Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 3

message: I found the following in Archive2, apparently put there (post-archive) by mistake. Gregmg 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit about the Native Americans was out of place, POV, and inappropriate.  Your correction to Limbaugh's factual error might have a place, the other expository material does not. Bjsiders 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to an extent.  I have encouraged the major editor of the controversial remarks section to follow his own suggestion of adding a "criticism/defense" point-counterpoint style section like that in the Michael Moore article, but he has so far declined to do so.  I find no need for any section like this, not in this article, not in Moore's, or any other article that should be purely biographical, so I won't do it.  I advocate the removal of the controversial remarks section entirely.  If anybody wants to keep it, I'd move it to its own article.  Again, there's been no general interest in doing any of this so I've let it go.  Maybe you'll have more luck than I will, my opinion seems to be in the minority, and I'm regularly accused of being part of some cabal of Limbaugh apologists who routinely sanitize this article so that it's not negative.  Once you've got that label, it's tough to accomplish much. Bjsiders 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of Controversial Remarks 

message: I don't think this publication is a good source for Wik articles.  Shouldn't the most recent entry be cut unless a diiferent source is cited? Kdammers 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick look at the Reliable Sources guide, and I don't believe that the National Enquirer meets the definition of a "Reliable Source". I've reverted the last two edits that cited it as a reference. Gregmg 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before dismissing The National Enquirer in this case (and yes, they are quite unreliable), it should be pointed out that it was they who broke the story, with the interview with his housekeeper, who was the one getting him the drugs in the first place. Rsm99833 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Addicts build up tolerance. However, I believe, in the interest of keeping everything as accurate as possible, perhaps that should be edited so that it reflects that the NE reported, but w/o the questionable contents. 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The talk page is for discussion of additions to the article, not political debates, axe-grindings, or snarky comments.  Please keep this in mind before posting. Bjsiders 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nationalinquirer as a source 

message: Based upon the comments above by myself and several other editors, I have added a  template to the "Controversial remarks" section pending resolution of the raised issues. --Allen3 talk 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|POV-section}} added to "Controversial remarks" section

message: The IPA transcription of his name's pronunciation suggests that it is pronounced "LEEM-baw". I find this dubious, as I'ev never heard the first syllable of his name pronounced to rhyme with "beam"; instead, I've always heard it pronounced to rhyme with "Tim". Is this really the way his name is pronounced or a case of erroneous IPA transcription? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.247.100 (talk • contribs) 23:39, April 27, 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that the pronunciation shown does not match the version I am used to hearing.  Based on the information located at IPA chart for English, I am updating the pronunciation from the current  to  . --Allen3 talk 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a tad confused:  while I'm less certain about the second syllable, the "rhymes with Tim" pronunciation (i.e., as "limb") surely is "lɪm" in IPA.  "Leem" would be "i" (or "iː", indeed).  I'm not sure if this is a "divided by the same language" issue, or IPA transcription as such.  Alai 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pronunciation has been changed to . --Allen3 talk 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I added quotes to his "drug abuse" section. I think its really important to note that he has been a supporter of the war on drugs, as well as a vocal critic of drug users. These are quotes and thus the only point of view they reflect is Limbaugh's own. As the quotes are accurate and their inclusion non-POV (as with all inclusions of quotes), keep them up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.94.222 (talk • contribs) 
:Anon, whether they stay or not is up to you: cite the source. patsw 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it turns out theyre already in the quotes section, so no need for them to appear twice. In place of where they were in the "drug abuse" section it now says something along the lines of "see the quotes section"
== Rush arrested for drugs again today dude4/29/06 ? ...According to your own rules you should be in prison right now not hiding behind your lawyers - Sieg Heil Rush - you dope head hillybilly !
 ==
'''
Folks as far as I'm concerned, you can quote Limbaugh all you want, because that is what Limbaugh does...  But...... If you are going to have 500 quotes ON THE PAGE.... about his "controversial" quotes.......
If Wikipedia is REALLY supposed to be "balanced".....then how about having approsimately the same number of "controversial quotes" by Al Franken..... ON THE PAGE..... instead of just "linking to them"....
OR..... remove the quotes about Limbaugh and link to them.....
12.226.174.193 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about Al Franken, why would we put any of this quotes here?  If you want dig up 500 controversial things Franken claimed, post them in his article. Bjsiders 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Add controversial quotes to Al Franken's page if you can find any.  I don't like the quotes section either, but if it's something Limbaugh said, then I don't see any reason to remove it.  The truth is not neutral.  The entirety of it is.  But we can't include everything Limbaugh has ever said here.  That's the problem with terms like "controversy."  I doubt you can find a single sentence Limbaugh has uttered that somebody wouldn't find to be "controversial."  I strongly advocate either moving all these quotes into their own article or writing a summary "criticism" section akin to that in the Michael Moore article.  So far nobody has shown any interest in doing that.  An article about an individual ought to be largely biographical in nature, and not a collection of quotes.  But that's what we've got. Bjsiders 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited quotes in ''Drug Abuse'' 

message: A secondary consequence of Limbaugh's TV show was that he became known for wearing distinctive neckties. Due to queries from show viewers on were to obtain similar ties, he designed a series of men's ties. The designs, which first became available during the fall of 1995 fashion season, featured bold patterns and bright neon colors.
How is this relevant enough to be added in 2006?  How long did the necktie promotion last anyway?  A few months at most. patsw 05:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was gonna say.  We've got a massive list of "controversial" quotes, many of which are nothing more than tasteless jokes.  Apparantly those are worth recording here, the necktie thing certainly qualifies. Bjsiders 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: $5 million in sales is significant, even if this story is ten years old, and the press coverage is ten years old. If we loaded up the Wikipedia with ten years worth of celebrity news accounts like this from the Denver Post and New York Times there would need to be yet another Wikipedia donation drive just for them. patsw 04:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neckties? 

message: While the controversial quotes are at the bottom, I really think there should be a few quotes in the section detailing his drug history. Not particularly because the man is a dick, but because he is rather powerful when it comes to public policy and particularly heartless when it comes to other drug users. It would help give a full description of his character to highlight the fact that the man is very hypocritical and hides behind things he hates (ALCU, right to privacy) when it's his balls to grill.--Kugamazog 14:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several quotes already in the article dealing with his Prescription Drug Addiction.  If you wish to add additional quotes please make sure that the additions comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fairness and sympathetic tone. --Allen3 talk 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Much of the problem with the "controversial quotes" is a matter of definition.  Many of the quotes that were added are really only quotes about controversial subjects.  As Limbaugh is a political commentator with several hundred hours of airtime to fill each year, it should not be surprising that he makes a wide variety of such comments. A more restrictive definition for "controversial remarks" is remarks that have created controversy.  The ESPN commentator section of the article provides an excellent example of such a remark along with information supporting a claim that the comment created a controversy.  Just because the subject Limbaugh is discussing in any particular remark is controversial does not mean that remark itself is controversial.  It is when comments about controversial topics are portrayed as comments that have caused controversy that the article runs into problems with inappropriate bias. --Allen3 talk 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments were not removed because the were declared wrong, but because they were unverified.  Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for a description of the core content policy. As for the remarks by FAIR, how many different sections need to go over the exact same press releases? --Allen3 talk 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Abuse 

message: Limbaugh's comment about 'Hollywood Jewish talking points' deserves a mention in the controversial remarks section of the article.
mediamatters.org/items/200605180002
*Using a group with an openly admitted political biasmediamatters.org/about_us/ to determine which statements spoken by a political rival are "controversial" does not conform with the spirit of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites.  Using Media Matters for America to determine controversial Limbaugh remarks is as appropriate as using Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as a sole source for John Kerry's war record. --Allen3 talk 02:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh's Latest Foot-in-Mouth 

message: I was going to archive this 76kb page until I saw that the last archive is 125kb. Is there any reason to keep the talk page going so long? HKT 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no magic size that I am aware of to determine when a talk page should be archived.  The talk page is relatively quiet at this time, so i say go ahead. --Allen3 talk 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive