Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Military Service?

The two-sentence section on Rush's "military service" does not make sense to me. If anything, shouldn't the title be "Lack of Military Service"? If NOT being selected for the draft constitutes military service, then I don't know what Wikipedia is coming to. Denis Diderot II (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll fiddle with it, but it might be best to delete? Bad title for sure. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Draft Status" would seem to be an appropriate title. -HeatGeek

Environmentalist Wacko

I think that statement needs to be modified because it's too broad. Rush certainly does not mean that ALL environmental/climate scientists are 'environmentalist wackos'. The reference cited could also be improved since it does not directly support the article statement. The reference does not give Rush's own definition of an environmentalist wacko, but must be inferred from the reference text. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know where you're comming from, but it's Rush's term. If you do a little research, you'd find he's meaning those who don't practice sesible nature preservation, they basicly see us, mankind, as a threat to the world and want their ideas imposed onto all

Elliott (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Elliott7Elliott (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Draft Status" would seem to be an appropriate title. -HeatGeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.234.216 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Link

The term "school choice" down under The Rush Limbaugh Show links to "charter schools", not the Wikipedia article on school choice. I believe that Limbaugh was referring to actual school choice (as in choosing what schools one's children attend) rather than charter schools. 12.13.176.152 (talk)Lissa 17:37 23 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It points to the school choice article now. --Onorem♠Dil 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Campaign

Should there be a mention of a statement Rush made saying that he may not support the Republican presidential nominee...assuming it was either John McCain or Mike Huckabee? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention the last time he went to the bathroom? Is this article suppose to record every word and action the man takes? Hahahah. Let's not go overboard, I say. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended to anyone, but IMHO for some reason this article about Limbaugh is starting to look a lot more like a newspaper Sunday Section story or an underground biography than an encyclopedia article. Sorry, just trying to keep it real.--RogerR00 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In a lot of ways it does. Seems there are many editors who wish to fill this article with every form of insignificance.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

Is there some reason that every section is negative? Why "Failed Relationships"? Do we do this for every celebrity? Somehow there seems to be a pattern here....portraying only the negative aspects of is personal life. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deafness

OxyContin cannot cause deafness because it doesn't have APAP. I believe that police records indicate that he only had received 90 days' worth of Oxy anyway. Vicodin & Percocet have APAP & police reports indicate that he had received thousands of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.12.143 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, footnote 97 links to an article that contains this quote: "Harris, the San Diego doctor, says he has treated two patients whose hearing loss seems to be connected to Vicodin addiction. There's good news for patients who use the drug as prescribed, however. "I've only seen it in people who are really addicted and abusing Vicodin, taking way too many doses per day," Harris says." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.12.143 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that his father (who never took vicodin) started going def later in life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.191.77 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cochlear implants DO NOT restore a person's hearing. It simply allows them to hear when they have their cochlear implant on, but when it is off, the person still cannot hear anything. Trust me, I'm a cochlear implant recipient myself. A cochlear implant has two parts: an external processor which processes the sound through a microphone and a tiny computer. Then it sends the signal to an interal device, which is installed during surgery with a long tube called a electrode. The electrode takes the signal from the processor through magnets (an external and internal one) and stimulates the auditory nerve. Then the auditory nerve does the rest of the work. Again, it DOES NOT CURE DEAFNESS! It does a pretty good job and one can hear sounds just like a hearing person, but the person is still deaf. As I'm typing this, I do not have my cochlear implant on, thus I cannot hear the sounds around me. When I do have it on, I hear most sounds and I'm fully functional in the hearing world, so is Rush Limbaugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.180.242 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg

Why isn't this article in Category:Cyborgs? Rush Limbaugh has a Cochlear implant.

63.245.164.227 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Armed Forces Radio

There are lots of stories about attempts to get RL taken off the Armed Forces Radio. How did he get on in the first place? Soldier votes? Congress deciding content? Director of AFR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.192.2 (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Salon:

Eleven years ago it was Republican members of Congress whose pressure put Limbaugh on American Forces Radio in the first place. In 1993, then Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., along with 69 other Republican House members, sent a letter to President Clinton's first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, demanding that both Limbaugh's radio show and his syndicated television show (on which Limbaugh compared preteen Chelsea Clinton to a dog) be broadcast to the military. "Limbaugh has been called by his liberal critics 'the most dangerous man in America.' It appears the liberal leadership at the Pentagon agrees with that ridiculous assertion," Dornan wrote. "The bottom line is that the troops want Rush Limbaugh, and you should see to it that they at least have that opportunity."

The Pentagon responded by pointing to an internal survey of 50,000 military listeners that found that only 4 percent requested more long-format talk radio. Most respondents overwhelmingly requested continuous music. The Pentagon also said that Limbaugh's daily three-hour radio program would monopolize too much of the network's limited airtime.

Notably, on Nov. 29, 1993, American Forces Radio and Television Services issued this statement: "The Rush Limbaugh Show makes no pretense that his show is balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point of view."

Yet just three days later, as the controversy was stoked in conservative media and Republicans cried censorship, Aspin called Limbaugh to assure him that the Pentagon would find a way to get his program on the then-named Armed Forces Radio.

---

Any other sources back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.192.2 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And you point is?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) First, citation for the article about right-wing congressmembers putting him on Armed Forces Radio is here: [1] May I add this on his web page? The reporter, Eric Boehlert, while a liberal, is a very credible journalist and media critic, in my experience, and while some may disagree with his assessments, he tends to have very accurate facts. Second, it IS a fact that the right wing in congress have actively prevented opposing views to the Bush administration from being heard. Howard Stern was kept off of AFRS,and liberal talker Ed Schultz was as well. (See for example, "Armed Forces Radio Tunes Out Liberal Show Host" By Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, 18 October 2005; Page C1. [2]

First paragraph below:

Liberal radio talker Ed Schultz was eagerly anticipating his debut yesterday on Armed Forces Radio, which agreed last month to carry his program to nearly a million soldiers around the world. But at 7 a.m., Schultz's producer got a call from Allison Barber, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for internal communications, who said without explanation that the deal was off..."

Kurtz, btw, by most accounts, leans right (his wife works for the RNC, I believe) but he's pretty accurate with the facts as well. There was ultimately a compromise reached that one hour of Ed's show would be carried, and to my knowledge, that has happened.

What does *any* of this have to do with Rush Limbaugh the *man?* Absolutely nothing. This sort of banter belongs on the Armed Forces Radio Network page, take it there. Payneos (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Romney and Rush wars

Should some mention be made of the fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, and other radio types came out strongly against McCain before the Feb 5th primaries, but yet their efforts didn't work and perhaps caused a backlash? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is zero evidence it incited a backlash, but I do agree that his recent anti-McCainism could be notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No evidence of a backlash, but given the press, and the fact it is such a topic of discussion, makes mentioning anti-McCain statements notable enough.--Bedford 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our" Troops?

"...maintains a page where our troops can register for a free 24/7 membership"

I can't access the referred article (registration required). But does this really mean to say any country's armed forces, anywhere in the world? Or should it perhaps read "...American troops..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find info specifically stating it's just US troops, but it's probably reasonable to assume it doesn't apply to all troops from all countries around the world. Changed to US troops. --Onorem♠Dil 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

♠ It is for US troops. My apologies for forgetting to make the distinction when I wrote the section.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of RUSH's Nobel Peace Prize nomination

I don't have the details, but Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It was eventually co-awarded to Al Gore and some other group. Rush talked about the nomination proudly on his show frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.162.182 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed. His nomination was basically bogus. It was submitted as a publicity stunt by a group that has no authority to make such nominations. It's hardly any different than if I had sent a nomination to the Nobel committee naming Fudgey the Whale. -R. fiend (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He was nominated by Mark Levin, but I don't think it was official.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems remarkably more significant than if a random person had submitted a fictional entity as a nominee. His nomination should be mentioned, I believe it was more than just Mark Levin who nominated him. Also, even if it was a publicity stunt, a nomination is a nomination. If a person like the user above me were to nominate a fictional character, then campaign for said fictitious character in order to prove a point, then such a thing would be worth mentioning. To not include this in the article shows bias. POV is not just about what is IN an article, but what you choose to leave out as well. Rocdahut (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a "nomination is" NOT "a nomination." There are specific people entitled to nominate people for Nobel prizes, and not one of them ever has nominated Rush. It would be comparable to someone sending a letter to the President suggesting that you be nominated at Attorney General when you're not even a college graduate, much less a lawyer. It would be disingenuous to then claim that you were one of the people that the President considered for the Attorney General post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.139 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are aware, aren't you, that there is no requirement for the Attorney General to be a lawyer? Ditto for the Supreme Court justices. Here's who can nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states; 2. Members of international courts; 3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes; 4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and 7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

According to the official Nobel website http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html item #3 says Directors of foreign policy institutes. Mark Levinn is the director of an (admittedly partisan) foreign policy institute. However, it would still be an official, legal nomination. 69.54.33.33 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the Landmark Legal Foundation is not a foreign policy institute. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to you.

Wasn't the point of all that to show that the Peace Prize, unlike the scientific prizes, has become a merely political partisan award or popularity contest, and has become worthless by comparison? That seems something worth noting. It wasn't really an effort to nominate Limbaugh. It was a pointed criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize. And it was done in that year, on behalf of Limbaugh, who surely shares the same criticism. They did award it to Al Gore, after all, for nothing that had anything to do with, peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.159.76 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

can't edit page

I tried to correct his job description to "comedian" and add how me called Senator Obama "Curious George" but couldn't do it for some reason, as if the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.81 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big argument here -- if you don't like Rush, fine -- but I'm just listening to the segment you're referring to right now, and for the record, Rush never called Obama Curious George. A caller did, and Rush chuckled: are we that sensitive these days that a mere chuckle at a joke that might be construed as offensive, is offensive? Lighten up!

Leroyinc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, but the best part is Rush then pretended that he had no idea Curious George was a monkey, proving he'd rather be thought culturally illiterate than a bigoted oaf. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My Mom, who's six years older than Rush, said she hadn't heard of Curious George until my brother and I read their books, so it is credible that Rush didn't know who Curious George was.--Bedford 06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your mom presumably doesn't "chuckle" at jokes that depend on allusions to Curious George, then. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was listening to Rush at the time of the chuckle. Truth be told, I chuckled more than Rush did. He laughed like a half of second; I did for about three seconds. And I know who Curious George is.--Bedford 08:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly anyone who laughs at a joke who's humor derives from an allusion to Curious George knows who Curious George is! - Nunh-huh 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly is the encyclopedic value of mentioning any of this in the article? Wikipedia isn't a forum for political debate. I wish some people would understand that.----Asher196 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It becomes encyclopedic if it is used as, say, part of a litany of Limbaugh's racially insensitive comments in a reliable secondary source. It's the source that's lacking, at least at present, and not the encyclopedic value. - Nunh-huh 13:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By your tone, I can see you have a specific POV on this subject, which I believe would be carried to the article. I still reject chuckling at a joke as encyclopedic, and think you should read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information on what and how information should be presented.----Asher196 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your clairvoyance has failed you badly. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

There was no discussion on the talk page regarding the dubious tag. Absent any objection, I will remove the tag again. In the cited source, Limbaugh refers to the UN panel on climate change as Environmentalist wackos. There is nothing dubious about it. Please explain the need for the tag. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it and have no opinion on the source itself right now, but the Environmentalist Wacko section above was started by the editor after tagging the comment. There wasn't much discussion, but it wasn't just a drive by tagging. --Onorem♠Dil 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for pointing it out. The dubious tag referred to an earlier version of the statement (I had since rewritten it to respond to The Founder's Intent's objection). I probably should have solicited some response here, rather than with my trailing "Better?" edit summary. Anyway, I think the dubious tag should be removed since the objection given above refers to an out-of-date version. If there are new objections, then an editor can restore the tag and object here. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see the term (Enviro Wacko) in the article, was it removed?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much POV Causes too long of an article

As I glance through the reference catalog, there are just too many POV sources to be credible. Why are so many refernces from Media matters? Are they not themselves a biased source? I would not seek out Hillary Clinton for a non-devisive comment on Barack Obama. Why should this be the case for Rush Limbaugh. As of now, I see the best thing for this article is either severe editing so that there is little too the article, or better sourcing. It shows gross POV violation for people to troll about and post up something from media matters everytime that Limbaugh says something that could offend. This article has grown out of control due to inclusion of these things. This article needs severe work, but there is too much bickering about it to see an end in sight. Rocdahut (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My biggest problem is the bibliography. 90% of them are obviously biased against Rush.--Bedford 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just recently started looking at this article and I can't agree with Rocdahut more. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for political debate, and I strongly urge contributors to this article read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons----Asher196 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Sourced Comment is Hearsay

I've mentioned this before in an earlier thread, but I will mention it again. The portion of the article that suppossedly includes Limbaugh's personal point of view is terribly flawed in the section regarding immigration. The source that alleges that Limbaugh once said "let the stupid unskilled Mexicans do the work..." comes third hand via an editorial article on the man. The only comment I have gotten in regards to pointing this out was one user saying something to the effect of "Gee, you may have something there." Before some one attempts to say that I am trying to "sanitize" the article, consider for a moment how sloppy this looks to have a source like this. If this article were in a newspaper, Limbaugh could sue for defimation of character or libel, if you will. Please, would some one who is not going to make a knee-jerk reaction based on their personal dislike of Limbaugh tell me why the article has this as a source? Furthermore, if there are rules governing this type of action, would an Admin remove this from the article. I've attempted to remove it, but it keeps getting put back by people who fail to read the comments page or just don't give a darn about the facts and just want to misrepresent the guy. Furthermore, if there are rules against such inclusion, would some one let me know what they are so that when I remove this type of POV, I don't get an overzealous person accusing me of vadalism. Thanks for your time.Rocdahut (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Are we going to write a section on every controversy that Limbaugh is involved in? We better start a whole new article if that's the case. How are some of these important and defining with regard to the Rush Limbaugh? Is this done for every radio or news personality? I looked at the article on Walter Cronkite, and I just don't see the similarity. Cronkite had a much longer career span in his article and it isn't as long as Limbaugh's is now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LImbaugh is controversial (intentionally); Cronkite was not. There's no reason at all that they should be treated identically in this regard. - Nunh-huh 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't maybe they just seem a bit disorganized. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing tip: to avoid the appearance of bias, remove embedded editorial comments. To wit: "The possibility of a reasoned and civil discussion of stem cell research was quickly overshadowed by dueling website and blog attacks." and "The incident, rather than inspiring discussion of current war policy, became another referendum on whether people liked or disliked Limbaugh." These statements are judgmental, and make the writer seem not objective, as if s/he believes that there is a universally accepted "apporpriate" reaction. Report, do not comment on people's missed opportunities to be better human beings. - No One Important 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.20.93 (talk)

bo snerdly

i was hoping their would be info on the people who help rush out. its hard to find anything on bo snerdly (james golden ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

I updated the entry on the Texas primary to reflect its extension to include Ohio and the question of prosecution against Limbaugh or his listeners. I tried to be as unbiased as a rainstorm. :) Eventually Pennsylvania may be included, or the fact that Limbaugh sells Operation Chaos-themed merchandise on his website. But I figured too much would give the section undue weight (WP:DUE) and on a controversial page like this I figure small steps are better. Wellspring (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This section could easily grow. After Pennsylvania, Indiana also has an open primary, in North Carolina it may be on hold due to issue down ballot, and in Kentucky they are suddenly enforcing an old rule about party switches. If we need to add those, we can definitely add a mention on the merchandise.--Bedford 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen to Rush. It's all just posturing.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors, we don't know and couldn't care less (though of course when we're not editing wikipedia we have all kinds of views. That said, the section on Texas will probably shrink as mention of other states grows-- but overall we should keep this section fairly small. Once the immediate issue leaves the headlines, we don't want too much extraneous detail. If the situation becomes important enough, it will become its own article. Wellspring (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com article about Rush Limbaugh's refined tastes - Is it too trivial ?

This Salon.com article talks about Rush Limbaugh's refined tastes (I wouldn't say it that way in the article) - http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/08/19/conason_two/index1.html - Would the info in it be too trivial for Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even sure what they mean by refined tastes. Yeah, too trivial. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Too trivial, the article appears to be an opinion column (such columns typically don't have strong editorial oversight as a main article would have, and it mostly references a Cigar Aficionado article already covered in this article. Wellspring (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

I removed a great deal of content over several edits that was reverted based on lack of consensus. Bad form I know, but I unreverted (or rereverted) the restoration because I didn't know how to restore the edits I felt met the policy for WP:BLP. The cigar and charity sections could remain, but marked for better sourcing, but the sections on hearing and surveys should be removed until they can be sourced strictly per WP:RS. The section that discusses Limbaugh's hearing problems included unsourced content/opinion, information/conclusions sourced to forum posts and unrelated articles about drug use. As to the Rasmussen study, it's still a primary source; I could find no mainstream article that quoted or used it in an article, so no matter how notable the source or study, we're still drawing conclusions when we're the only ones discussing and sourcing it. Again, my intent is not to get into an edit war (especially with someone who's got 10x my edits), but I didn't know how to pick and choose among the edits without having to completely redo the ones I thought were important. Flowanda | Talk 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Best thing is to either post here the statements that are questionable, or post the references and we can discuss which ones are questionable. That way, we'll all be on the same page, because though it is unreferenced, I don't see anything insulting or otherwise that would require immediate removal.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

hearing problems section discussion

I moved the hearing problems section to the talk page for discussion and sourcing. "Okay" sourcing is not good enough when dealing with real, living, breathing people, no matter how cartoonish anyone thinks they are. WP:BLP is policy, getting it right first is policy, so there's no need for consensus, discussion, wiggle room, 3RR or whatever when removing content that is poorly sourced.

Since my edits around poorly sourced were reverted, I'm moving content here until it can be either properly sourced or removed. Here's one section:

Hearing problems

"By August 2001, Limbaugh's listeners had noted changes in his voice and diction."

Forum posts do not meet WP:RS.

"On October 8, 2001, Limbaugh acknowledged that the changes were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. He revealed that his radio staff was helping him receive calls on his show by setting up a system where he could appear to hear his callers. The system worked well but did not convince all listeners, some of whom noted a long delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding or Limbaugh occasionally speaking over a caller. At times Limbaugh asked callers to hold on while the caller's comments were typed and shown on Limbaugh's computer monitor."

Specific details need to be sourced per WP:RS before they can be added to the article. These are details are about how someone, a real-life person, does his job, and these are *specific* details about public, on-air, probably documented, examples, that, if notable, have been included in a mainstream, third-party, objective news article in a publication meeting WP:RS.

In December 2001, Limbaugh underwent cochlear implant surgery, which restored a measure of hearing in his left ear. His voice and enunciation returned to normal after the implant. According to his doctors, the deafness was caused by an autoimmune disease."

Personal health details quoting personal doctors describing personal conditions. Not a single source in sight, even an "okay" one.

"Some medical experts have speculated that his use of opioids, such as OxyContin and hydrocodone , could have caused or contributed to his hearing problem. "

These sources have absolutely nothing to do with Hello Kitty, open-pit diamond mines or Crank Dat Batman, much less the content and associations they are sourcing.

"Limbaugh's doctors stated that they did not know the exact cause of Limbaugh's hearing loss, but ruled out "overuse of medication" as a factor."

The one source meeting WP:RS, the single attributed sentence and the only verified fact. Think anybody sees it now?

"On February 27, 2007, in the BBC Radio 4 program, No Triumph, No Tragedy, Limbaugh explained that his deafness had been caused by a malfunction of his immune system which started attacking and destroying his inner ear. He also explained that he employed a full time stenographer, to make notes of everything that was said around him so that he did not miss a word."

Another source meeting WP:RS, but I couldn't find the article or the content attributed to Limbaugh. The link is to a generic page.

Flowanda | Talk 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity and donations section

After going back and forth with an editor about edits to this section, I have moved the entire section related to charity activities and donations for discussion about sourcing per WP:RS content that is claimed as fact and likely to be disputed.

Extraordinary claims, such as those included in this section, need sources meeting Wikipedia guidelines; the burden of attribution is on the editor adding the content, not the editors disputing and removing it.

Sourcing per WP:R does not include transcripts of radio shows or press releases.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowanda (talk • contribs) 04:21, April 20, 2008

Unless this info can sourced independently, then it should be removed or content greatly reduced. I see no reason why content written as facts and sourced only to Limbaugh's website or minor mentions on a nn charity golf tournaments should be included and protected. I could find no independent confirmation per news articles of these claims, and I'm kinda tired of people who think it's someone else's job to justify removal of poorly sourced edits. Flowanda | Talk 04:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Leukemia telethon section is adequately sourced by the society and Limbaugh's announcement himself. Raising $19+ million over 18+ years and contributing more than a million dollars himself is certainly worth noting in his biography. There is no BLP issue here and the press releases and annual reports are adequate since there is no indication that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has made any of this up. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect citation pages, sources that don't back up the statements made (see below and the Kathie Gifford site for examples), using subsections for one-sentence statements and non-notable participation in charity events and not participating in any kind of discussion about sourcing until forced and even then, again restoring the edits with little discussion and no consensus as soon as the 3RR danger had passed.

With the exception of the $400,000 donation, I'm not questioning the content, but how the lack of independent sourcing and external coverage makes it difficult to assess the notability of some of the content or why it should be included -- and constant reverting edits without discussion doesn't help either. Flowanda | Talk 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't force website owners to keep links available / free for multiple years. Link rot is a major problem and there is no requirement to have a working web link anyway. Simply citing the transcript date and time is adequate for a radio program and verification can be made via transcripts which are available via Lexis or similar services. The LLS cure-a-thon items have probably been in this article for at least two years, unquestioned, until you decided you didn't like it for whatever reason. After I made the change to "claimed" and "pledged" (you could have easily done that yourself BTW) to satisfy your concerns that Limbaugh might be lying on a nationally syndicated radio program that is thoroughly sifted over by his critics and after I further cited the charity's annual reports, you unilaterally removed a section that has basically every sentence cited and poses no BLP problem despite your repeated misapplication of WP:BLP in your edit summaries. BLP allows self-published statements to back up claims and his website is cited a number of other times on this page. You never had a consensus to remove the section this time or the times you removed it in the last weeks. If someone claims they made donations to a charity on a national program and the charity's documents confirm that, I don't see how this is a WP:BLP issue. As for notability, I don't know what the minimum notable donation amount is for wikipedia, but I'd say over a million personally and nearly $20 million for the cur-a-thons is above that bar of notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What outdated links am I referring to? I provided corrected links to existing pages, but now that your edits have been restored and the threat of 3RR is gone, there seems to be no urgency to edit this section beyond what you're forced to do.

Self-sourced does not include self-serving, and you are not "backing up claims", but using them as main sources. Read WP:SP before sourcing anything other than pledges or claims to a radio show transcript...oh, but you made that change already.

You mean two-year-old "stable" content like these corrections you made when the content was questioned: [3], [4] and [5]

Or do you mean discussions you refused to have until the content was removed to this page...but still was restored as quickly as possible by another editor without consensus or discussion despite knowing, I'm sure, that defending content and its sources is the burden of the editor adding the content, not the editor removing it.

It would help that if you're going to make claims associated to specific years, that you link to something beyond generic links to an annual reports page; after opening all the reports from you years you listed, if I could not easily verify what you said [6], [7], or [8], and had to look through 44 pages to find the info on page 27 here [9], how are editors and readers expected to easily verify the facts you are sourcing?

Nobody is saying that Limbaugh or any of the charities he supports is lying because the content included in this article is questioned. It's the editor's job to verify notable content, cite it correctly and weed out non-notable information.

Again, my points were either to source content to reliable sources that support reasons for including it in the article, or justify why each needed its own subsection heading...or rewrite the section relative to the quality of sources, which I did, and which was immediately reverted. The section clearly should be a few paragraphs detailing the more notable contributions/activities...most of which have only been identified through these forced discussions and not by any initiative of your own to provide valid and accurate sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:RS allow for self-published sources. In this case he is talking about what he is doing. Limbaugh is a reliable source for what he said or about himself. We're talking about a charity, not his theory on nuclear fusion, there need not be a peer reviewed doctoral thesis to verify that he said he pledged $400k to a charity, or various amounts in the past, especially when the charity in question verifies that he donated money in that amount range. As for the links to each annual report, I think it is adequate to link to the single annual report page for all of them, linking each year with it's respective report has no added value and serves only to make the section harder to edit. In truth, we need not provide a link at all, a citation merely needs to say where the information came from. If there is some verification problem, that information is easily found, as you have noticed. As for the entire section, I have no problem combing the four headings into one heading "Charitable work" rather than 4 sub-headings. I don't really see the point of having a section header for one sentence. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Face it, Flowanda just hates Rush Limbaugh. You want to dispute the fact that he gives his own money in addition to other contributors while conducting a charity drive on his show, go right ahead. This goes for the rest of your diatribe on charity work. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Charity contribution -- Marine Corp

Primary sources do not support donation figures or support...limbaugh page requires subscription to see information and association page -- and website -- provides no information or reference at all to Limbaugh. I can't find any related news articles to use as references. Flowanda | Talk 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that he is is listed as a director on the foundation's Board of Directors page. He also received their 2003 Johnny Michael Spann memorial award and is mentioned in a number of their newsletters. "provides no information or reference at all to Limbaugh" is not correct. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the citations do not go to the correct pages -- http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eib15th/leuk_award.guest.html and your sources don't support the statement that he runs a charity drive or your comments that this is a significant deal. Has there not been any coverage in national Marine association publications in the last five years? Flowanda | Talk 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The mc-lef section is a bit stubby and should be expanded. Notably it is missing the millions Limbaugh raised for it last year alone by actioning the US Senate letter, the 2003 award he received from them and the fact that he is listed as a director by the mc-lef. Their 2003 newsletter credits Limbaugh for $300k donated by his listeners. As for transcript links, there is no wikipedia requirement for a reference to have a working web link for eternity. Transcripts are available via Lexis and other databases most likely for free at a local library. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

24/7 Adopt a Soldier

As I noted before, there is little reliable news coverage of soldier discounts for Limbaugh subscriptions or "Adopt A Soldier" programs specifically associated with Limbaugh. Flowanda | Talk 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I paid for one myself and have exchanged emails with the soldier. His charitable work is avaialbe publicly since he does it on his radio show. Lean to discuss things before making these kinds of edits. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but using a subsection is excessive for something that's a minor contribution on his part with no coverage in the media and sourced to a subscription-only page. Non-subscribers can only see pages with ".guest." in the url: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/rush_24_7_adopt_a_soldier.guest.html . Flowanda | Talk 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And in response to your edit summary using my "bias" as justification for restoring the content without discussion or consensus, I moved the content to this page because all edits I have made to the section have been instantly reverted with no discussion or attempt to determine the validity or value of any of the edits, so I wasn't going to waste my time again by correcting mistakes listed above or adding fact tags. Flowanda | Talk 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Adopt A Soldier" program is a grotesque, exploitative marketing gimmick that Limbaugh uses to cynically make money. If Limbaugh gave away free memberships to troops (without requiring anyone else to buy the memberships), I guess it could be referred to as a "charitable" act. (God knows that this mega-millionaire could easily afford to do this). But to sell memberships, even at a discount rate, using the gimmick of "supporting our troops" is truly sick and immoral. For Wikipedia to dignify this scam as a "charity" severely weakens the credibility of Wiki as an impartial reference resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So I suppose that when Jerry Lewis had his telethons, he was exploiting the public to fund his charity. I purchased a subscription and actually traded emails with a soldier who was stationed in Iraq. He was quite happy for the free subscription. For Wiki to dignify many things weakens its credibility, but this isn't one of them. You need to chill. Maybe we should start an "Adopt A Liberal" program. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions aren't the issue here. My opinions don't matter. Your opinions are no more notable than the criticisms you're responding to. Limbaugh's site does not meet WP:RS. YouTube does not meet WP:RS; RealClearPolitics, DailyKos etc are perhaps more debatable.

But your single personal experience does not give you any special insight into other editors' intents or interpretation of Wikipedia policies, much less define anything remotely related to "censorship".

And you should source any more comparisons to the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon with news articles meeting WP:RS and not just your personal recollection or outrage. Flowanda | Talk 07:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do the soldiers get the subscriptions for free? If I purchase a subscription for someone else, it's an act of good will. Can an act of good will be charity? According to Webster's it can. I also give money to Wikimedia, that's also an act of good will. Nuff said.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the subscriptions still paid in full with just a minor discount that costs the show nothing to provide? Do you get to claim your gift as a charity donation on your taxes? This is an act of good will on *your* part, not Limbaugh's. And yes, way more than "'nuff said", but since you'll just revert any changes made to this incorrect, POV, unsourced, non-notable sub-section, why bother? Flowanda | Talk 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The point is that the marginal cost to the Rush site is ZERO. He isn't donating anything to anyone. So, in fact, it is a slick way to get people to buy a bunch of extra subscriptions. If he were matching donations made to send goods to soldiers or to buy a subscription to a site he doesn't own, it would be charity. Raising money for lymphoma is charity. Adopt-a-soldier is not. It should not be described as such. 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuneke (talk • contribs)

Questions about accuracy

The section "Questions about accuracy" seems only to be a gimmick to sneak in some liberal critique of Rush Limbaugh. All of the "questions of his accuracy" have not come from liberal/progressive sources (FAIR, Al Franken, Media Matters) which are themselves biased. Unless a non-biased source for questioning his factual accuracy can be found, I would suggest removing or rewording this section.

He has been attacked and criticized from a lot of liberal sources, maybe a section called "links to people who don't like Rush Limbaugh" would be more appropriate. Biccat (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of syndication stats?

Why no mention of how many stations Rush is syndicated at? (Wikipedia mentions them for Paul Harvey.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.224.194 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Effects on democracy removal

The following was copied from the Sean Hannity talk page in which the same content was proposed.Asher196 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman concluded that Hannity's various outputs presented a "troubling situation". Friedman argued that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. Friedman accordingly argued that Hannity fostered in people the "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" rather than "the ability to make informed policy judgments."[4]

^ The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read ^ Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007), p. 112. Also see cover of Hannity's book and supra notes 80-86 and accompanying text. ^ Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007), p. 112. Also see in Hannity's book supra note 172, at 1, and notes 103-06 and accompanying text. ^ Jeffrey Friedman (2006). "Democratic competence in normative and positive theory: Neglected implications of “the nature of belief systems in mass publics". Critical Review 18:1 (1-43). Emphasis in original.

The Friedman article paragraph reads: Consider the most reviled pundit on the other side of the political spectrum from yourself. To liberal ears, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, while well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals, will seem appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. The same goes in reverse for a Frank Rich or a Paul Krugman, whose knowledge of the “basics” of liberalism and conservatism will seem, in the eyes of a conservative, to be matched by grave misunderstandings of the rationales for conservative policies. If Limbaugh, Rich, et al., turn out to exemplify the “cognitive elite,” we are in serious trouble.

Perhaps there is another article? --PTR (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now read and understand the whole article and you'll find the text to be added fair. CyberAnth (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read and understand the article and he's talking about a collective group and not Hannity in particular. There are also some critical proponents of quotes left out. The paragraph says "to liberal ears ... he will seem appallingly ignorant" which is not the same as "he seems "appallingly ignorant of the...". The second version puts it as Friedman saying it which is a misstatement. The phrase "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" is in the abstract but not in the actual paper. It might be better to rewrite as: In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman included Hannity as one of the "cognitive elite." Friedman says that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," to liberals he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. [1] --PTR (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity"

My addition is a completely fair summary of the article. CyberAnth (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it weren't for this, I would think that this violates some rule in wikipedia concerning point of view. The only reason to include this seems for the sake of criticism. Just because some one throws in their thoughts about a person or subject does not mean that it has ramifications that are pertinent to include in a supposedly encyclopedic article. If I were to include a similar quote and sub-heading in John Stewart or Al Franken's page, would it seem fair and perinant, or would I told that I vandalized the article with POV content? Just a thoughtRocdahut (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The section comes with the implied position that it is Limbaugh's job to fairly represent all views on the political spectrum. This is not so. Limbaugh is openly partisan and has no obligation to present "arguments and evidence" of viewpoints he does not hold. In Limbaugh's own words, "I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates."[10] He goes on to add, "Getting along is not the objective. When it comes to the war on terror, when it comes to tax policy, to me, defeating, politically, people I disagree with is the order of the day, and I don't think I defeat them by compromising with them."[11] --Allen3 ^talk 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of deafness?

Perhaps it got edited out because of some controversy, but as of right now, there is no mention that Limbaugh lost his hearing. Could this fact be added back into the article? (The 'what' and the 'when' at least if people don't agree on the 'how'). DavidRF (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It did have an impact on his life and show, requiring a text transcript of phone calls and he has commented on his ability to hear music. As long as it can be presented in a NPOV manner (which might be a problem). Biccat (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tag removed

I have removed the POV tag, along with the disputed section. I am not in principle opposed to having the section in the article, but it had clear POV issues. Any other addition of a tag should be accompanied by a discussion, on the talk page, of specific issues with the article which violate WP:NPOV, and some indication of how these issues can be resolved. Please make clear the conditions under which the POV tag can be removed as well. "I dispute the article" is not a valid reason for tagging. silly rabbit (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

FAIL! Now how do we show this in the entry? Can we just say that operation Chaos failed to affect Obama's campaign? Or can we quote his radio show when he said he now wants Obama to win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.200 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No you can't just say it failed, because it didn't. It was intended to affect Hillary's campaign, which it did. It drew her campaign out longer than otherwise would have happened. Consequently the Hillary's attacks and the Rev. Wright contraversy brought doubt upon Obama. He was likeable and squeeky clean up till then, but not anymore. It did affect Obama's campaign, but probably not as you expected. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But you can prove it has any impact on the election either. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Final Sentence

The last sentence of the article:

However, public polls have shown that a strong majority of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, such as a Rasmussen Reports poll illustrating a 2-1 margin of unfavorable ratings, with 62% of those surveyed reporting an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen.[117]

Looking at the source linked here, this sentence is quite misleading -- particularly the phrase "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen." What that really means is "the highest for any of the public figures mentioned in this particular article based on a particular Rasmussen poll." But the way it is written implies that Limbaugh's unfavorable opinion rating is "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen" -- presumably any figure in any poll or at least presuming that this particular poll included a wide selection of public figures. But the quoted article doesn't even include current public opinion ratings for President Bush, who has had higher unfavorable ratings in many polls over the past couple years compared to this number for Limbaugh.

This particular article is specifically dealing with comparisons between the approval ratings of candidates for President in 2008 (Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc.) versus media figures (mostly news media). It's not a particularly wide selection of "public figures" and is certainly not representative of the standard Rasmussen polling data for a given week, which tracks approval ratings of people like Bush and Cheney on a regular basis... and both of them vie with Limbaugh on a regular basis for unpopularity.

I'm going ahead and simply deleting the phrase "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen," since that qualifier makes no sense without giving an explanation of this specific poll and which public figures were included. If someone wants to put something back in about this, I won't object -- but it should mention the context of the poll before claiming that Limbaugh has the "highest" or "lowest" or whatever of anything. 24.62.5.186 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that it is semi-protected, so I encourage someone else to rewrite this. 24.62.5.186 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added POV tag to show description

I realize that this is an article under development, but the description of Rush's show is pretty blatantly biased, and requires some editing. Specifically the language about Rush's listeners being more aware of current events than non-listeners and the various explanations for the Michael J. Fox episode (which take up about 3 times as much type as the event itself.) Heavy editing needed IMO. SJennings (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. Primarily, I think the Limbaugh Show section needs to be split up and refocused somehow. Presently, it seems devoted to covering scandal after scandal, which is largely media sensationalism to begin with. This information should be pruned down and probably given its own subsection. As it stands, I feel that the section gives undue weight to recent events in relation to the Limbaugh Show as a whole. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to re-do the article, which spends waaay too much time singing Rush's praises and doesn't evaluate his career objectively. I'm fine about presenting his successes, but what he has achieved needs to be put in context, which this article often fails to do. It's obvious that a few people have inserted items to try to balance it, but that has made the article very cumbersome and awkwardly written. I admit, I had to do some of that too-- not having time to re-write it, I settled for just refuting some of the more blatantly biased segments and trying to provide some context. Since I am in radio professionally and am also a media historian, I thought I could help by adding some links and comments that provided more factual information. I added new polls that contradict the "Rush's listeners are smarter than anyone" polls-- I don't wanna debate whose listeners are smarter; my point is that in radio, polls are constantly changing, and one poll may indicate that Rush is on top, but another may show he's #2 or #3. In other words, it's not useful for whoever wrote the original to cherry-pick poll data. Trends repeatedly show that NPR's audience has the most college grads, and contrary to the myth of the "liberal media", in the most recent poll data I could find (done by Arbitron, not NPR!) 30% of the NPR audience self-identifies as Republicans, with another 20% as independents. But I digress. I provided both pro- and con- Michael J. Fox and VoteVets.org material, as well as more recent poll data that shows which demographics currently listen to Rush. Frankly, the article really needs a re-do so that it's not so much of a cheerleader "isn't Rush the best?" article and more an objective discussion of a very influential talk host who still has over 13 million weekly listeners and is on over 600 stations. I'll help in any way I can-- I do have access to plenty of objective research, as well as partisan articles from both his fans and his detractors. DevorahLeah (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)DevorahLeah

I'm a relative "newbie" to Wikipedia as a volunteer editor, and am particularly interested in the NPOV and POV issues. The Rush Limbaugh article is one of several that add the adjectives "conservative" or "progressive" to the description of the subject as a "talk-show host", or something similar. It seems to me (from an "appropriate" encyclopedic-language perspective) that if NPOV and POV are to be followed as stringently as is indicated in the Wiki instructions, these adjective labels should be eliminated AS PART OF THE SUBJECT'S DESCRIPTIVE "TITLE", and a discussion of the subject's political views should be relegated to later in the article. There are many reasons for this, but one argument is that the term "progressive", for example, when applied as an adjective description of a talk-show host, is less problematic than the term "liberal", because "progressive" implies a favorable judgment. "Conservative", it could be argued in this view, would deserve to be changed to "responsible", for example, or perhaps "reasonable". It doesn't seem to me that Wikipedia needs to be in that argument, and the situation could just be avoided by describing ALL "Radio talk-show hosts" as just that.--RogerR00 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, people are described as such if they self-identify as such. Limbaugh states he's a conservative, so it's on the page. Hannity says he's a conservative so that's what's on his page, even though people try and label him a neo-con. Olbermann does not identify himself as a liberal, so he's not identified as such. Redrocket (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can sorta buy that, although Ed Schultz isn't identified either way, and he's certainly got a political identity. What about my "conservative" vs. "progressive" descriptive adjective point? I see the term "progressive" as implying approval, which isn't NPOV to me, wheras the term "liberal" would seem to be the correct counter-view to "conservative", from an encyclopedic-language perspective. Or am I just being picky? Don't worry about my feelings. Be Bold, as they say.--RogerR00 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "progressive" fails WP:NPOV. Trickrick1985 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Times Magazine Profile

I don't really have time to muck with it right now but the NYT Magazine did a very long profile of Limbaugh. There is most definitely stuff in it that would be worth incorporating. If anyone has time they should take a crack at it. If not I will get to it when I get to it. --Rtrev (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dan's Bake Sale

Start of the second hour of the August 1st, 2008 show covers the Dan's Bake Sale, with Dans original call, plus other callers supporting it. This would be a REALLY nice time to get this section updated. Nintendo (talk) 10:17, August 1st 2008 (PST).

Should we put it on this article, or on The Rush Limbaugh Show? I plan to add it soon.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

National Precinct Captain

What the heck is that? I think we're going over the top with a statement like this. We need a citation for this, or it needs to go. This is silly. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a citation for it.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a stretch, and it's weasel-worded WP:WEASEL. It needs editing. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rush Limbaugh Controversy

After reading this entire talk page, should the article itself be mentioned in "Controversies"?72.16.143.185 (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC) JPTiger

WP:BLP violations in article

{{editsemiprotected}} A recent edit was made by Lisasmall (talk · contribs) [12] to this article that appears to be in direct violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in that it cherry picks certain facts designed primarily to mock or disparage Libaugh by insinuating illegal conduct and moral turpitude while ignoring widely published news stories that showed there was no evidence that Limbaugh did anything wrong at the time of the discussed events.[13][14][15][16] This edit needs to be reverted immediately.

A quick search of the talk page article shows that this incident has been fully considered and repeated rejected for inclusion. 71.96.135.118 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing this out. I have rewritten the paragraph to remove horrible libel that has no place on Wikipedia. I have no objection if regular editors of this article want to remove it completely or further rewrite it. --B (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh's use of and views on Wikipedia

See this comment in Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia...72.244.200.179 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead citation links in fox paragraph?

I am new to wikipedia and therefore will not touch anything, BUT I will point out that ALL of the links backing up the idea Fox purposfully made himself shakier for the commercials are dead ends. Also since this is an article about Rush Limbaugh and not Michael J Fox, I suggest it is P.O.V. to say limbaugh was right vs being wrong. My idea of an encyclopedia states history and facts, not opinions. It is a fact Limbaugh said those things on the air, and it is a fact it caused alot of controversy. However it is not fact Fox did those things on purpouse, that is opinion at least unless proven with better citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.5.135 (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama and 401Ks

See [17] and [18] for the factual basis of Limbaugh's claim. I don't know how much linking Obama to it is real vs guilt by association, but it is a democrat proposal in the house and Limbaugh is not the only one associating Obama with it - he isn't just making stuff up. The chairman of the committee supports the proposal so the LA Times characterization of it as a "single economist" is hardly correct. --B (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is correct in so far as Limbaugh is claiming that Obama is connected to this. The LA Times correctly said there's no connection. This isn't terribly complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okkay, so there was one economist making testimony. Has anyone advocated this? Is there a Democratic plan to privatize? The issue is the accuracy of Limbaugh, who is now stating that this is a factual plan, and that Obama and the Democrats plan to take over 401(k)s simply because an economist was invited to testify before Congress? Is that all it takes to say that there is now a movement to do so? --David Shankbone 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Did you read the article? The quote from Limbaugh doesn't say Obama. It says "they". They = Democrats. "They're going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is," Limbaugh woofed. "Trust fund, my rear end." He's talking about a Democrat plan. There is a Democrat plan. His statement was 110% true. Whether or not Obama has anything to do with it, I have no idea, but Limbaugh never claimed he did. Please read the article. (And I use the word "article" loosely.) --B (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it is not complicated. Did User:B read his own opinion pieces? He is claiming there is a "Democratic plan" - what plan? Can you point me to it? The section is over Limbaugh's questionable accuracy, and User:B using opinion pieces full of conjecture, when nobody in the Democratic leadership or the Obama campaign has advocated taking over 401(k)s, makes this more than appropriate for addition under that section. User opinion pieces that propagate the inaccuracy is hardly "proof".--David Shankbone 20:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times statement that Limbaugh's claim was "an assertion with no factual accuracy" is cited as fact in the current wording. This, at least, should be attributed to the LAT as an opinion or removed as OR, per WP:ASF. The LAT article - which leads with "You have to give Rush Limbaugh a perverse kind of credit" - is clearly an opinion piece. the skomorokh 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a reported plan to confiscate retirement accounts in the states. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, Gwen. If there is a plan, where is it? Until somebody can provide a source showing 1) Obama or his campaign making even minor mention of taking away people's 401(k)s; 2) a Democratic Congressman advocating such action; or 3) any proof that there is a "Democratic plan" to do so, then it remains in "no factual basis". Cooking up a bunch of conservative political commentators all saying the same thing is not "proof". The onus is to prove that there is a positive movement for such action, not that people conjecture that there is. --David Shankbone 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The source says, "Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts..." The reports don't seem to be hoax, is all I'm saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the Canada Free Press is a reliable source, but the fact is, there is no plan. One economist invited to provide testimony is not a plan...using political opinion pieces that are only conjecture based on an economist's testimony, when there is not one single news-based article to say there is any such plan is hardly the way we should be going about measuring the veracity of such claims. This kind of logic is what makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. --David Shankbone 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A proposal is someone's plan. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

An economist's proposal is not a "Democratic plan", which is what is being purported. Not that "Someone, somewhere, in testimony, has stated this." --David Shankbone 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada Free Press is not a reliable source, in my opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling sources one doesn't agree with unreliable is a mossy, boring and highly PoV tactic on Wikipedia. However, it is understood, all political commentators sometimes stretch their sources as far as they can. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a desirable tactic on Wikipedia. I came here because of the noticeboard and I commented on an aspect with which I had some familiarity. In my opinion, CFP is little more than a blog, which has repeatedly had to apologize for making incorrect statements. Why do you think it's reliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time. LIMBAUGH DIDN'T SAY OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR 401(K). He said "they". He never accused Obama of anything. Claiming that he did is verifiably false. I searched and found the full transcript of the segment in question - go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125104.guest.html and scroll down to story #3. He cites http://www.cnbc.com/id/27558644 which talks about the Ghilarducci plan and talks about George Miller's (chairman of the Education + Labor committee) support for some part of it. What Limbaugh said is correct - some democrats want to take away your 401(k). He even cited a WP:RS for it. --B (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So quote that. It's ok to quote stuff. WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Democrats" makes it no less accurate a statement - go ahead an change "Obama" if you wish. Indeed, your CNBC source shows little Democratic support to take away 401(k)s and put them in a Social Security trust fund, which is Limbaugh's claim. Which is not only inaccurate, but false. --David Shankbone 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

But that isn't the only problem. The LA Times article made it sound like Limbaugh was claiming that the democrats were going to just steal your 401(k). Actually read what he said, though. You have two choices - keep your 401(k) at its current devalued level or put it into the trust fund and have its pre-August value restored. They aren't stealing it and Limbaugh never said they were. --B (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The LATimes story is, in fact, editorial in nature and only valid as a cite for its author's opinions. I edited the article to reflect that the story is Rainey's opinion, and anything more is not a vlaid use of such a ref. Collect (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's the guy's opinion - it's obviously false. He is taking Limbaugh out of context. Limbaugh was talking about an OPTIONAL PROGRAM, made it very clear that it was OPTIONAL, and anyone listening with half a brain would know it is optional (the government can't just seize 401(k) plans of law abiding citizens any more than it can rob your wallet.) Read the full transcript and it's blatantly obvious the guy is taking Limbaugh out of context. Limbaugh was saying that under the democrats' proposed plan, you would have the option of turning your 401(k) over to them in exchange for having its full value restored. The LA Times guy changed that to make it sound like Limbaugh was falsely alleging that the government was going to steal your 401(k). --B (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not true, as I show below in the next thread. --David Shankbone 21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

401k issue

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6089381.html is an AP article relating closely to the controversy about what the future holds for 401k plans. "Economics professor Teresa Ghilarducci, of the New School for Social Research in New York, said the current retirement system is leaving retirees without enough money, and poverty among the elderly will rise if nothing is done. “This will be the first time since World War II that the standard of living of elderly Americans declines while that of prime-age workers increases,” she said in a briefing paper for the Economic Policy Institute.

Alternatives suggested In her House committee testimony, she proposed a plan in which workers would get a $600 tax refund but must set aside 5 percent of their pay into a retirement account managed by the Social Security Administration. The money would be invested in government bonds to earn at least 3 percent interest.

When they begin collecting Social Security, the retirement account would be converted to an annuity, providing a guaranteed monthly check for life. Combined with Social Security, the retirement account of a full-time worker with 40 years on the job retiring at 65 should provide 70 percent of preretirement income, Ghilarducci said."

Which, all in all, appears to give credence for saying there are radical proposals to convert 401k plans to a "Social Security" annuity with no inheritance value. Collect (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all missing the point. Regardless of the details of the plan or who supports it or whether Obama has heard of it or how many democrats can dance on the head of a pin, LIMBAUGH MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT COMPULSORY. Read the full transcript (story #3). The LA Times guy took a fragment of one sentence out of context and falsely alleged that Limbaugh said participation was mandatory. If the plan ever happens, you have two choices (1) do nothing and keep your 401(k) as it is with its value probably reduced due to the stock market crash or (2) turn it over to the government in exchange for its value being restored. Limbaugh made it clear that there was an option and he was ridiculing option #2. The LA Times article, falsely claiming that Limbaugh did not say it was an option, is fiction. --B (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is now about as NPOV as we will get, as readers can see it is an edtorial, and that such proposals do, in fact, exist. I added the AP cite. Collect (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You have reframed the question to what it was not. The issue was not whether such proposals exist. The question, and the assertions by Limbaugh et al. is that there is a Democratic plan to adopt them. Yes, one economist made testimony. I'm sure you can find even MORE radical proposals. However, there is no support for that idea. Your own source shows that George Miller himself hasn't proposed that. To quote the Houston Chronicle:

Critics say the plan moves the nation away from a voluntary system to a mandatory government program, which has been rejected by lawmakers before. VanderHei points out that Ghilarducci’s plan would virtually scrap the current 401(k) system and lead to the destruction of the retirement planning industry in favor of a government-run program.

Chairman of the House committee, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., has proposed changes more likely to be considered. They include:

• Providing complete disclosure of all 401(k)-related fees and increasing transparency

• Providing independent management advice to help Americans better manage their plans

• Waiving the current tax penalty for seniors over 70½ who don’t take a minimum withdrawal from their retirement accounts

• Prohibiting privatizing Social Security.

That hardly sounds like her idea has any Democratic support. --David Shankbone 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like she spoke specifically to a group of Democrats. It sounds like her ideas were found "intriguing" by them. See also http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=310608887865483 . Collect (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

She was testifying before Congress. "Intriguing" means, according to the Princeton definition, "challenging: disturbingly provocative". That does not translate to a "Democratic plan." This bizarre logic that when an economist testifies before Congress, suddenly there is a plan to adopt their proposals, intriguing or not, is really poor form on Wikipedia. Not one Democrat has endorsed her proposal ("intriguing" does not mean "yes, we can!"), and stating such is false and demonstrably inaccurate. --David Shankbone 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the point of this discussion is not to establish what level of support the proposal enjoys. The point is whether or not this belongs in a biographical article and clearly it does not. The LA Times piece quoted Limbaugh out of context. Whether the proposal is supported only by the woman who gave the speech plus a few democrats here and there or whether everybody in the country has signed on changes nothing - the LA Times is misquoting Limbaugh and then using that mis-quotation to make a point about conservative radio's coverage of Obama, when Limbaugh obviously wasn't talking about Obama. Using this editorial here would be like using Philip Berg's website as a reference for Obama's article. --B (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)That is not true, B. He repeatedly asserts that the Democrats plan to take away your 401(K). Repeatedly. Over and over again, in a variety of different ways. There is no way you can spin that link the way you are spinning it if you read it in full. --David Shankbone 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here, I'll quote from his "Democrat Plans for Your 401(k)" that I linked to above -

• "Do you know what's going to happen to you? We don't know what's going to happen, but do you know what the Democrat plan for your 401(k) is?"
• "Then we're going to take it. We're going to take your 401(k), and we will put it in your Social Security account that the government is monitoring for you, and we will invest every year 3% in government bonds."
• "So the bottom line is, they'll take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security."
• "The government takes over your 401(k). Not so much flushes it, they just take it, like they're going to take some pension money. Now, this is not centrist. This is not moderate. This is George Miller, and this is the kind of thing that Reid and Pelosi will go for."
• "I don't know where Obama will stand on this, but the odds are that it will sound attractive to him because these people are all about expanding government coffers. And that's what they're going to do. So that's what's ahead for people's 401(k)s if the Democrats get their way. They may not, but that's what their planning is."

Are all those quotes taken out of context, then? I'll let other people click on the link and decide. --David Shankbone 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is what the AP article stated was proposed to a group of Democrats. And found "intriguing" by them. Collect (talk) 21

49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, not true. Ghilarducci testified before an "Oct. 7 hearing before the House Education and Labor Committee". That's a bipartisan committee, as are all committees in Congress. Taking the conservative editorial board of the IBD's Op-Ed that only singles out Democrats and saying she specifically addressed Democrats either shows you misunderstand how Congress and its committees work, or how Op-Eds function. And the "intriguing" bit didn't come from the AP story, it again came from the Op-Ed, and you again seem to have confusion about what "intriguing" means. Additionally, there were many parts to her proposal, so pinning the "intriguing" quote from an unnamed source to one part of her proposal is WP:SYN and WP:POV. --David Shankbone 22:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, all of those quotes are taken out of context. He is describing that particular plan. Under the Ghilarducci plan, if you accept the bailout (meaning, that you want your 401k's value restored), all of those things will happen. You're leaving out the most important part - "She wants to basically eliminate the 401(k), and the way she wants to do it is she wants to go to people who have a 401(k), who have seen its asset value plummet because of the market plunge. So she wants to go back to August levels." - and you're cherry picking quotes that make it sound worse than it is. What you are doing is trying to make it sound like Rush is accusing them of confiscating 401(k)'s. In reality, what he said is that this plan is out there and under this plan, you have the option to participate. If you don't participate, they are going to start taxing your 401(k), but that's a different story. But you can't just go grab one-liners out without providing context for them. The context is that this is one woman's plan and that plan is supported, in some part, by one or more Democrats. But when you pick these one liners out, you are putting words into his mouth and making it sound like he said ZOMG OBAMA IS GOING TO STEAL UR 401K!!!!! --B (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I find that a total spin job on very plain language that anyone can read. He is stating that the Democrats are going to adopt her plan and take people's 401(k). I appreciate your a big Rush Limbaugh supporter, but there's no way to read that article and honestly argue that he was not unequivocally stating that this is "what [the Democrats] are going to do. So that's what's ahead for people's 401(k)s if the Democrats get their way...They may not, but that's what their planning is." It's disheartening you are spinning Rush's unequivocal language - I would imagine he himself would disagree with you. He seems to have no problems with stating it. Additionally, he talks out of both sides of his mouth re: Obama and taking people's 401(k)s, stating he doesn't know for sure, but that he thinks he is all for taking people's 401(k)s, despite there is no factual basis of ANY Democratic politician supporting that. Can you find a quote from any Democratic politician supporting taking away people's 401(k)s and putting them into Social Security? --David Shankbone 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people tell me what my politics are. I quit listening to him in 2001 when he berated a Christian who called in to talk about the end times. My bias here is the same as my bias on every BLP - just because you don't like someone doesn't mean their article can be turned into an attack piece. My position is the same whether it's a liberal or a conservative. If the position were reversed and someone were using a WorldNetDaily editorial that quoted a liberal out of context, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - they would have long since been blocked for trolling. Limbaugh makes it very clear that he is talking about a particular proposal and that participation in this proposal is optional. Only once you sign up for it, do the Democrats take away your 401(k). Nobody who at all understands what a 401(k) is would even conceive of the possibility that the government could just come in and take it. Rather, the plan is voluntary and that's the problem with what the LA Times writer said - he was misquoting Limbaugh as though Limbaugh had claimed that the Democrats were going to take your 401(k) period, not that the Democrats were going to take your 401(k) only if you signed up for the program. --B (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"A McDermott spokesman calls the plan 'intriguing.'" seems pretty clear. Let's see if it is found in another cite ... http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-126202 "This [plan] certainly is intriguing," said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott. " Second source. Collect (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

Looking at this in more detail, there's no major controversy over this just a handful of news reports. Given Limbaugh's long tenure, is this notable enough for inclusion in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I only wrote one sentence about it, and I think it merits a sentence or two. Certainly not an entire section. But since it's been reported on in the MSM and in other places, certainly. The multiple sentences right now are inaccurate, since User:B did not appear to be aware of the article I linked to in the thread above. Otherwise, definitely - we are here to educate people on all aspects of Limbaugh, his life and his views, including his accuracy, and this is a prime example of problems with his accuracy, where he has unequivocally stated that the there is a "Democrat plan" to "take" people's 401(k)s. --David Shankbone 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One person with an obvious ax to grind wrote a column where he makes a false accusation about Limbaugh. In the transcript you linked above, Limbaugh even says that he doesn't know what Obama's position is on it. An attack piece about "Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger" that falsely claims that Limbaugh made the issue about Obama is not worthy of a sentence. --B (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is not about "Obama" anymore, but about the "Democrats" and Limbaugh's language is plain, stated over and over and over, in a variety of ways, unequivocally. --David Shankbone 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And the AP article makes it clear where Limbaugh derived his information. I think one should consider the difference between "all Democrats" and "some Democrats" and I would suggest that Limbaugh was correct if he meant "some" and wrong if he meant "all." Collect (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That is still false. First, there is no federal Democratic politician advocating taking away people's 401(k)s and putting them into Social Security or anything else (I have continually asked you to prove that wrong, and you haven't). Second, we aren't here to divine whether Limbaugh, when stating that if the Democrats get their way they will do such a thing, whether he meant 1, 10, 20 or all Democrats. Fact is, not one has advocated such a policy. The section is entitled "Questions regarding accuracy" and this is clearly an example. Spin however you want, but so far the anti- crowd on here has only used other conservative commentary using the same fear-mongering that has no basis in fact; are stating that because one economist out of many testified about this (and it's a mischaracterization of her proposal) it is clearly a "plan"; have stated that testimony to a bipartisan committee is actually only to Democrats; or are flat out stating this is not what Limbaugh said, when he unequivocally said it. Wikipedia at its worst. --David Shankbone 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Try McDermott, unless his spokesperson was blowing air and Miller as well. As for your "continually ask(ing)" me anything, I have not seen that. I am trying to express absolutely no point of view other than seeking facts. Period. If you dispute how the news media have stated the proposal, complain to them. AFAIK, they are RS for sure, and I have seen no denial from her on any web page at all (and I did check to see if there were any denial about her proposal). Therefore I presume that the articles do, in fact, accurately represent the proposal. I would be delighted if you gave me a cite where she denies the proposal. http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204.html is quite clear. That organization, for some odd reason, is essentially entirely Democratic, and a great many Dem politicians attended. Including Barney Frank who said deficits were not a real issue any more. Collect (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this issue is undue weight, I had considered commenting to that effect yesterday. It is best to just leave this out. If it is to prove Limbaugh as putting out disinformation or lying, this particular point is fairly subjective. We only have pundits shooting back and forth at each other as sources to prove it. Surely there must be a better example than this of Limbaugh's inaccuracies. It is clear that there is some sort of idea among Democrats - at the federal level - to take over 401Ks, google it. This incident, by itself, has hardly garnered any coverage against limbaugh, unlike the MJ Fox, or McNabb comments. I don't beleive this has gained enough importance to merit inclusion. I say we leave it out. Charles Edward (Talk 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's dishonesty here, it's not on the part of Limbaugh, it's on the part of the LA Times and James Rainey. Rainey presents this as if it were some fabrication of Limbaugh's, and that's how Shankbone inserted it into the article. But the truth is that whether there is or isn't a Democrat plan to seize people's 401(k)s, Limbaugh didn't make it up. He was just repeating what he'd read and heard. The first time Limbaugh mentioned it, as far as I know, was after the election. And Rainey seems to agree with that, since he gives this as an example of post-election bitterness on the right. But this article, which can't be accused of partiality to the right, was written before the election, and puts this accusation in the mouth of John McCain, on Fri 31-Oct! So what's it got to do with Limbaugh? It should be out of the article, for this reason if for no other. -- Zsero (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we please quit with the WP:OR? It isn't really helpful and doesn't do anything other than showcase peoples personal POVs. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't OR, any more than Shankbone finding the Rainey piece was OR. I've proven that Rainey's allegation is untrue, and therefore shouldn't be in the article. I linked the proof, so anyone can check it. Where's the OR. If you're claiming SYN, there's nothing wrong with SYN to keep false statements out of WP; you just can't put SYN into an article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. This is almost the precise defintion of OR. Shankbone is presenting a single source which makes the complete claim. You are taking a variety of disitinct sources and speculatively combining them to reach a conclusion not contained in any reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And that is SYN, which is not enough to support putting that conclusion into an article. But it is enough to prove that what's in an article is wrong, and to remove it. -- Zsero (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, SYN to keep something out of an article is not a hot idea unless it absolutely needs to occur or it is very blatant. Moreover, this isn't even in the bag original research. All you've done is show that some people other than Limbaugh made similar remarks prior to Limbaughs. At best that shows that Limbaugh didn't bother doing any factchecking beyond just quoting other parts of the noise-machine. That doesn't even remove the central point of the article. It makes a very weak argument against it. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring needs to stop, or we'll end up with some arbitration event happening here. Is that what everyone wants? The inclusion of every single contraversial statement by Rush Limbaugh is total nonsense. That could make this a 50MB article. Let's show some common sense, and include what is really NOTABLE! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The characterization of Democratic positions on this issue, and of Dr. Ghilarducci's plan, as "confiscating" 401K plans is incorrect, regardless of what Limbaugh said. Ghildarducci's plan would establish a voluntary plan for those who want to participate, and Congressman George Miller (D-CA), Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, has said repeatedly that he does not support elimination of 401K plans. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/111408WSJResponse.html The article could be corrected to say that some industry sources and other observers say that Democrats want to confiscate 401 Ks and force people into a mandatory system, but senior Democrats such as George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Dr. Teresa Ghilarducci, say that there are no such plan, and that any alternative to 401Ks would be voluntary. one citation among many is http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/111408WSJResponse.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macheath409 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC) one additional citation/quote in support of Limbaugh's critics here. In the article, footnote 90 links to Limbaugh's own web page. And it shows his November 6 2008 transcript talking about 401(K)s. In that transcript, posted on Limbaugh's own web site by Limbaugh's operation, Limbaugh is quoted as saying "Imagine every 401 (K) and SEP/Keough Plan in the country, and the government takes 'em over...They take away your 401 (K) from you...They're going to take your 401 (K), put it in the Social Security Trust Fund, whatever the hell that is..." Whatever one thinks about various plans (House Democrats and Professor Ghilarducci, as I note above, do not plan to take 401 (K)s away), it seems that the quotes I'm listing here, from Limbaugh's own transcripts on his own web site, undercut the defenders here who say he never said government would "confiscate" them. That is true only if you focus on the specific word "confiscate" and not on Limbaugh's plan meaning in the quotes I've listed here, in his own words, from his own web site.

background

• And only for background, more meaningful talk about the confiscation of retirement funds in the states. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. More conservative media talking about something that doesn't exist. I personally like the national columnists that Carolina Journal highlights. Too bad there appears no ability to get any mainstream news organization to report on this (Carolina Journal is owned by the John Locke Foundation. Perhaps because there is no talk about "confiscating" (Gwen Gale's words) people's 401(k)s by the Democrats. Oh well. --David Shankbone 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Wow! Even the John Birch Society ripped apart the Carolina Journal piece. --David Shankbone 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Then goes on to say, "Regardless of the spin from the Carolina Journal, Ghilarducci's remarks should not be discounted. What she is really proposing is that workers be tricked into believing that the theft of their wealth through inflation..." Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but we're discussing whether the Democrats have a proposal to take, or to use your word, "confiscate", people's 401(k)s, not the merits of an economist's position that nobody has supported, and that she has stated nobody supported (per the Reuters article I linked to in the RfC). Regardless, the Carolina Journal piece is, essentially, trash. And frankly, Gwen, I'm a little surprised that an admin is taking opinion pieces, all of which rest on this one economist, to support this notion, when you can't find any statements by Democratic politicians to this effect, nor mainstream news articles stating that this is any way a plan, proposal or hope of any politician. I would expect more from an admin, and so far every source you throw out is pretty shoddy. --David Shankbone 09:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David, to take a word you've used, here's what I'm getting at: Politics=trash. I think this goes to show what I said above, most political commentators of whatever stripe (and those who comment back) tend to stretch their sources, to stir things up. What Limbaugh does is more or less show business and it's how he and others quite skillfully draw big audiences, which themselves draw advertising revenue, which is much of the pith (somewhat akin to say, Professional_wrestling, but the pay can be much higher) and most sources having to do with politics, even many taken as scholarly, can wind up looking rather shoddy when one starts digging into them, something to keep in mind whilst editing this BLP, never mind the need to skirt edit warring over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what we do here, Gwen. We are supposed to be dealing in facts and WP:Reliable sources. We aren't supposed to be propagating the trash. We generally want people not to see us as part of the trash heap of noise. Have you noticed I have not once used the Media Matters piece on this story? Because I have standards for the sources I pair with my name and advocate for their use. It's not good enough to say that "Politics=trash". That's your opinion, and some of us find these showmen, who many people believe, to be the problems for spreading misinformation and lies. It should tell you something that you haven't been able to find anything that even comes close to WP:V to support the contentions. And if the guy is not accurate, we're not the ones who are here to say--wink, wink--that's all part of the big game, now isn't it? That is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is meant to be. And I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who is supposed to be the front line to guard our values. It's disheartening, Gale. --David Shankbone 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

More or less all politics is misinformation and lies but never mind that. One of the "values" here at Wikipedia is that we don't edit war and I was trying to show you why edit warring, much less over this, is so utterly pithless (which is one reason why edit warring comes under the threat of a block). Meanwhile, following WP:BLP (another strong Wikipedia "value"), you can't sway this article or its talk page into your own attack page. That's what your blog is for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think inserting one sentence in the entire article, for which I have provided multiple sources, makes this an attack article. More, I find your problematic use of unreliable sources to be more an issue, and the language you use indicate a POV. It's sad when people need to use obfuscation and distortion to win support for their views, be it a major media personality or a Wikipedia editor. I've committed no BLP violations here, and I've hardly swayed this article by giving one example under an appropriately titled section called "Questions about accuracy". So far, not only has the accuracy of his statements been shown to be non-existent, below in the RfC another editor points that he even gets Ghilarducci's plan wrong, in addition to the contention that it has support amongst Democrats. Using verifiable information from w:Reliable sources hardly is an indication that I'm trying to turn a very large article into an attack page with the insertion of one sentence. That's just..."Limbaugh logic". --David Shankbone 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a debate forum. Making it one would irreparably harm WP. WP:NOT Collect (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I neither edited the article nor edit warred over it. I only came here to see that the edit warring stops. I offered the links/sources as background (see the title of this thread), not as citations for any assertion in the article. If you're going to start saying I'm using "Limbaugh logic" (never mind going on about me on your blog) I don't think you've carefully read what I've written. Either way, I'm not here to go back and forth over a content dispute. I'm more than happy to watch quietly. You can even have the last word :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a novice to Wikipedia, but fairly expert in retirement policy. I take the points about edit wars, but to Gwen Gale--the citations in the Limbaugh article that are used to describe the issue are taken from two (relatively fringe) industry sources that are not unbiased on this issue, and so shouldn't be used as the basis of a factual description of the issue at hand. There are plenty of cites on Ghilarducci's plan, and how Democrats are considering them, that give a more dispassionate picture than the cites you use and paraphrase in the article. A very good summary of this issue can be found on factcheck.org, where they ask "Are Congressional Democrats talking about confiscating IRA and 401(K) accounts?" and factcheck.org answers "No. There's no plan to sieze these accounts. One House witness proposed to allow some people to trade their old accounts for a new type that would be less risky." This seems to me a good summary of the issue, and would be a better description in the Limbaugh article than what you have currently. Here's the cite: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_congressional_democrats_talking_about_confiscating_ira.html Hope that's helpful. from Macheath409 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macheath409 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC - 401(k) discussion

RFC tag added. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• No: Whether there is or isn't a Democrat plan to seize people's 401(k)s, Limbaugh didn't make it up. He was just repeating what he'd read and heard. The first time Limbaugh mentioned it, as far as I know, was after the election. And Rainey seems to agree with that, since he gives this as an example of post-election bitterness on the right. But this article, which can't be accused of partiality to the right, was written before the election, and puts this accusation in the mouth of John McCain, on Fri 31-Oct! So what's it got to do with Limbaugh? It should be out of the article, for this reason if for no other. -- Zsero (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? So because another person said it, that doesn't make Limbaugh responsible for what he says on multiple occasions? This isn't "McCain said it also, so Limbaugh has no responsibility for what he says..." That doesn't even make sense. We're all responsible for our words, and Limbaugh isn't saying "According to John McCain..." he is fervently saying this is the truth, from his own mouth, not McCain's. --David Shankbone 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rainey dishonestly presented this as if Limbaugh had made it up in response to the election result. But he didn't. It had been reported before the election, McCain was saying this before the election, so it's not at all remarkable that Limbaugh would pick it up and repeat it. He's not expected to do his own research; he sees something in a reliable-enough-for-talk-radio source, and repeats it. Much like LA Times reporters do. An article about Limbaugh should only have significant facts that are about him; if he had come up with this himself that would be significant, but repeating someone else's research, whether careful or shoddy, is not. -- Zsero (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's really silly. First, until you are prepared to research every statement made on this issue, just because you find one instance where McCain says something doesn't mean he was the first. Second, are you saying we are not personally responsible for what comes out of our mouths if somebody else says it? Is Limbaugh not responsible to research for himself before he makes multiple statements. This is a pretty poor argument - nobody's responsible for what they say until we can find the first person who said it - then, that person is responsible for it, and for whoever says it afterward. LOL! If only we could all use such logic to absolve ourselves of responsibility, but unfortunately, that's not the way the world works. For any of us, liberal or conservative. --David Shankbone 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain probably wasn't the first to speak about this. But he certainly spoke about it before the election, and therefore Rainey's claim that Limbaugh made it up as a reaction to the election result is exposed. Maybe this should go in Rainey's WP article. But Limbaugh is not a researcher, he's not even a journalist - he's more like a blogger or a WP editor. If he sees something in a reliable-enough source, and certainly John McCain is one for this purpose, he's entitled to repeat it without doing his own independent research. Anyway, Rainey's hit piece is disproven and must be removed from the article. As for the LAT's fact checing, in which you place so much trust, have a browse through Patterico's archives; he's caught the LAT telling blatant untruths so many times it's not funny, and he rarely gets a retraction. No matter what the WP:RS gurus have said, the LAT is no more reliable than a blog. -- Zsero (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read WP:OR - original research is not allowed. There is no evidence that Limbaugh knew anything about John McCain's statements. You're arguments violate policy. By cherry picking one article with a McCain quote, you are synthesizing sources. Second, whether you like the Los Angeles Times or not is irrelevant. They are a WP:Reliable source, and by the standards of this website, one of the most reliable. You don't have to like it, but these are policies. --David Shankbone 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bulldust. OR and SYN are rules against including things, not excluding them. There's no evidence that Limbaugh didn't get this from McCain or some other source, and how likely is it that he'd have come up with it independently? In any case, the fact that McCain spoke about it before the election explodes Rainey's entire argument and exposes him as dishonest. As for the LAT, I don't give a damn what the people at RSN say; calling a tail a leg doesn't give a pit bull five legs, and putting lipstick on the LAT doesn't make it an honest paper. Policies can say whatever they like, but they don't alter the facts. Rainey's piece was dishonest, and if its factual claims were fact-checked then the fact-checkers fell down on the job, as usual. -- Zsero (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Zsero, that made no sense. If I understand correctly, Shankbone is against including info about McCain (by the way your link appears to be an editorial, and as such not a reliable source for factual information), because it doesn't mention Rush Limbaugh. Where I'm sitting, it doesn't matter if he wasn't the first person to say it. Limbaugh said it. If it was proven he wasn't the first person to call Obama an "Arab," it wouldn't invalidate the fact that he said that, either. The Arab issue isn't in here because MSM avoided it, it probably skirts WP:BLP and because it's hardly the first time Limbaugh has smeared a Democrat. Whether or not we should include the 401(k) comments, I think, boils down to whether or not it's notable and in reliable sources. If so, we include that material in as balanced a manner as we can. So let's focus on that question, shall we? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not arguing for including the McCain info, I'm arguing for excluding this whole piece, because it's based on Rainey's piece that I have proven false. The whole point of Rainey's piece is that the right-wing are making up wild stories in reaction to the election result. I have shown that this was reported before the election, and before Limbaugh touched it. And the only thing that made it arguably relevant to the article on Limbaugh was this claim that he made it up; if he didn't, then it's no different from any other of the thousands of stories he has spoken about over the course of his career, all of which he read in some reliable-enough-for-the-purpose source. That's what he does. If the story turns out not to be quite as definite as he thought it was, so what? How many stories has Rainey got wrong; do they all go in his article? -- Zsero (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. The issue is that on multiple occasions Limbaugh has stated that the "Democrats want your 401(k)"[19] and that they are "planning" to "take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security."[20]. There is no Democratic plan to take away the 401(k)[21] and James Rainey, in a column run in both the L.A. Times[22] and the Baltimore Sun, pointed that out.[23]. The basis for such an assertion is one economist out of many, Teresa Ghilarducci, testified before a bipartisan House committee chaired by George Miller (politician)and proposed ending the 401(k) as one facet of a multifaceted proposal.[24]. Ghirladucci herself stated that Miller does not support this part of her proposal.[25]. But Limbaugh continually tells his millions of listeners that this is a Democratic plan, to "take" or "get" people's 401(k)s. I added one sentence--initially using Obama, which he often throws in for good measure, but more accurately he just says "the Democrats" so I changed it--under the "Questions about accuracy" section of the article. Instead of adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV, several editors either spin Limbaugh's words to mean something else, or use other conservative commentators who are parroting the same line to say that it's a fact (enter Truthiness and Wisdom of the crowd - enough people say, it's got to be true). Is there a Democratic plan? No. Is there any evidence of a Democratic plan outside one economist's testimony to a committee? No. Does Limbaugh continually say there is a plan by the Democrats to do so? Yes. Is this inaccurate? That's putting it lightly. --David Shankbone 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe. It's been one focus of Mr. Limbaugh's commentary: [26] Editorials discussing it: [27] [28]

"Last week, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh pilloried her ideas, but Ghilarducci said Limbaugh got some of the facts of her proposal wrong, including that the guaranteed rate of return would be 3 percent above the inflation rate, not a flat 3 percent return." [29]

Reuters story about 401(k) discussion, no mention of Limbaugh: [30]

The "maybe" plan: [31]

Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102808/content/01125111.guest.html "you're gonna guarantee at least a 3% return" looks to me like he said "at least" which is actually a correct statement. Unless you think "at least" means "at most"? In short the big error, isn;t. Collect (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that gets rid of almost any undue weight concern. And the ABC piece is not an op-ed so there shouldn't be any objection to using it as a ref in an uncritical fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"It's been one focus of Mr. Limbaugh's commentary"? He's been on the air for what, 20 years? In that time he must have covered thousands of issues. It's inevitable that in some of those cases the sources he relied on got it wrong, or he stretched them farther than they would go. What makes this issue special? It would only be special if this story originated with Limbaugh, but I've shown that it didn't. If it was a McCain talking point before the election, then what has it got to do with Limbaugh, just because he picked it up, as he does dozens of other news stories every week? -- Zsero (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• No The salient issue is whether Limbaugh stated that it was an official party platform (which it does not appear he said), or whether he meant "some" when he said "Democrats" in whch case there is a sufficient kernel of truth in the claim. Saying "he got one piece wrong" is insufficient to pillory Limbaugh if the proimary facts were as he stated. Unless someone can show he meant it was an official policy from the Democratic Party, we ought grant him the reasonable benefit of the doubt. This would be my position for any article, as WP is intended to be an encyclopedia and not a debate forum. Collect (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• No - the only "controversy" is that the LA Times would allow a biased hit piece to be printed. In any event, our BLP standards are higher than a news columnist's. We don't print unsourced or poorly sourced attacks. There is no controversy with what Limbaugh said and only this one biased columnist is talking about it. If it was getting play from multiple outlets and from actual news (not editorial) sources, that would be different. If Limbaugh's words didn't have to be taken out of context to invent an offense, then there would be something worth mentioning.--B (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• No - This was a hit piece that was easily debunked. It has no relevance to the article.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

if this must be included on rush's wikipedia page i must agree with what david shankbone says. zsero's argument is silly. on the other hand i wonder whether this needs to be on this page. bedford is wrong about this being an easily debunked hit piece, but perhaps it would be better placed on another article. there are so many instances of limbaugh making controversial statements i wonder if we shouldnt have a page dedicated to his controversies. this would eliminate much of the fighting over inclusions to this page and also allow a place for this kind of thing. for instance, i find it surprising that more has not been mentioned about the racially charged things he has said. individually they may not seem so crazy, but when you consider the fact that he called obama not black, then arab, then black enough for that to be the only reason powell to endorse him it becomes obvious that limbaugh has said some crazy things about race. then put that in context with how he called the girl in the duke rape case a ho (terrible even if she wasnt a victim because at that point, nobody knew what was going on) and how he said that donovan's accolades were given more because of his race than his performance and you have a guy who is constantly injecting race in a negative way. he also called halle berry and obama "halfrican americans". an interesting article was written about this topic... http://www.counterpunch.org/wise10032003.html ... why isnt more said about that? no matter how you feel about rush and race... what about a limbaugh controversy page? is it a good or bad idea? i am just trying to make a more objective wikipedia. we dont want to portray people as saints or as demons, but just as they are. Brendan19 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is actually quite funny, if you step back a few steps and read through the whole thing. I'm a little disappointed, but not surprised, to see long term and well known Wikipedia editors discussing on this page with such a clear agenda - and not the agenda we all ought to have (a quality encyclopedia).

• To David: Whether you're right or not, this particular event is just not significant enough to include in the article. Biographical articles are intended to broadly outline notable people, not include relatively minor controversies in the life of someone constantly in the public eye. Trying to get this particular episode included in the article smacks of recentism, and certainly falls into the trap of giving undue weight to something that has only quite limited "news cycle" relevance. It gives the appearance of an agenda towards the Limbaugh article that is not useful or appropriate for a Wikipedia article discussion page (even though it is, obviously, quite common).

• To B and Gwen: You've certainly earned my respect with your work elsewhere, but the discussions on this page are not examples of your best contributions. I think some of your arguments have been disingenuous, and beneath what I believe your intelligence and perceptive ability to be. If there are no reliable sources that directly point to a single elected Democrat as supporting the particular 401(k) plan at issue, then saying that this is the "Democrat plan" is not accurate. And there is no way that you can say that isn't what he actually said - the context is in the quote, if he says "Take away" and "Democrat plan" and "401k" in one sentence, what context could possibly be missing? A couple of other things: This page isn't for your opinion about the plans, or your interpretation of what they'll mean or what the level of support might be. That's what your blog is for, as someone said above... Also, one liners of a few words that make points which don't add anything of substance might as well be left out altogether.

People say crazy stuff at hearings on Capitol Hill all the time, and most of the time they're ignored by everyone in the room. Having one person call the plan "intriguing" is the polite way for a committee chairman to say "Holy crap, this plan is nuts." Time for everyone to move on from this issue. Avruch ^T 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes: Limbaugh has said this repeatedly. The stuff about McDermott should be removed because it is original research, and also violates WP:Synth. Idag (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes per Shankbone et al. (But RL isn't sufficiently notable for a BLP, IMO. We all have an arsehole.) — Writegeist (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh has a "reasonable basis" for his opinions on this, and this falls within the category of "opinion" only. Were we to censure every opinion held which relied on "reasonable basis" we would have thousands of these arguments littering every corner of WP. Collect (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please. The strongest argument against inclusion is the WEIGHT argument, as Avruch pointed out, and it still fails to sway me. But few of the people against inclusion are making it, and instead use jaw-dropping denial of reality to argue with some of the most retarded logic I've ever seen on this site, and that's saying a lot. --David Shankbone 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• No: This is way overblown here in proportion to outside coverage for this topic and is definantly undue weight. We have other standards for rush comments to go by on this. What he said about McNabb, MJ Fox, phoney soldier, etc - those are topics that received significant media and outside attention and they merit inclusion. This topic on the other hand has received very little outside coverage. If we are going to include every limbaugh controversy this article will quickly become hundred pages long... Limbaugh has a controversy almost every day, sometimes more than one day. He is a controversial person. WP:UNDUE. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An eloquent summation of what is the only non-retarded reason to oppose inclusion of this information. Whether it sways editors that the inclusion of one multi-sourced sentence is another story. It does not me, but I appreciate your well-reasoned "No". I hope we courtesy blank the threads at the end. Reading them makes me feel like I need to take a shower. --David Shankbone 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• No: As per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#NEWS, it is not Wikipedia's role to serve as an archive of every one of Limbaugh's comments with which someone disagrees. As a political commentator and talk show host, it is Limbaugh's job to express opinions on the controversial topics of the day. This "controversy" is simply one of the never-ending stream of Limbaugh comments on a then current news story in a manner consistent with his long-term political philosophy. --Allen3 ^talk 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is opinion, not fact regarding D McNabb's "success"

Regarding:

McNabb's performance in the months following the controversial remarks contradicted Limbaugh's opinion. McNabb took his team first to the 2003 NFC Championship Game, and in the next season, on to Super Bowl XXXIX. McNabb's Eagles lost the NFC title to the Carolina Panthers. Fifteen months after Limbaugh's disparagement, McNabb ended the 2004 season by taking the Eagles all the way to the Super Bowl, which they lost to the New England Patriots.

It is pure opinion and unproveable to say that "McNabb took his team" "McNabb led" "McNabb ... taking them all the way" They are not "his" team He is one of 53 players on the team, and he has never "led them to a Super Bowl" victory, which would make this post moot Has only contended for League MVP once in his career and lost He ranks 16th on the Passer Rating list for CURRENT quarterbacks It is obvious that a "fan" of McNabb wrote this paragraph The numbers over McNabb's 11 year career bear out that he is a good quarterback, not exceptional, as was being professed by the media at that time as Limbaugh stated This "retort" is written in a manner and with intent to make Limbaugh's comment appear wholy wrong and inaccurate 65.6.208.115 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

i disagree. quarterbacks always get the praise (and blame) for their teams. they touch the ball on almost every play and they have always been known as leaders of their teams. that is not controversial. show me a more highly scrutinized position on the football field. Brendan19 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Referee. Actually it is possible that the paragraph overstates what McNabb did, and could be toned down a hair without injuring the point made therein. Collect (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

collect, the change you made is fine. Brendan19 (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Now we just need to make sure that "lots of extra stuff" is not added - the section looked quite accurate, didn't it?

Rush Limbaugh's comments, whatever you think about them, are not affected by the success of the Philadelphia Eagles in that season or the season after. The final sentence should be deleted due to the fact that the only reason for it to be there is to cast doubt on Limbaugh's statements. To say that they lost Superbowl 39 doesn't really matter. There are many quarterbacks who are mediocre at best who have won Superbowls, Trent Dilfer anyone! Cheers!

The sentence was placed there in order to end an editwar where some wished a far more negative impression of Limbaugh to be stressed. The sentence as placed is intended to be as NPOV as possible. Collect (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FM radio

The article mentions that his show is also carried on FM in some markets. That's accurate, and it is very a growing trend in radio to change FM stations to non-music formats as iPods and other digital media cut into FM Music's audience - but I'm not sure why this is relevant to Rush Limbaugh, the subject of this article. This isn't an article about the radio business in general and wikipedia is not about predicting the future.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you move it to an appropriate article and wikilink it here? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy v. Incident

The "incidents" are obviously controversy, it's disputed at a very heated level and to simple rename it "incidents" is trying to downplay them in an absurd and POV way. It meets what wikipedia says is acceptable for using the term "controvery" ( The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute (e.g., the AACS encryption key controversy). When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict.)Soxwon (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Soxwon on this issue, and it's a sword that cuts both ways, so I don't see it as a political issue. On a large and full article like Rush Limbaugh, a controversy section works absent weaving the material into larger sections. I had no problem renaming the "Controversy" sections on Burt Neuborne and Augusten Burroughs, since having something named that way made half those articles "Controversy". --David Shankbone 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the Prescription meds/drug controversy?

Where he got caught talking about being addicted to prescription meds or something and then the warrant got overturned for being a fishing expedition? IT's not mentioned in the article? and I think it should be.... Kairos (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely because it has been discussed here repeatedly and found not to be usable in the BLP for more than the 35 lines or so it has. Even the Viagra case is mentioned. Collect (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote from former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell

"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?" [32]

It is obvious to many, many people that Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than intentionally antgonizing, negative and divisive force in America. Simply put, he's a hatemonger. And in spite of his attempts to make people think that he stands up for the little guy he is consistantly a shill for the very rich and for corporations against the "average joe". In the dark ages he would have been the guy who tried to organize mobs to exterminate some person or group who he hated because they wanted to be treated fairly. A hundred years ago he would have been the Boss or Robber Baron ([33] remarkable likeness btw, compare to [34]) who ran his serfs and slaves into the polluted ground while keeping most of the profits for himself. IMO, he has been nothing but bad for the United States (or should that be the Divided States thanks to his efforts) and the world. What's sad is that he has been able to flimflam so many poor people into voting against their own best interests.

Anyway, I hope that someone can include the above quote from Powell into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.202.220 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Floodgate time if you use quotes from everyone notable about everyone notable. This, last I looked, is supposed to be a "biography of a living person" not a collection of every quote about a person. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, also, Powell's statement is very loaded, and biased, and itself would require counter-quotes from his critics, and over this very statement. That could become cluttered. Maybe a topic would be needed just for this Powell diatribe, its background, what the 'code words' he used really meant, what was going on at the time, what he hoped to accomplish, how he hoped to position himself with both Republicans and Democrats, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The section "alleged inaccuracy" is thoroughly peppered with weasel words. These include "liberal infotainer" as a pejorative and "which is what Limbaugh said all along". As with much of the article, this section needs attention and re-writing. Phobophile (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The "liberal infotainer" bit is what Al Franken used to describe himself. I'll edit out some of the other weasel words. Soxwon (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Franken's self-description is appropriate. How about an encyclopedic description of who he is? A former Saturday Night Live writer and Senate candidate. It was clearly a pejorative. Phobophile (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it is not customary to have long-winded quotes about organizations or people. WP:NPOV is pretty clear in this case, and Franken is not described in the mainstream as a "liberal infotainer" no matter how he describes himself. --David Shankbone 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its just a quote taken out of context to denigrate SENATOR Franken. Limbaugh is a disgusting POS and a shining example of why the fairness doctrine was enacted.71.82.131.14 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So why wouldn't Franken on the radio be subject to the same fairness? or be considered disgusting for his physical outbursts and assaults, and his many offensive remarks? You're arguing, here, instead of commenting on the quality or content of the article. It's enough to say that Franken is a very radical leftist, and Limbaugh very conservative, very much of opposite opinions on many issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

In the 1990s on his TV program, Limbaugh called then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton a "dog." It was a sick, disturbing attack on a child and it repelled some of us. We weren't convinced by Limbaugh's ridiculous, idiotic claim that he didn't really call her a "dog" and that the whole thing was a technical screw-up. Indeed, the latter lame excuse and distortion of the truth is why many of us will never take Limbaugh seriously. Oh, and by the way, this article (which appears to have been written by a Ditto-Head) incredibly omits ANY reference to this incident. Even if one buys Limbaugh's idiotic excuse, the fact that the whole widely publicized incident isn't even mentioned in this article shows that Wikipedia loves to sanitize and re-write history. Stalin would be proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.27 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

it was in there once before. add it if you want and see what happens. inevitably someone will remove it, but then we could at least get a discussion going about it and figure out if it should be there or not. i would support having it included because it is one of the more notable of his many controversies. just be sure to get good sources. Brendan19 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh would begin his show with a bank of three monitors, showing stills of the stories he was going to discuss. On that show, the last monitor was for talk of the family dog, and Chelsea's face was shown. It would appear to have been intentional. One can't know for sure. But in the wake of serious complaints which followed, Limbaugh claimed it was a mistake and that the dog should have been shown, instead. Furthermore, I think he claimed, later in the week, to have fired someone over the incident. But it did give the sense of the 'dog ate my homework', not working the first time. So for the article to report on this, wouldn't it have to draw from both sides of the story? And would that seem boring? Would it seem to some that the article is cluttered as is, and that a he-said, they-said interpretation a) from Limbaugh then b) from his critics would not be worth the trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I can personally vouch for the fact that Limbaugh did this. It had nothing to do with monitors, or anything someone on his staff did. He said it. A friend who was a big fan was listening to Limbaugh that day, when I stopped by his office. Limbaugh made a reference to the first President Bush's dog Millie and then said something along the lines of (this is not an exact quote, but is close to what he said): "Well, the Clinton's have a dog, too. Her name is Chelsea." To make such a public comment about a 13-year-old girl (I believe that was her age at the time) is pretty despicable in my book.DMLang (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If it really happened and was notable, there would be coverage in reliable sources. I don't see any. As another example, Tina Brown, founder of The Daily Beast, published an article the other day insulting the appearance of Sarah Palin's eldest daughter. However, I don't think we would mention that in Brown's bio unless reliable sources provided coverage of the "controversy". Kelly ^hi! 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm Washington Post so maybe this helps this discussion. I don't normally post on Wikipedia but it seems like this may help. I don't know, I'll leave it up to the pros.

Neutrality issues

The part about his radio show has been tagged since December 2007, I'm going to remove it and if there are still problems with it please bring them up. Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

This is Rush Limbaugh talking to Phil Gingrey. On Youtube, of course. 74.37.237.64 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason anyone should explain it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fake; it's a voice-over; it says comedy in the description. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with "Cancellation" section

This section has several problems that need to be corrected or else the section needs to be removed. First the section is completely unsourced. Second the section gives undue weight to a station switch of Limbaugh's show by implying through its inclusion in his biography to the idea that this event has had a significant effect on his life or his public perception. Third, there are neutrality problems due to the section be presented predominately from the view point of the canceling station with no attempt to show what this change has meant to either Limbaugh or the station that picked him up. Finally the last sentence is dominated by speculation that this change might have had an impact upon Limbaugh or his show.

If this section detailed a significant drop in Limbaugh's ratings (other than the normal changes that follow the 4-year presidential election cycle) or showed that he was loosing a large number of affiliates then I would agree that this was a notable event. However, a quick web search shows that the situation is not what is being implied by this section. This was not the first time Limbaugh had changed stations in the Baltimore market. He was in fact returning to a former affiliate.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/www.wr.org/index.php/index.php?pageId=36465] The ratings argument also appears weak as the station Limbaugh moved to has overtaken the station that canceled him.[35] This just leaves the section to either hype a small event that has had no meaningful impact upon Limbaugh or serve as a vehicle speculate about what might have happened but never occurred. --Allen3 ^talk 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I wittled it down, moved it to the Rush Limbaugh Show section, and added a cite, happy? Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problems of why the actions of a single radio station are significant to Limbaugh's personal or public life still remains unclear. You should also trim the remaining original research (your source which repeatedly mentions the move was made "to focus on local news and hosts", fails to mention news coverage lasting for weeks). --Allen3 ^talk 03:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Perception

I have a problem with the following text

"For example, in a March 2007 Rasmussen Reports poll, 62% of those surveyed had an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, while only 33% had a favorable opinion, a nearly 2 to 1 ratio that was, by far, the worst among the 18 journalists included in the poll."

Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist and I propose changing it from journalists to media personalities. Rush is not the only one in the list of people included in the survey that don't qualify as journalists. Sean Hannity, Larry King, Alan Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, etc. They are all media personalities but they are not journalists. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how you fit journalists; Rush can fit that description.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 08:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing against Rush or any other political pundit/commentator but in no way under any acceptable definition does Rush Limbaugh become a journalist. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV Punkrocker Soxwon (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV. Brit Hume is a journalist, Robert Novak is a journalist, Rush is not. Here is a quote from Rush Limbaugh from the New York Times Magazine.

"First and foremost I’m a businessman. My first goal is to attract the largest possible audience so I can charge confiscatory ad rates. I happen to have great entertainment skills, but that enables me to sell airtime."

Rush isn't only reason the wording needs to be changed, its because others in the list are not journalists either so we cannot describe them as such.--Punkrocker27ka (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is still largely POV and using that statement as evidence is WP:SYN. Please provide a reliable third-party source. Also, the fact that others on the list are journalists doesn't mean you strike them all. Soxwon (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this POV when it comes directly from his own mouth. Journalists by definition collect information, original reporting, interview people, analyze data and report their findings whether in newspaper, book, television, or radio form and do not pontificate their own views blatantly in their work. Seriously, can we not clearly see the distinction between Journalist and Commentator? If Rush was a journalist, why don't we label him as such on his wikipedia page? Sean Hannity, Larry King, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews are all labeled on their wikipedia pages as political pundits, commentators, or television hosts. If you take a survey of people in various occupations that includes some scientists, you would not identify said group as all scientists now would you? Same issue here, some of the names are journalists like Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Tim Russert. We cannot label everyone a journalist simply because a few of them are. We have to find a common denominator which appropriately describes the entire group. That would be media personalities. If you have a problem with that, then we can come up with a suitable alternative. In all seriousness we cannot leave it with journalists because it is not accurate at all and I think we need to make wikipedia as accurate as possible. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The source says journalist and news reporter. The term media personality does not occur. Please develop a consensus before changing the content of the article along these lines. Truth is not the goal, unfortunatly, of wikipedia. See WP:TRUTH. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not referring to the title of the article, which incorrectly uses the term journalist to describe everyone in their survey. Look who is in this survey! Jon Stewart, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, etc. Seriously who could label any of them journalists? If wikipedia is not about truth, then what is the point? But if you ask for consensus then what about this: Wikipedia is not a Democracy? Can we not rationally come up with a term to describe the people included in this survey? Journalist does not describe even half of them. Media personality fits all of them. But something else could work too. Doesn't anybody think we should ignore the article which labels Jon Stewart a journalist and just use the poll data. I love the guy, but he is a comedian not a journalist! We don't need to use the title of an article which analyzes poll data. We can use the poll data on our own and call the group by another term. --Punkrocker27ka (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this has become an either/or, why can't we just list them as both? Soxwon (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, Journalism is 1. A writer for newspapers and magazines. 2. Someone who keeps a diary or journal. Therefore Rush would be included as a journalist because he publishes the "Limbaugh Letter." As much as I had agreed with Punkrocker, I have to disagree now. Rgoss25 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this little statement at the end of the paragraph? "I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh because I like to laugh at him. He is a joke, unfortunately the joke is being perpetuated on us." How exactly is that unbiased? Is this the Democrats' new definition of neutrality? And, since I am not an established user, could anyone with a little integrity remove that line? Also, could we get a more recent poll? There is a February 2009 poll that says 28% of American people like him, and only 45% dislike him. And, of course, 26% have never heard of him. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114163/Limbaugh-Liked-Not-Republicans.aspx Joshuaingram —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

I keep an online journal where I share my thoughts and opinions with my friends. Does this make me a journalist on wikipedia? If so, my CV needs updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.248.51 (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama Fail

This section is getting to big, the edits by User:TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity are giving the section more weight than it needs. The new information should gets own section or be summarized more. Soxwon (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The brouhaha between Steele and Limbaugh is important and should be mentioned somehow. It's kind of a subset - a spinoff - of the Obama Fail fiasco. The quotes are pretty good and self-explanatory - they do not need interpretation. Maybe somebody could create a subheading under Obama Fail for this dispute and transition the paragraphs into it? 76.203.241.102 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't say whether it is important, you have to cite that it's important, and that can't be done until after the fact, when it has died down and its true importance has been realized. How many times does something happen that everyone is sure is going to be important only to peter out? It deserves mention, but not as much as it has been given.Soxwon (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article or section may be slanted towards recent events.

I think this top of the page tag needs to be added.

I agree Soxwon (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bestseller?

"In his first bestseller" - I presume this is a book. This language is biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.215.225 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also fact. If you want to change the wording so it's less ambiguous, propose something. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What with the HUGE Limbaugh quotes?

So amateurish. Heck, put in the whole damn speech. Better yet, delete the whole damn article and refer everyone to Rush Limbaugh's website for the real TRUTH! 5FWD (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Calm down and try to constructively add to this article. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Show section length

The length of the section seems to be excessive since there is a page dedicated to his radio show. Also, some of information included in the section isn't included in the article for the show. To me, it would be a more logical place to move some of the information to cut down the overall article length. This would also provide space to expand other sections.Shinerunner (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)