire subject should be erased from the article on limbaugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.69.187 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Philosophy of Lymphoma?

The Lymphoma charity stuff is strangely under 'Philosophy'.

Also, there is no direct link to Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are innumerable newsshows & websites who refer to him with "...bump on his butt." Not one of these sources explains what that means. It is not in this article. I would not want it in the article until verified,.... both in terms of fact, &, as well, what it means.

It does seem that he has several disabilities; it, further, seems that he opposes disability-access, particularly regarding the anti- hate crime type legislation.

However, regardless of all of that, I do wonder what disability would, could, be "bump on his butt."

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be the pilonidal cyst that kept him out of the army. It's mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Sinus incyst. Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh`s Dominican erotic vacation

I wanted to add that Mr. Rush Limbaugh was doing nothing wrong in the island of Dominican Republic, where he traveled as a normal tourist to enjoy the beauty of the country. Certain reports are indicating that he might have been traveling for sex, because of the Viagra bottle issues he faced at the customs checks of the Palm Beach airport. If he was indeed in a place where people go with the intention to have sex with women ( www.charlisangels.com )the site in question displays adult women, consenting European of ages 22-28 who travel from halfway around the world to earn thousands of dollars entertaining visitors of those "escorts resorts" and in the end help their poverty-stricken families back in Eastern Europe. In the last decade we have seen many scandals involving elected officials that really put into question who we are as a modern society. Mr. Rush is just another divorced man who will always feel the need for a relaxing Caribbean trip, as millions do.

Oskar0967 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add something in the article related to this, the key word here is "references", so post some reliable external links. Judgesurreal777 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It can't have been a terribly "sexy" vacation, since he used only one of the 30 Viagra tablets he took with him to the island. - Nunh-huh 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
it would be quite a valuable addition to verify that Limbaugh goes to a well-known sex tourism spot frequented by pedophiles[citation needed] carrying viagra in order to enjoy the natural beauty of the scenery. Please add this sourced information as soon as possible, so that Rush's saintly reputation may go unbesmirched! The Dominican Republic's young boys will live in fear until this can be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you are way out of line by talking like that. Such vitriol and hate speech would best be located on a personal page or blog, noot the discussion of the guy. That being said. Relevent links are a plus, but only if the researcher has spent a fair amount of time researching into whether or not they are valid, creditable sources. Is that being followed with the viagra/dominican republic case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.253.234 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The "phony" thing

I read through the current version and came away with "so what?" Okay, this event is apparently controversial, but the article itself doesn't point out the political controversy going on, nor why it is apparently controversial. Unless I completely missed it (and it is possible), there was no mention of the Senate majority leader's reaction on the Senate floor, no mention of the activity that took place on the House floor, etc. Okay there's nothing wrong with presenting the facts, but why mention it unless there's something more significant involved? Limbaugh is a political commentator; he's going to make controversial statements. He's made many over his past 20-ish year broadcast career; why point this one out among the many?

My recommendation is: if we're going to have this issue in the article, include why the issue is so significant. In this case, U.S. elected officials are using Limbaugh's (who is a private U.S. citizen) words (arguably out of context) to commit political action(s) that may or may not involve censorship. That's big because it involves the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiocyborg (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the reference to the "phony soldiers" story. If all the contention is about how media matters has taken him out of context, then it seems utterly ridiuclous to quote them as the creditable source for a perceived error Limbaugh's part. Furthermore, if this is to be included at all, why not include the ENTIRETY of how Limbaugh responded. This means including the current e-bay auction of the letter AGAINST A PRIVATE CITIZEN that Harry Reid and other soldiers signed against Limbaugh, and the profit of which will be donated to a charitable orginization? Or does this ruffle your liberal feathers too much to admit such a thing so it cannot be included? Most of the included "controversy" section has grossly neglagent POV errors that are not befitting of wikipedia. How can this article be taken seriously if you choose to only espouse what you see as his flaws at great length, then you cut short his charitable donations to a few paltry paragraphs. I no longer trust those who write this article and any serious minded person should argue harshly against this article being given the "good article" label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.253.244 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh my friend, that is why it is wikipedia!! If it is biased, CHANGE IT, and we can make it better. Judgesurreal777 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is pointless to edit this article, which is why alterations to this are entirely of a opinion based nature. Why should one even try to acctually contribute to this article? The information for the 'Phony Soldiers" comment are, for the most part, taken at fact value from a partisan orginization masqurading as a "media watchdog group". The fact that they are quoted for this article at all is ridiculous. If I were to edit the Bill Clinton page I would be hypocritical if I were to point to a partisan political activist for conservatism as a valid source for a criticism section. Why does media matters get "a pass" on this? You cannot just say because they say so. Nor can one say that what they offer up has no bias. Also, I noticed that my changes to the alledged comments that Limbaugh made about Mexicans has been reverted. Have any of you actually looked at this article? Or are the ones patrolling this page content to allow their personal bias to accept at face value a supposed quote? Just a few clicks on the links that are provided as "Evidence" for the Mexican comments are enough to show anyone that the sourced article is an op-ed piece that alledges that he 'once heard' Limbaugh make the comments about Mexicans that he is supposed to have made. It is unconchinable what is going on here. These basic failures of research tells me that the entire article needs an overhaul. This seems unlikely though as even a minor edit or too that conflict with a liberal point of view are subject to the "revert war" or "vandalism" tag. Before you say it though, does this means that I think what I did was editing? No, however I do notice that others have pointed out the Media Matters bias and the fact that the supposed comments about Mexicans and illegal immigration are that they are opinions. I am guessing that they have tried to make edits too and have been told that they are merely vanadalizing. What is the point of getting and account, as I thought of doing, only to know that your edits will mean squat if it doesn't fit the bias of editors with more control and supposed "nuetrality"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.253.244 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

MediaMatters has yet, as far as I know, to report anything that wasn't true. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false. Not to mention, Wikipedia has long had a rather overt conservative bias when it comes to articles about political figures. 71.203.209.0 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Funny, because I've seen some articles claiming Wikipedia has a fairly liberal bias, even going so far as to start Conservopedia (you do the math). WAVY 10 Fan 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Conservopedia is a spoof site, btw... 2z2z 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the Harry Reid letter and the auction on E-bay? chefantwon216.153.166.69 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to editing the "phony soldiers" thing. As it is, it's blatantly partisan. You claim to know what Limbaugh was thinking and that Media Matters took him out of context. Obviously, you're siding with Limbaugh over this. How about a simple "he said, but they said" without claiming to know who's right and who isn't. Also, you left out, rather conveniently, that fact that Limbaugh edited out one minute and thirty-five seconds of his audio and transcript when posting it to his website, narrowing the distance between Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment and his discussion of Jesse MacBeth. PatrickLMT 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Media Matters is a Hillary Clinton organization; would you like to discuss credibility? Rush Limbaugh has a known record for supporting the military both in word, deed and funding. There have been several instances of liberals using soldiers to talk negatively about Iraq, who never went there. Jesse McBeth is a recent example. Here and here are some articles on this issue.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are truly an idiot. Despite the fact the guy says that the real question here is about the veracity of things that Media Matters says are true, you choose to quote DIRECTLY from their website. If you want to hear the so-called missing footage, just subscribe to Limbaugh's website and listen for yourself, or would that be too difficult for you to do? I can see your bias leans to the outer fringes of the left. Mayhap you correctly identify him as a person who listens, ACTUALLY LISTENS TO LIMBAUGH AND DOES NOT GO TO OTHER SOURCES TO TELL HIM WHAT TO THINK. You disgust me. Hello and goodbye wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.55.244 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it is, someone apparently agreed with me and got to it ahead of me. Instead of claiming that Media Matters took him out of context, as it read earlier, the article now that LIMBAUGH CLAIMS he was taken out of context. And that Media Matters stands by its story. That's much more balanced. So, I didn't need to do a thing. Thank you, whoever corrected this error.
As for Media Matters, I don't quote theit site, as far as I know, since I've never been there. And yes, I did listen to the audio on Limbaugh's site and yes, he did edit out 1 minute and 35 seconds of his broadcast, which did, in fact, narrow the distance between "phony soldiers" and Jesse MacBeth's first mention that day. Notice, this is just objective fact. I didn't assign motives to Limbaugh, as the previous poster did to Media Matters. "Just the facts, ma'am." Good-bye to you, too. PatrickLMT 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

arrrg. wp probably should just remove this section. I don't think wikipedia can handle this. it's showbiz fanzine stuff, (like paris Hilton or Britney spears), but more cantankerous. btw, the core topic is not even stated in this wp section. this is it: during a short call-in, rush labeled on duty objectors (soldiers who object to continuing US armed forces' involvement in Iraq) as "phony soldiers". if you read the episode 'transcript' (that the rush site has apparently altered), you will read where rush made this association of objectors to rush's 'phony soldier' theme. rush responds (paraphrased from memory:) "[yes,] the phony ones" to a caller complaining about 'the media' quoting objectors out of proportion to the non-objectors. Later rush reinforces what he means by 'phony soldiers' with a tack-on commentary about macbeth. therefore there is no doubt that he is grouping objectors with the VA impostors under the same label. While apparently mediamatters 'broke the story', there's no need to look at any other webpage but rush's. rush's site solidly presents rush's "gaffe" (unless the episode transcript has more recently been 'pravdad' into oblivion). there's no real controversy. the call-in conversation is (or was) on the rush site, and rush has (AFAIK even now) not admitted his gaffe. Since i've read here and there of rush making self-deprecating comments, i cannot guess why he and his fans haven't just let this go. but i'm not a fan, so i don't really care... 2z2z 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You claim that Rush included a “tacked-on commentary” about MacBeth, while ignoring the fact that Limbaugh has already mentioned the “phony soldiers” on the previous day, and “phony soldiers” were mentioned in a news report the previous weekend. You would have to listen in a vacuum if you hear a statement like “phony soldiers” and do not even try to understand the meaning based on how it has been used previously. 17.224.37.172 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you post a link to a transcript or audio file of his references to "phony soldiers" from the day before? This is first time I've heard that he had previously used the term "phony soldiers". Yilloslime (t) 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Why remove the story at all? It's fine as it is, and quite objective. It doesn't claim to know who's right or that Limbaugh was taken out of context. It only presents what each side is claiming about the other. PatrickLMT 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative?

Rush is more accurately described as a neo-conservative, not a conservative. The article should be edited to reflect this. His strong support of nation-building and preemptive warfare are not traditional conservative views, they are neoconservative. Please view the wikipedia aticles on "conservative" and "neoconservative" if you do not know the difference.Byates5637 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue with this change, even if true, is that it violates Wikipedia:No original research. Limbaugh calls himself a conservative and is commonly referred to as a conservative in mainstream media reports. Thus it is possible to provide verification to the claim that Limbaugh is a conservative with a minimum of bias. Without a proper supply of reliable sources attesting the a neo-conservative label, Wikipedia policy is clear on which term should be used. --Allen3 talk 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Allen3 is exactly right on this on. However, you should also take a look at the wikipedia page for Neoconservatism. I think you will find that Rush really doesn't fall in well with the likes of Podhoretz, Kristol and/or the crowd at Commentary Magazine or The New Republic. He seems to be more in line with regular old conservativism if you will allow me a little editorializing. --Rtrev 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
He seems to fall more in between traditional and neo-conservatism, I think. WAVY 10 Fan 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Neo Conservative is a liberal code word used to refer to Jewish conservatives, so it would be POV to call him that as a fact and not just an opinion by someone. Judgesurreal777 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No, neoconservatism is a distinct school of political thought. It differs sharply from from traditional conservativism. It has nothing to do with religion, and to suggest it does shows your own POV. I am relpacing the phrase conservative with "self described conservative" and adding a controversy section. Byates5637 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, even though Bill Kristol coined the word "NeoCon", liberals use that word to attempt to discredit/silence conservative critics (especially if they're Jewish), rather that debate the substance of any particular topic. TodKarlson 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh/Viagra Case Missing

In June 2006, Limbaugh made national headlines when he was detained at Palm Beach International Airport with a prescription drug (Viagra) that wasn't in his name (a serious allegation considering that Limbaugh had previously admitted to a prescription drug addiction and that prosecutors had only agreed to drop "doctor shopping" charges against Limbaugh if he wasn't arrested for the following 18 months).

Incredibly, Wikipedia's article on Limbaugh doesn't mention one word about the Limbaugh/Viagra controversy, even though it made national headlines. Indeed, this entire article looks as though it could've been written by Limbaugh's public relations team. (At the same time, Wikipedia minutely chronicles in microscopic detail every single nutcase allegation ever made against Bill Clinton).

Why the double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.132 (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what you can do, anonymous user? You can find us some reliable references and put them here so we can incorporate it. But remember, it is but a small part of his life, and to make it anymore than that would be itself very biased. Judgesurreal777 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement mentioned by Judgesurreal777, any addition must also conform with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This means that in addition to sourcing the initial titillating incident, information from the published retractions and follow ups must also be included. For anyone not familiar with the outcome of this event please see one or more of the following:
  • "Limbaugh won't face charges over Viagra." South Florida Sun-Sentinel (July 5, 2006)
  • "Limbaugh is cleared in Viagra case." Baltimore Sun (July 6, 2006).
  • "No Charges in Limbaugh Viagra Case." The Cincinnati Post (July 6, 2006).
  • "No Charges for Limbaugh." The Palm Beach Daily News (July 6, 2006).
  • "Prosecutors say Viagra was prescribed legally to Rush Limbaugh." South Florida Sun-Sentinel (July 6, 2006).
  • Spencer-Wendel, Susan. "Limbaugh Won't be Charged Over Viagra in Bag." The Palm Beach Post (July 6, 2006): 1A.
In short, Limbaugh was stopped, investigated, and found to have done nothing wrong. --Allen3 talk 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have links to the articles, since that will help quite a bit. WAVY 10 Fan 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I access this type of information through my local public library and there are no open access links of which I am aware. Sorry to disappoint all the FUTON people. --Allen3 talk 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If you meant me, I actually am a regular listener who tends to agree with most of his comments. My previous comment was because of the fact that some of the admins tend to be a little fussy about reliable sources. WAVY 10 Fan 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is one that is still free range.[9] - Crockspot 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


the point is that the info used to be in the article and sourced etc, along with all the other sordid details about this classic demagogue ignoramus, but Limbaugh's PR team regularly sanitizes this article to the point of absurdity. Welcome t0 1984 Wikipedia-style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds more like you're upset because you can't zing Limbaugh on his Wikipedia article, because you don't have verifiable sources to prove he was abusing Viagra, which as it turns out, he wasn't. You people like to throw "nineteen eighty four" around all the time, but do you even know what it's about? Didn't think so. lol buzzwords. --JBladen (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

reference #60

The link is dead. Cs302b 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

See his website. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

About my recent edit

I recently moved a large chunk of material out of the "Rush Limbaugh Show" section for a variety of reasons. First, this section is far too long in proportion to the other sections at the same level. Secondly, the section has of late become a dumping ground for material critical of Limbaugh and his show. In particular, all of this additional material refers to controversies of the Limbaugh show over the past 1 year. So it was clearly out of place in the chronology. 70.20.97.103 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently one editor is having problems with popups, and (here and elsewhere) reverted too far back into the revision history. I come along and try to set things right, and suddenly every anti-vandalism warrior is on the bandwagon against me. Please note that, although it may appear as though a section was deleted, it was in fact moved down to the appropriate position in the chronology. 71.182.215.210 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You will have more credibility if you become a registered user. Please discuss major changes at the talk page, gain consensus and then make the changes. We encourage people to make bold changes at WP, but if you are reverted, then the proper action is to gain consensus at the talk page. Revert for now. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the edit was reverted as simple vandalism. This is not appropriate: see WP:BITE, WP:VAND. Moreover, a descriptive edit summary is otherwise ordinarily required for reverting an edit otherwise. My take is that it was a mistake on the part of the reverting editor, who seems to have had popup rollback issues elsewhere as well. How about we let the edit stand, so that someone with an opinion one way or the other comes along? Surely you don't feel strongly that three paragraphs documenting events in the past year should remain in a chronology for the 1990's? 71.182.215.210 (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Things are starting to become a little better with the article structure. However, I still feel that the Rush Limbaugh show section suffers from some structural problems. First of all, I don't think the other sections (Television show, etc) are supposed to be subsections of it, but I could be wrong. Another thing is that I wonder why there are all these controversies in the section over the past year or so? In fact, the section is primarily about recent Limbaugh controversies. It would be more accurate to rename the section "Limbaugh Controversies from 2007" (not that I advocate doing that). It seems clear to me that much of this material should be moved to another section. Otherwise the article seems to give undue weight to stuff that happened only in the past year (see WP:Recentism). Moreover, the section loses focus, and it becomes mired in these sort of irrelevant trivialities. My final issue, which may or may not reflect a bias on my own part, is that the controversial material (as well as its placement in the article) seems to communicate a clear anti-Rush POV. It would be better (for me at least) to have it separated out so that a reader who is interested in finding out about recent Rush controversies can do so more easily. Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry it took such a long edit-warmisunderstanding to arrive at this detente. Cheers, 71.182.215.210 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More detailed edit summary

In the spirit of fighting vandalism, many editors have been reintroducing some sneaky vandalism. Please see:

  • This edit: [10]. The word "left leaning" was inserted by anon. T have removed this, since the stronger language is supported by the reference.Furthermore, this issue has already been addressed by previous editors: [11] I have reinserted the words "stupid and" into the quote, since these were removed from a direct quote by 71.7.218.110. 71.182.215.210 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In the following two edits [12], [13], 71.7.218.110 inserted non-NPOV language. He or she further attempted to take sides in a factual dispute in Wikipedia's voice without citing sources which support that point of view. My last edit partially undoes this earlier edit. (Once again, this has been tried before [14] only to get labelled as common vandalism. Clearly this is an attempt to fight sneaky vandalism, rather than the other way around. 71.182.215.210 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Finally, for reasons stated in the previous section, I have moved the 2006-2007 controversies down into the post-2000 part of the chronology (right after the prescription drug addiction). Feel free to revert this, but provide at least a meaningful edit summary which addresses the reasons for leaving this in the 1990s "Rush Limbaugh Show" rather than unfairly characterizing the movement of text as simple vandalism, or against consensus, or whatever. Thanks, 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.215.210 (talk)

Defining conservative movement

Rush did not define the conservative movement anymore then I define the conservative movement when I edit the wikipedia page for conservativism. The Title of the section "Defining the conservative movement" is biased. I changed it to "Opinions on the conservative movement." If anything, he helped define the neoconservative movement, but thier seems to be a strong bias against the word "neoconservative" among wiki editors. Byates5637 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC) "

Most of the time the term "conservative" is used as a blanket phrase covering both movements. WAVY 10 Fan 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)