Talk:Phony soldiers controversy

message: Absolutely a must-have entry, relevant and chronicling both sides of an issue which made history as the largest single charitable contribution in EBay history, in addition to being a benchmark categorization of our partisan times.
The letter is actually referred to throughout the media as 'the Reid Smear Letter.'  You might not like how history unfolds, but you absolutely must chronicle it.
:This is a legit story, covered by CNN and by Fox News among others.  Whether it really deserves its own article, I'm not so sure of.  Note that neither news organization refers to it by your title, nor does any other sane outfit, so the article would have to be renamed if it stays.  Wasted Time R 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to comment on the afd page MrMurph101 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale

message: Do any of the connected subjects related to this have enough notability for an Wikipedia article: Betty Casey, Marine Corps Law Enforcement Fund, Eugene B. Casey Foundation?--Bedford 05:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the other two proposed articles, but the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Fund is a vitally needed and notable charity organization. Revolutionaryluddite 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other articles stemming from this

message: As a part time dealer in rare books and historical documents since 1982 I can state that the remarks by AmercianMemorabilia.com VP are inaccurate. The auction record is the single best indicator of the value of documents that suspend Habeus Corpus or Constitutional Rights. From Dred Scott, Susan B. Anthony's arrest, to Letters by FDR interning Japanese and Italian Americans during WWII, the prices for original documents are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. 
This letter, as far as my research has been able to determine, is the first instance in our history as a nation where 40 or more Senators willingly, and in writing, disregarded 1st Amendment provisions in an attempt to silence a critic. That makes this document singularly valuable. Economic forces of supply and demand seem to confirm that perception.
ToddAmelio 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. However, please read Wikipedia:Original research for more information on why we cannot include your opinions at this time. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it stands to reason that the original reference to the opinion of Americanmemoribilia.com is not worthy of inclusion either. Very well, it's gone.-ToddAmelio 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AmericanMemorabilia.com has it wrong 

message: To fully understand the nature of Limbaugh's comments, full context of the entire conversation must be included in the article. On the September 26, 2007, radio broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh received telephone calls from two listeners regarding the Iraq War. The first caller, "Mike in Chicago", who identified himself as a Republican and former service member, told Limbaugh, "I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh argued with the caller and ended up treating him dismissively.  After that call, Limbaugh next spoke to a listener who wanted to "retort to Mike in Chicago" (the original caller).  This second caller, who identified himself as a soldier,  complained that the media never talked to "real soldiers" like himself.  He was clearly responding directly to the first caller, who had told Limbaugh he felt the Iraq War was a mistake.  The current version of the article only contains the conversation with the second caller.  It doesn't make it clear that the second caller's remarks are in response to "Mike in Chicago"'s anti-war comments.  This second caller never mentioned Jesse Macbeth at all.  With the addition of the first conversation, the New York Times response that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment was "referring to Iraq war veterans critical of the war" makes sense.  As is, this article is heavily skewed in favor of Limbaugh.  Both sides of the controversy need to be presented.  Right now, this article is simply a Limbaugh-fanatic's wet dream.-Hal Raglan 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term "Limbaugh-fanatic's wet dream" shows your POV.  I think this is a pretty fair article, well-sourced, although it probably needs a new name, although no clear alternative exists.--Bedford 04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you would react to only the final line of my entire commentary.  I think that in itself, plus your bizarre comment that the article is "pretty fair", clearly shows your POV.  Now, how about attempting to respond to the issue I raised?-Hal Raglan 05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recent addition of the first call added as much to the article as a spilled salt shaker would increase the salinity of the Atlantic Ocean.  The quote originally on needs to be cut.  Besides, the first call doesn't help yoru side of the story anyways.--Bedford 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  The second caller responded directly to the first caller, who was an anti-war vet.  Suddenly, Limbaugh starts talking about phony soldiers.  I understand Limbaugh's defense in that he (Limbaugh) may very well have been thinking of MacBeth when he made that comment but the logical flow of the conversation strongly suggests that he was, in fact, calling the first caller, and by extension any vet with similar views, a phony soldier.  Thats not "my side" of the story, thats how the New York Times, CNN, Media Matters, and many others reacted to the comment.  That said, I think the Overview section can be severely edited down, including the 1st and 2nd conversations, as long as both conversations are concisely detailed.  Not mentioning the first call at all eliminates the all-important context in which Limbaugh's comment was made.  Can you honestly not see that?-Hal Raglan 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is, he was referring only to Jesse Macbeth and those with similar acts, not to all soldiers who are against the war.  It was a purposeful smear.  Anyone who insists on the larger group is purposely lying about it.--Bedford 06:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that everybody is lying and "smearing", except for your  beloved Limbaugh, makes me seriously doubt that your edits are good faith attempts to improve this article.  Its fine to express your extreme bias and POV-addled thinking on a talk page of an article.  However, before continuing to edit on wikipedia, I strongly suggest you make attempts to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's very important NPOV policy.-Hal Raglan 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who needs to read up on it, especially if you are using Media Matters for a source.  The Chicago Cubs telling how to win the Wurld Series has more credibility than that left-wing glorified blog.--Bedford 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your extreme right-wing bias and grotesquely POV Limbaugh-lust is perfectly fine when lovingly revealed on a talk page, but unless you can maintain NPOV in your edits in actual articles you clearly do not understand the policy.-Hal Raglan 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: Usually, full transcripts are not included in articles. Does this really need to be here? MrMurph101 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable question. In this case the letter by Senator Reid made specific reference to a statement by Limbaugh. In order to show the statement in context so that people can understand the bruhaha it is necessary to show the entire discussion with the caller. People can interpret it as they choose. I personally have no horse in this race save one, the abuse of Senatorial power to spend my tax dollars on the floor of the Senate to censure a private citizen. I could care less if it was Howard Dean or Rush Limbaugh. I don't want it to ever happen to me if Harry Reid decides he doesn't like what I have to say. This is a historic event that I hope is never repeated. The Senate has better things to do...especially considering their lack of performance lately.-ToddAmelio 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to keep this as civil as possible.  But for someone with your editing history of this article to claim that its important to include the "context" in order for readers to understand the controversy is beyond ludicrous.  Your clear agenda has been to remove any facts, including the original phone call that ultimately led to Limbaugh's insulting remark, from this article so that only your POV remains.  You have censored this article repeatedly in an attempt to distort the facts to fit what you want to retain as a historical document.-Hal Raglan 04:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I know what you mean. However, full transcripts are linked as a reference so readers can click the link if they want to read the whole thing.  Including the entire transcript may be interpreted as original research which is not allowed.  It is better to note the transcript somehow in the article and link it. MrMurph101 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the complete transcript does not need to be included here.  A mention of Media Matters original report, followed by Limbaugh's defense, both concisely presented and linked to reliable sources, is all that is necessary.  And besides, as I've noted above, there were actually two related telephone conversations, and to present only the second one spins the article in Limbaugh's favor.  Mentioning the MM article -- which discusses both calls --will bring the necessary context and better explain the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's comment.-Hal Raglan 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcript

message: :I think having the transcript here is somewhat useful, it isn't very long, but I fear that it is a copyright violation --rogerd 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless I am msitaken it was the EIB network that originally authored this entry so I doubt there is an issue here, the transcript is public domain. You can find the transcript all over the net. I doubt it is a problem.-ToddAmelio 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your inexperience with Wikipedia is showing.  Wikipedia takes copyright VERY seriously, much more than the rest of the net.  There are a jillion websites with full song lyrics, for example, but if you post those lyrics into a Wikipedia article on the song, it will be removed right away as a copyvio.  And as a separate matter, which editor here are you saying is an EIB employee?  Wasted Time R 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is including the transcript a copyright violation?

message: So, this article obviously has to move. So where to?
On the AfD page, I made a quick few suggestions (Reid-Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid-Rush Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid letter to Clear Channel or Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy), but I know they are probably not the best... so where to? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have a low threshhold for the words "odious" and "extreme".--Bedford 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved it now to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy (as you can obviously see). The name can still be worked on, but it is good to move it for the time being. The redirect is good for now. I'm going to note the move on the deletion page. --Ali'i 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that name. I see no reason whatsoever to change it anymore. Almost Anonymous 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it ever has a popular name for it, we might change it.  Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy is the best alternative until then.--Bedford 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new name looks to be the best compromise for people to use in searching for the document. In the end, most people will only remember the names of the players.-ToddAmelio 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of article 

message: In the "Overview" section, it has been incorrectly and repeatedly claimed by two editors that Limbaugh read from the AP MacBeth article on his radio program, then took listener calls, during which time the infamous "phony soldiers" comment was uttered.  This is false, as the included transcript clearly shows.  It is also claimed that the caller referred to MacBeth, which the transcript clearly shows he did not.  The actual time line, as shown by the transcript, is that Limbaugh discussed the Iraq War with a caller (in response to an original caller who was anti-war), THEN read from the AP MacBeth article.  To falsify the timeline is a clear attempt by Limbaugh-apologists to justify the claim that Limbaugh's comment was obviously only referring to MacBeth.  If Limbaugh had read from the article, then took the call, there would have been no controversy as Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment would have been obviously in response to the article.  However, this is clearly not the case and to continually present incorrect, non-factual detail in this article is beginning to seem like nothing more than deliberate agenda driven POV-pushing, bordering on vandalism.  I find it hard to believe that the edits are being done in good faith, when the two editors responsible for the disruptive edits have repeatedly refused to discuss any of their changes on a substantial level (other than hurling insults and making allegedly humorous wisecracks) on this talk page. If you claim that Limbaugh read from the article first and that the caller specifically mentioned MacBeth, you MUST explain why you believe you have knowledge of the proper timeline of events that goes against what is shown in the provided transcript.  If you believe the transcript is incorrect, discuss that issue here.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect timeline 

message: Two editors are repeatedly claiming that the use of the "Phony Soldiers" term was in widespread use by the media immediately prior to Limbaugh's now-infamous insult.  The two are continually inserting the following into the article: "During the weeks leading up to the initial "phony soldier" controversy there were indeed several articles referencing "phony soldiers" like MacBeth including....", followed by linked news articles. (Please note the singular "soldier" and the unencyclopedic use of "indeed")  The problem is that NONE of the articles references "phony soldiers".  Simply reading the articles reveals that the claim made is false.  The articles in question all report details about MacBeth and never use the "phony soldiers" term.  The claim is obviously being made as an attempt by Limbaugh-apologists to falsely show that the term was being widely circulated prior to Limbaugh's comment, and that everybody should have known the intent of Limbaugh's remark.  This is POV-pushing.  My version reads: "During the weeks leading up to the initial "phony soldiers" controversy there were several articles referencing MacBeth including..." followed by the same linked articles.  This is factual content fully supported by the provided sources, presented in an inarguably NPOV manner.  Constantly removing factual content from an article and replacing it with deliberately false detail is, in my view, nothing more than vandalism.  The two editors have continually refused to detail the reasons behind their repeated insertion of the false information, despite my repeated requests for a discussion.-Hal Raglan 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim of widespread use of "Phony Soldiers" term by media 

message: Two editors are continually inserting their POV-riddled editorializing into this article.  The following is the sentence they believe is so important to include:  "On October 19, 2007, within an hour of the record setting auction closing and under mounting pressure from the press over his failure to denounce the MoveOn.org New York Times Ad denegrating Army Gen. David Petraeushttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/bush_vs_moveon.htmlhttp://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=27286DFD-3048-5C12-004B5D5BDB0E7D4A and for using the forum of the floor of the Senate to pass a non-binding resolution to censure a private citizen exercising his right to free speechhttp://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/10/harry-reid-denounces-rush-limbaugh.html, Senator Reid addressed the issue again on the floor of the Senate stating...", followed by his comment.  (It should be noted that the original version was even worse, describing Reid as "contrite".)   Besides being POV-riddled,  the claim that there was "mounting presssure from the press" regarding the Move.On ad is not even mentioned at all in the provided sources.  Similarly, the claim that Reid was also under mounting pressure regarding "censuring a private citizen exercising his right to free speech" is not mentioned in the sourced article.  I doubt if any reliable sources can be provided proving such "mounting pressure from the press" existed.  I'm sure that editorials and political blogs have attacked him for his actions, but "mounting pressure from the press" is pure agenda-driven POV-pushing.  I have rewritten the sentence in the following factual, NPOV manner:  "On October 19, 2007, within an hour of the record setting auction closing , Senator Reid addressed the issue again on the floor of the Senate stating..." followed by his comment.  Clearly, factual presentation of facts in an encyclopedia should have precedence over politically motivated POV peddling.-Hal Raglan 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mister Kettle?  This is Mister Pot.  Listen: you're black.
Haven't you noticed you are the only one that sees this "abuse"?  Also, why do you insist on spamming Talk pages?--Bedford 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An attempt to engage in conversation is not "spamming" (see Wikipedia:Spam).  Why do you refuse to discuss your edits?-Hal Raglan 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. But that is not what you are doing. You are spamming. You are attempting to shout down anyone who doesn't march in lock step with your ideological views by shear volume of words. Your politics, personal insults, and gutteral use of colloquialism has clearly overwhlemed any plausible pretense at objectivity you may have, to this time, been able to feign. Although this is a free venue to express opinions and we all have political trends, most of us have maintained a respectful willingness to compromise on content; MOST OF US. I dare say that any further contribution by yourself would be a mere waste of bandwidth and a continued irritation for those of us interested in getting the full an accurate story saved for posterity. I respectfully request that you withdraw from the topic.-ToddAmelio 13:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only civil way to respond to your "respectful" request is to tell you that your post was the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever read on wikipedia.  You have never been willing to compromise or even discuss any of your borderline vandalism/POV-pushing of non-factual material.  Your only supporter in your Pro-Limbaugh bias has been User:Bedford.  Nearly all of the concerns I have raised on the talk page have been addressed to my satisfaction by other editors, either on the talk page or in their edit summaries.  As examples, the editorializing re:  Harry Reid--gone!  Your insistence that days before the Limbaugh comment, numerous news articles "indeed" used the phrase "phony soldiers"--gone!   I must respectfully decline your comical request.  I will continue to make edits to this article until it truly represents an NPOV, factual presentation of the events.  However, unless you can add anything substantial to any of the numerous commentary that I, and other editors, have written -- which, to date, you have not even attempted --  I will simply ignore any of your future rants.-Hal Raglan 15:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced POV editorializing re:  Harry Reid 

message: The organization of this article is poor.  There should be several sections, not just one blob of 'Overview' (no 'overview' can possibly take up 90% of the space!).  Topics (not titles) should be: 
*What Limbaugh said
*What was said in reaction to that, by MM, Limbaugh, etc
*What Reid & the Senate did
*Auction of the letter and reaction thereto
And why is there a 'Media Matters' section at all?  That's what the Media Matters article is for; why try to repeat it here?  We don't have separate sections to explain who Limbaugh or Reid or Clear Channel are, do we?  Wasted Time R 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had sectioned it, but during Hal's rampages all the sectioning and wikifying I did got lost.  I'll try to add them back.--Bedford 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not consider the Media Matters section that big of a deal. As long as there is a link to the "Media Matters" section of Wiki then I don't see any reason to clutter up an already lengthy entry. I'll go with the concensus. Regarding the sectioning I am of the opinion that a timeline of events is fairly important in order to see how the whole fiasco came to pass. Without imposing motivations on either side of the issue I have faith that the average reader is smart enough to draw their own conclusions given full and time relevant data. I think the "overview" is really the summary at the top of the page and the current "overview" would be better described as "The events as they unfolded".-ToddAmelio 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning poor

message: :::Another possible issue: Was the original title for AP story containing the Doug Fisher quote really "Phony soldiers cost VA, tarnished medals" as the article says? That's certainly the title that KOMO TV in Seattle ran the story under, but that doesn't mean that it's the title AP sent the story out under. Individual publishers routinely change the titles of wire stories, and in fact VA Watchdog ran the same story under the title "Prosecutors: Faked military records cost VA, tarnished medals". And it may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but I think it does matter, and we should get it right. If the story had run in hundreds of newspapers around the country under the title "Phony soldiers cost VA, tarnished medals" as is implied in this article, then it would make a lot more sense for Limbaugh to have used the term in they way he claims to have meant it. If, on the other hand, only this one regional TV station used that title, then it's very unlikely Limbaugh or the majority of his listeners would have heard it before the day Limbaugh spoke it. Does anyone have Lexus-Nexus access or can anyone find other examples where the story was run under a headline containing the term "phony soldiers". If no one can come up with anything, then I think we'll have to change that first sentence in the Overview section. Yilloslime (t) 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lo and Behold: you can search Lexus Nexus for free, you just can't read the articles. Searching for "Eight people who faked their military service in conflicts dating to World War II have been charged" (i.e. the first line of the AP story in question) yeilds: "Prosecutors: Faked military records cost VA, tarnished medals. The Associated Press State & Local Wire - 9/21/2007 - LENGTH: 621 words ". I am changing the text of this article accordingly. Yilloslime (t) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of AP Story

message: This article seems to have drifted topic. It is supposed to be about the letter that Reid sent, and the controversy surrounding it. However, it has turned into more about Limbaugh's comments, and defending his use of the words.
It should be more like: a brief (brief) overview of his comments (no editorializing). Reid's comments on the Floor, the writing the letter, the other signatories, sending it to Mays, Mays' public comments on the letter, giving it to Limbaugh, Limbaugh's comments on his show, the auction on eBay (which should probably be the largest section of the article, including what Limbaugh stated the letter meant, if not covered in a previous section, a little bit about the bidding, the record set, the charity), the follow-up comments from Reid on the Floor, the rebuttal from Limbaugh about Reid's comments on the Floor, press coverage of the record/auction, any other material concerning the letter. Basically, these are the highlights of the controversy. Of course, the details are much deeper and broader, but I think these are the highlights. Hopefully, we can continue to improve the article. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of the best ways your understandable concerns could be addressed is to remove the transcript from the article and simply concisely report on what Limbaugh said.  There seems to me to be a consensus elsewhere in the talk page to remove the transcript, so I don't think doing so would create much of a stir, except for one or two editors who have expressed explicit pro-Limbaugh sentiments.   However, it would still be necessary to report Limbaugh's comment within the necessary context, that is, that both the caller and Limbaugh were specifically addressing their initial comments at a previous caller who had expressed anti-war views.  That still hasn't been adequately addressed in the article...again because of an attempt to slant this article in Limbaugh's favor.  But you are right, this article is supposed to be about the letter and the subsequent controversy.  Removing, or reducing the length, of the transcript will be a good first step.-Hal Raglan 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "your future rants" "Why do you refuse to discuss your edits?" "Limbaugh-fanatic's wet dream" "your beloved Limbaugh" "right-wing bias and grotesquely POV Limbaugh-lust" "something you have inadvertently neglected to do" (I must admit that consistently forget to place edit summaries as well...) "you've simply insulted me" (off topic: first call should stay in article) "blatant pro-Limbaugh propaganda" "other than hurling insults and making allegedly humorous wisecracks" (this paragraph being among said wisecracks) "to remove the transcript from the article and simply concisely report on what Limbaugh said" (editorializing...like I am by cherry picking above quotes?) (in responding, please remember to Stay Cool... wait, I failed to do so myself... oh well, flame on... ;-) (QUINTIX (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with summarizing the transcript is that it's stepping into a mine field. It's heavily debatable whether or not Limbaugh's mention of Jesse MacBeth is just an irrelevent side note to the previous discussion, as Media Matters claims, or if his mentioning means that the 'phony soldiers' comment was made specificially about phony soldiers, as Limbaugh claims. Revolutionaryluddite 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the transcript, and I'd be sad to see it go, as it give critical context for Limbuagh's remark. Another option would be to re-rename the article. We could call it the "Limbaugh phony soliders controversy" or something. After all, it seems a bit contrived to have an article focusing on the controversy around the letter without having an article about the controversy that the letter is about.... Yilloslime (t) 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be on to something there. I would rather see one article that broadly encompasses this controversy, than several articles, one on the letter, one on limbaugh's comments, etc. While I am not usually in favor of expanding the focus of an article, in this case, it might be a good idea. I would also like to comment on something else, people seem to put a lot of weight on the order in which discussion of MacBeth occurred, and how that must relate to what was in Rush's mind at the moment. This view does not take into account that radio people tend to prepare for their show ahead of time. Rush even refers to his show topics as a "stack of stuff". He would have read that MacBeth piece at least hours before he mentioned it on the air. It's not like there are people running into the studio handing him stuff to read blind. I listened to the tapes, and read the transcript, and it seems to me that he was about to work MacBeth into the conversation, but he was being polite to a caller and letting them speak their piece. We should assume that he knew exactly what he was going to pull off the stack during that broadcast before the broadcast even started. MacBeth was a hot topic on the blogs at that time, and I'm sure that story was foremost in his mind that day. - Crockspot 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion to expand the article, and rename it once again to "Phony Soldiers Controversy", is probably the best solution.  Address the entire controversy, including the initial controversial Limbaugh comment and the letter that sparked off a separate controversy.  I would imagine that most people would agree this is the best course of action, in order to make this a one-stop, comprehensive article on the subject.  And Crockspot, I'm sure you are right about Limbaugh having planned to bring up MacBeth on that day's show, and used the two callers' comments as a good opportunity to bring it up.  Nonetheless, Limbaugh's remark was made after he talked, rather dismissively, with an anti-war ex-service member.  Media Matters' initial reporting noted that they perceived his "phony soldiers" comment was aimed at the first caller, as well as others who shared his anti-war views.  In fact, both the second caller and Limbaugh do specifically address their initial commentary to that first caller.  Obviously, alot of people accept Limbaugh's defense -- which, as you indicate, very possibly is true -- but Media Matters, CNN, New York Times, and the 41 Senators didn't, and that needs to be addressed.  If we expand the article, the full context of the conversation can easily be included.-Hal Raglan 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While I agree that the scope of the article should be expanded to include the entire controversy and not just the letter, I think the revised title should include Limbaugh's and Reid's names; readers searching for this article will first think of the key players' names. Revolutionaryluddite 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something like the "Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Controversy" is best, and if we do change the title to something like that, we could create redirects to it from, say, "Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy" "Limbaugh-Reid letter controversy" "Reid-Clear Channel Letter" etc. That ought to make sure that any reasonable search for this material would land you in the right place. Yilloslime (t) 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic 

message: The article ends in 2007 -- when was the $4.2 million donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation ?? Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "$4.2 million ended up being donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement", Rush Limbaugh, eight years ago, in 2007. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow the money

message: This morning, on the Excellence In Broadcasting network (Rush Limbaugh's radio show), Limbaugh just said he will go through the details of his letter and fundraising for fallen soldier families. --Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened, and the transcription is excellent (in recap) with the best references at the end (about six).  There is probably nothing new here for the article herein, but you should read through Rush Limbaugh's documenting the two-week news coverage of Reid vs Limbaugh. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Reid announce 'Retirement' today 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Phony soldiers controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121021104222/http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2007/10/19/reid_limbaugh_spat_raises_21_million_for_children/ to http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2007/10/19/reid_limbaugh_spat_raises_21_million_for_children/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified