Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 4

message: I think J. Michael Straczynski sums him up best.  When asked "Who is Rush Limbaugh", he replied "Leading American proctologist.   Trust me."  Nice and brief.  Any chance of putting that in the summary?    -AlexLibman 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straczynski Quote 

message: I removed some of the text that discusses Limbaugh's hearing loss.  I removed the part that talked about chronic use of opiates and its influence on deafness.  There is absolutely no proof that Limbaugh's deafness resulted from the use of prescription painkillers and listing this fact would suggest otherwise.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a sort of encyclopedia and since this information is not known as fact, it should not be included. (even though I know it will only take about five minutes before another liberal takes the opportunity to stick one more reminder in that a popular conservative had an addiction)-- 69.252.194.146
:Your article blanking, for which there was no consensus, has been restored.  Check the archives for detailed discussion of this issue.  And your bad faith comment at the end is just silly.  Cheers.  Eleemosynary 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh's Hearing Loss 

message: :Limbaugh keeps a (see[]) running update on his website of court decisions and transcripts, legal positions, and media and editorial coverage of his case.
I removed this because the link is broken and it seems to me the whole feature has been removed from the site. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushwire 

message: I noticed that a section has been added to the article today claiming a new controversy involving Limbaugh.  When I performed a Google search looking for news articles on the controversy the only relevant link I found was from the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America.  Does anyone have any reliable sources that Limbaugh's use of a fictitious character has caused an actual controversy, or is this just another case of a partisan group disapproving of Limbaugh's shtick? --Allen3 talk 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a reliable source that such an investigation took place, or are we still stuck with a partisan accusation as the sole basis for the claim? Also what type of investigation was performed?  The Media Matters press release does not claim that any investigation took place, only that "Pentagon officials and the Air Force" reported having no record of the fictitious officer or his unit.  Based on the press report it is possible that this alleged investigation is nothing more than some airman basic working in a Pentagon public relations office answering a phone query from Media Matters.  Until independent third-party sources are found to verify the section's claims, this section will have the problem of giving undue weight to a partisan claim. --Allen3 talk 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Limbaugh reported about this on-the-air, surely somebody heard the broadcast and can quote from it? Bjsiders 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A show transcript would be an appropriate source to verify what was said on the show.  In addition to a transcript other sources will most likely be needed to provide confirmation of the sections claims regarding alleged Air Force statements or that the incident has caused a real controversy (the section header implies one exists).  Please understand that I am not questioning the truthfulness of the sections claims, only the section's ability to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites without resorting to original research. --Allen3 talk 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been my experience that Media Matters is quite reliable and well-sourced.  Instead of assuming that because the issue was breached by this site, it must be suspect, it would be more appropriate to consider this site's presentation with the same assumption of veracity as other news sources.  152.31.193.132 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason for your edit was uncalled for. The Media Matters site has audio proof of this claim in the form of a recorded clip from the Rush Limbaugh broadcast in question. That would make Rush Limbaugh himself a source for the complaint, and I don't think it gets much more authoritative than that, unless you believe Limbaugh makes up things to discredit himself. The only reason I'm not returning the text is because I think it better falls under the category of "General Complaints" which is already on the page anyway. --208.41.98.142 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraudulent Colonel Interview controversy 

message: :The article states regarding the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, "This emboldened many radio stations to modify their line-ups in order to attract those wishing to hear varied points of view."  This is ridiculous, and misrepresents the entire effect of the repeal of the doctrine.  In fact, the repeal of the doctrine encouraged conservative radio owners to "pack" their talk lineups with right-wing hosts and either reduce the role, or simply fire, their left-leaning hosts.  Limbaugh would have been far less likely to have experienced the success that he has enjoyed if he, and his employers, had been constrained by the "equal time" provisions of the doctrine. 152.31.193.132 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you like to see the section rephrased? Bjsiders 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Limbaugh would have been far less likely to have experienced the success that he has enjoyed if he, and his employers, had been constrained by the "equal time" provisions of the doctrine." There's no way you can know that. The radio market is pretty simple. If people like what they hear, they will continue to listen. The more people who listen, the more successful the program. If Limbaugh's program is successful, it's because of it's popularity. There are plenty of liberal leaning hosts who have had radio programs. It's up to the market to decide what they like. If you can't get ratings you don't stay on the air. 65.48.21.32 02:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980s 

message: Since Rush Limbaugh is an American, shouldn't the imperial measurements be listed first and the metric second in ()s? 168.166.196.40 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily...even in America, SI is the "preferred system of measurement", even though casual usage still favors the American (not Imperial) customary system.  Note, however, that scholarly usage (which would seem to apply to Wikipedia) favors emphasis on the worldwide standard measurement system.  It's a good point for discussion.  Thanks.... Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A much bigger concern than the ordering is the use of a site that accepts anonymous contributions as the source of the information.  While I appreciate the sentiment that people are trying to help find useful additions for the article, compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and online sources is also important. --Allen3 talk 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point...if so, then any material drawn from the IMDB would be suspect and should be avoided (at least as a primary source)...the subtext is that IMDB is not so much a factual source, but rather a direct competitor to Wikipedia (at least for information about celebrities)...definitely worth further review and discussion.  Thanks....  Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of height measurement 

message: :A much bigger concern than the ordering is the use of a site that accepts anonymous contributions as the source of the information.  While I appreciate the sentiment that people are trying to help find useful additions for the article, compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and online sources is also important. --Allen3 talk 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting point...if so, then any material drawn from the IMDB would be suspect and should be avoided (at least as a primary source)...the subtext is that IMDB is not so much a factual source, but rather a direct competitor to Wikipedia (at least for information about celebrities)...definitely worth further review and discussion.  Thanks....  Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB as a primary source

message: I deleted the following:
"On November 6, 1992, three days after the election, in reference to who was in and out at the White House, Limbaugh joked on air that he didn't know Bill Clinton had a pet dog, and held up a picture of Chelsea.[citation needed]"
Because here is a (partial) transcript of what really happened:
Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. 
RUSH LIMBAUGH 
SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) 
November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM 
LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is. 
David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House. 
(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)
 
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid. 
(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton) 
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to... 
_____
(and, as you can see, Limbaugh did NOT hold up any photos. All photos were flashed on a video monitor. The only thing Limbaugh was holding in his hands was the article from which he was reading (which contained no pics)
Also, the following reads:
"On a later broadcast, Limbaugh played a video clip of then-President Bill Clinton laughing on his way into a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown with Tony Campolo and then looking mournful (see [3])."
The part of that which reads: "Clinton laughing on his way into a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown" was wrong. Clinton was videotaped LEAVING the memorial service after it had ended. Not going to it. So I changed that to:
"Clinton laughing on his way leaving a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown"
*******************
Also removed the following:
"According to a transcript of the broadcast, there were at least three times Limbaugh had shown a photo of the Bush's dog, Millie, while referencing Chelsea.  [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032838/posts]  Critics of Limbaugh have maintained that these were deliberate acts on his part."
That is certainly a blatant misinterpretation of the transcript. According to the transcript of the broadcast "(that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton,"), Limbaugh was refering to two other mistakes in the past that the crew made. But those two past mistakes had nothing to do with Millie or chelsea, etc. This mistake with Chelsea and Millie was their third mistake, yes. But NOT the third time they did this.
:Note to the "humor"-impaired (in the wingnut sense, whereby humor must involve physical or emotional damage to another person ) this was Rush's attempt to milk the joke. Gzuckier 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion and change 

message: I am not a Rush fan but used to listen to him occasionally. Some time in the last few years I remember he was discussing medical care and he said he was proud to announce that he did not need Viagra. Anyone have a way of finding the exact quote?
:Give it time.  Every thing Limbaugh has ever said about Viagra or impotence will be in the media within 48 hours.  I'm sure he's fired off plenty of remarks.  Lately he's been making fun of Democrats for not being able to "finish the job," and implying this makes them poor lovers. Bjsiders 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has found that reference? I think it is quite significant. I believe it occurred some time between 2001 and 2003. My best guess would be the first half of 2003. ManiacalMonkey 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He probably wanted a little reassurance.  AFter all, after three ex-wives, what man trusts his tool to work?--Bedford 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rush bragged that he didn't need viagra 

message: An IP editor added a line about sex tourism. I added a fact tag to it, and also replaced the content tag (again) on the section.Crockspot 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That user has made several edits to other tangentially related pages today. I created a talk page for them and told them to source the info. I also mentioned that, after more thought, I may just remove it. I've given it more thought. I'm removing it.Crockspot 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but you would need very compelling evidence to remove. You have yet to provide anything compelling. --Asbl 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this compelling standard originate?  It would be useful to know when editing the biographical articles of people on the political left, for whom, oddly enough, their articles are regularly scrubbed of private and insignificant but nonetheless verifiable information. patsw 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the sex tourism charge 

message: its funny how conservatives are the ones who initially come up with these laws and regulations that have the potential to violate peoples rights. then when it actually happens, conservatives are complaining that they are being picked on. my response....boohoo. cry me a river. youre the ones who come up with these stupid laws to begin with. left wingers try to warn people that these stupid things such as homeland security and patriot act have the potential of violating peoples rights but conservative fools ignore them. if youre going to complain about getting hassled at the airport why support these stupid rules to begin with?
:Your unsigned partisan argument is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is, is the incident noteworty/relevant/encyclopedic enough to be included in the article.Crockspot 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  busted at the airport 

message: The Rush Limbaugh page fails to represent much of the criticism that Limbauch has recieved. It can be factually demonstrated that Limbaugh both fails to adaquately consider all the factors in his arguements (such as ignoring any facts that contradict his viewpoint), as well as never permitting liberals to pass his call screenings, flat out lies, and deliberately goes out of his way to insult anyone who opposes him based on completely non-political evidence.
One of the people where I work listens to his ranting, and he has never presented one argument that I could not find at least 3 fallacies in, even based only on the evidence he presents. 
Limbaugh relies heavily on emotionalism and verbal shock tactics to verbally ause people who disagree with him, as well as compensate for ny evidentiary lackages.
I am not strongly liberal. I actually think that the liberal, optimistic viewpoint is rather impractical, and Limbaugh still manages to offend me.
68.6.113.146, July 02, 2006, 3:54 AM PST.
::yes, that is because Limbaugh is a classic demagogue along the lines of Joseph Goebbels (i.e. replace 'liberal' with 'jew' in Limbaugh's rants and the similarity becomes downright uncanny), but the PC admins will not allow the use of the objective term demagogue in the main article, leading to the average reader's confusion that you describe so well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.122.233 (talk • contribs) 
:::To the anonymous editors, why not go the policy pages and argue for a policy change: let every biographical article of the Wikipedia be filled with blog-like original opinion criticism from every editor? patsw 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: QED see what I mean? To add a link to demagogue in the Limbaugh article is to inject blog-like original opinion criticism, but to sanitize the Limbaugh article so that it contains no such objective references is, of course, to be fair and balanced.  Welcome to 1984.
That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least.  Wikipedia's not a blog - try & remember that. Dubc0724 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant 

message: how did this intro ever survive more than a day?:
:Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (born January 12, 1951 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri) is an American radio talk show host. Violently conservative, he "discusses" politics and current events on his show, The Rush Limbaugh Show using a style that bounces "between earnest lecturer and political vaudvillian".
I altered the intro; the previous was definitely left-wing kool-aid drinking drivel.--Bedford 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought it was pretty accurate, so of course it must be reverted.  Limbaugh is the one  on kool-aid, popping 20 oxycontin per day and ranting about his S/M fantasies or his sex tourism trips to the Dominican Republic to his 20 million geriatric neo-nazi minions.  How he is still on the air is beyond me.  Rumsfeld and Cheney find him to be a very useful idiot, I guess.
Objectively, the 1990 description of Limbaugh as "vaudvillian" may have had a place in the article but it doesn't now, and certainly never in the open.
* The lead should not contain anyone's subjective opinion (pro or con).
* What may have been true about Limbaugh in 1990 may not be true today.  It's stale.
* Since 1990, Lewis Grossberger changed his opinion of Limbaugh -- acknowledging his role as spokesperson for the conservative movement. 
* Over time, the New York Times itself dropped the flash in the pan template and adopted the dangerous demogogue template to describe Limbaugh. patsw 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason for the addition of the 1990 quotation was to provide some perspective on Limbaugh's style.  Rush incorporates a fairly large amount of humor and satire into his commentary.  I believe that this aspect of Limbaugh's shtick deserves mention as it is a large part of his style and it also helps blunt the repetitious liberal attempts to take carefully selected sentence fragments and use these "quotations" as a means to attribute radical or unreasonable views to Limbaugh.  If you see a better way to add this useful information to the article without using the 1990 article please do so. --Allen3 talk 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A short-lived opening paragraph, nice try though 

message: As long as we're creating headings to reference in our edit summaries... Eleemosynary 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kudos to you for that extremely productive contribution. Crockspot 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was as productive as proclaming it a "private, non-notable event," pronouncing "the dust has settled," and proceeding as if that were canonical law.  Eleemosynary 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A newsworthy, notable event 

message: RfC:
* No.  For reasons detailed above.  I waited for the dust to settle and for the speculation to end.  It was a incident without a legal consequence merely a minor embarrassment.  If this is encyclopedic, then surely every media reference to Limbaugh must be encyclopedic. patsw 02:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "newsworthy" is not synonymous with "encyclopedic."  Not all news is encyclopedic.  The debate is over whether or not this piece of news is. Bjsiders 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "drug problem" and there are no "legal issues" in this event, which is why I submit that it's non-encyclopedic, and merits no more than a blurb in passing.  I fully support removing any unverifiable "is dating"-type information.  The man's personal history is relevent, but his current girlfriend isn't personal history.  We don't have a list of all the women he dated before, I see no compelling reason to keep a running tab now.  That's celebrity gossip magazine fodder. Bjsiders 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairly obvious that he wouldn't have been detained nor his viagra confiscated had he not been under probation as a result of his drug addiction and doctor shopping. This has been a very widely reported incident and many people will come to this entry to find out accurate details. Again, I think the whole thing should be condensed into a sentence or two and appended to the drug section. Notmyrealname 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this is a foregone conclusion but agree that it's possible that he'd have been left through.  However, Rush Limbaugh caught with Viagra at customs after coming back from the Dominican Republic?  That'll be news regardless of any other circumstances.  The question is, does it belong in Wikipedia? Bjsiders 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Limbaugh is not on probation.  His plea of not guilty was accepted and there will be no trial. He has an agreement with the court that's detailed in the article. patsw 00:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a voting section.  No need to dispute a user's reason for his vote.  And Limbaugh's requirement to submit to drug testing and not to own a handgun are indeed probationary conditions of the agreement. If he violates it, the deal's off. Eleemosynary 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A reminder that we're determining if something is Wikipedia-worthy, not whether or not it's newsworthy. Bjsiders 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you reminding me or the people above who tried to say that this information should not be included on the grounds that it is not newsworthy since nothing came of it?Maximusveritas 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I implied in my comments above, in retrospect this story isn't even newsworthy. There is a higher standard for what is encyclopedic, thus, there is no reason to include any reference to this. Gregmg 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  Although I disagree, I have no major problem with your reasoning.  I just thought it was odd that Bjsiders would direct that comment towards me.    Maximusveritas 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Is the Palm Beach Airport incident encyclopedic? 

message: The story was only newsworthy while there was the possibility of a legal liability, since the dust settled on that aspect, we're left with a big nothing now.  So what's the principle here?  That any news story -- no matter how transient or insignificant -- about a celebrity is encyclopedic -- all that's required is hundreds of news sources. patsw 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. It's called noteworthiness. --Asbl 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. In a interesting way, the noteworthiness of the incident seems to increase the louder Limbaugh's advocates scream that there's "nothing of note here." Eleemosynary 00:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on the question: Are you claiming the everything "noteworthy" goes into the Wikipedia? patsw 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from asking bad faith questions, and from changing the subject whenever one of your arguments is refuted. Eleemosynary 03:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The principle of hundreds of news sources 

message: ... are all deemed encyclopedic by virtue of their inclusion in the article.
By that standard, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest the Palm Beach Airport Incident deserves not even a one-sentence mention.  Eleemosynary 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to put his dating, his clothing line, and opinion of the Internet under review now as not being significant, I'm up for evaluating that. patsw 04:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, thanks.  I think they're completely encyclopedic (at least by Wikipedia standards), and belong in the article. As does the Palm Beach Airport Incident. Eleemosynary 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh's (real and speculated) dating history, his clothing line, and his opinion of the Internet 

message: I have now replaced the content tag on the disputed Palm Beach Airport section for what seems like the tenth time. Not one person who has removed it has made ANY justification for doing so. The section is OBVIOUSLY in dispute, since there is an RfC on it. Stop it. It is rude, and I consider it vandalism. Crockspot 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It should be clear to everybody interested in editing an article like this that unilateral action taken in the midst of diplomatic discussion is counterproductive and can result in unexpected and undesirable long-term consequences. :) Bjsiders 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Eleemosynary 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest it's time to remove the {content} tag. patsw 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Agreed, and done. Crockspot 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated removal of content tag 

message: Now a cardiologist and Rush's addiction counselor are being questioned by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office.  Here's the report, as of yesterday, by the local NBC affiliate.
How long before we hear on this page that 1) The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office is just out to get Rush, and 2) it's all a plot of the (eerie music up) "Liberalllll Mediaaaaaa." Eleemosynary 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like an extension of the existing investigation, probably into wrongdoing on the part of the doctor rather than Limbaugh.  If a guy asks, "can you prescribe this in somebody else's name?" and the law says no but the doc says, "sure" and does it anyway ... well that's wrong.  The impression I got from the article is that the doctor may have run afoul of the law rather than Mr. Limbaugh.  In any case, it bears watching.  I don't think we've seen the end of Limbaugh's legal problems yet.  For the rest of his life, he will carry the stain of drug addiction and all of his medical activities and health problems will be scrutinized intensely by the press.  It will be difficult and challenging to determine which of these events is worth putting in here. Bjsiders 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I read, the doctor acted properly. Apparently it is not improper for a doctor to issue a prescription in his own name for a patient for privacy reasons, as long as all parties understand who the prescription is for. I can't pull the article out of my hat right now, but I read that last week. Crockspot 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Dust (the kind that isn't settled) 

message: I think it would behoove everyone in this discussion to take a look at WP:BLP. (Biographies on Living Persons). This is our guidline, not what other articles may contain, nor how we "feel" about the subject, or politics in general. Crockspot 14:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] 

message: I noticed that the issue of several news reports from the late April/early May time frame having given Limbaugh's middle name as Hundson instead of Hudson has once again appeared in the article lead.  As the addition includes original research and open speculation (how else do we describe that the name may have been merely a "typo"), I have reverted the addition.  This still leaves the question of how to handle the name discrepancy.  As this is at best a minor controversy I do not believe that dedicating half of the introductory paragraph is appropriate.  This leaves the possibility of a show explanatory footnote being added or the issue being dropped entirely.  What do the article regulars think the better course of action to be? --Allen3 talk 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This spelling of his name originates with the booking report  which is already linked to in the article.  There is no earlier reference to it.  Given that the subject identifies himself as Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, without evidence that his father and grandfather were likewise named "Hundson", this is with total certainty a non-story. Of course, there's 250 "hundson" Google hits now, vs. 330,000 for "hudson", maybe in the not too distance future, those numbers will be inverted. patsw 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundson 

message: Handface, we had a quote in here from Limbaugh himself describing the event as a "guy's weekend" and we ultimately decided to remove it as unnecessary and superfluous detail.  If you want a mention of it back in, start talking here and stop edit warring over it.  Clearly, nobody agrees with you so far and belligerantly putting the same change back in a half dozen times isn't exactly a worldview-expanding exercise. Bjsiders 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * This person has a history of inappropriate edits, incivility, and vandalism, and has been blocked numerous times. In fact, they are just coming off of a one-week block. Too much time on his/her hands? Crockspot 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Handface is quite something. He was subject to blocking for edits here, but he got blocked just now for something completely different. Many irons in the fire, eh? Crockspot 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "All-boy's weekend" 

message: The section has returned for a third time, and attempts to reword the terms used to meet verifiability and neutrality requirements have been repeated reverted by the section's author.  As a result of the returned section suffering from the same problem cited above, namely that the section implicitly claims the statements caused a new controversy, a POV template has been added to the section. --Allen3 talk 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|POV-section}} added to "Controversial remarks" section

message: Just so we are on the same page here:
* Rush's opinions on GW are: 1. the observed increase in temperature is not significant, and 2. the increase, if any, is not attributable to human activity but to natural causes, and 3. among scientists there isn't a consensus.
* The conclusions of Global warming article here is the polar opposite of Rush's opinions (which isn't a surprise).  In fact, from the talk page the only controversy is that there isn't a controversy, at least among scientists according to the Wikipedia editors.
After reading the GW article, I don't have a problem with "many" vs. "majority" as descriptive of that consensus. patsw 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Global warming page: "Only a small minority of scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the predicted consequences." From this, I think we could say that there is a "consensus" among global scientists (a few cranks doesn't destroy a consensus). We could also say the "vast majority," or at the VERY least a "majority." These are all factual statements, not POV. Reducing this to "many" is POV. Heck, even the oil and car companies agree if you look at their latest advertising. Notmyrealname 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: "His show was first nationally syndicated in August 1988, and as of 2005 (according to Arbitron ratings surveys) its audience was estimated at 13.5 million listeners per week"
Can someone give me a link to Arbitron's weekly ratings? I can't find it on their site. Tim Long 03:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitron 

message: Why no discussion of Rush's  avoidance of Vietnam era military service due to an anal cyst? 
Rush's Anal Cyst
:Take a look at the Education section of the article. --Allen3 talk 11:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see also the article on Chickenhawk (politics)
Could Mr. Limbaugh be considered a cyborg given his hearing augmentation through means of a cochlear implant?  Wikipedia lists Michael Chorost as a such for his implant.  It's not really necessary, but might be kind of neat to have him on a "cyborg" list.  No, I'm not a detractor.  I'm actually an avid listener and a fan.Philcarr 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As a female, she was also restricted by U.S. law to non-combat units during her service and thus not at risk of having to deal with the sanitation concerns of a combat unit deployed to the field.  There is no way of knowing what Limbaugh would have done if he could have been guaranteed to spend his entire time in uniform at a base with an on-site medical facility along with hot and cold running water. --72.251.12.186 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rush, Military Service and Anal Cysts 

message: I noticed that there are several places in this article that talk about the subject using his first name, like:
:...it should be noted that Rush often uses heavy sarcasm to make his point.
Per MoS:BIO, it is recommended that except for members of royalty:
:...it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.
I would think that anyplace that the article says "Rush said ...." or "Rush did something....", it would be better to say "He said" or "Limbaugh did something....".  I thought that since this article is so heavily edited, I would bring this up on the talk page first rather than jump in and make these changes.   --rogerd 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of first name 

message: article states:
:He attended Southeast Missouri State University for one year where he dropped out after achieving an F in a speech class. 
Sounds like either vandalism or a cosmic giggle
:Well, if it can't be sourced, feel free to remove it or throw a cite onto it. Rsm99833 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While he did flunk his speech class, it was with a D, not an F. He later retook the class and got a C. WillyWonty 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a cite if you want to include it. Rtrev 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly well known story. You can find it in sources like the article "Limbaugh's speech professor speaks fondly of student" from February 25, 1996 Orange County Register which reads "Newt Gingrich introduced Rush Limbaugh at a November political dinner by noting that the famed radio and TV talk show host had failed a college speech class. ... The man who "flunked" Rush - actually gave him a gentleman's "D" - is alive and well and president of California State University, San Marcos, in north San Diego County."  WillyWonty 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Now you just have to cite it and add it in an appropriate place.  Citation template info can be found at WP:Cite. Rtrev 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if people would stop deleting my comments. -- WillyWonty 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An 'F' in Speech Class?  Is this a Joke? 

message: According to the text, RL and his wife have agreed to a divorce, but the article does NOT say that the divorce has been finalized.  But the box on the upper right says "divorced."  This seems a (technical) contradiciton to me. Kdammers 00:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  divorced? 

message: The only image I could find on Flickr, with a CC license is Jeff Meets Rush, a photo from 2004. I'm not sure if CC images can be cropped, does anyone have a grip on the various licenses? The license says "Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one." I think it could be cropped and I'd say a 2 year old image trumps a 12 year old image. I still don't follow the exclusion of all other fair use images policy, but this one seems free with attribution per creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0. Any comments? --Dual Freq 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing the license I've cropped the image and uploaded to commons. I think it's a better, more recent head shot than the mid-1990s one from the gov source. --Dual Freq 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it.  It is a good replacement (I actually had that downloaded for this exact purpose). Rtrev 16:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential replacement Image 

message: He lambasted Michael J. Fox, a counter commercial. AFter that he was mocking his condition in an interview, a tapped interview. ( my source is FOX NEWS) 71.236.225.50 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above section and WP:DUST.  The idea is add it in another week or less if consensus still thinks its worthy. Rtrev 05:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DUST is not an official policy of Wikipedia, but a guideline.  Limbaugh's supporters are spinning wildly to keep his attack on MJ Fox off the page, just as they do whenever the Oxycontin-addicted gasbag embarrasses himself and the GOP, which is now a diurnal occurrence.  The MJ Fox info will be reinserted.  Should Limbaugh's actions throw the Missouri Senate election to McCaskill, Limbaugh's comments will be included prominently in the opening paragraphs.  Eleemosynary 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I realize its a guideline not a policy.  WP:AGF however, is a policy.  I don't know who is a Rush supporter and who is spinning wildly.  If you look above you can read the discussion.  Myself and Skb8721 thought we should wait and see.  I was initially opposed to addition he was for it.  Other wrote in in favor.  I moved/removed a couple "drive by edits" by first time anonymous users.  You will notice that the statements originally written (two different forms) are preserved here on the talk page.  I have also come around on the issue specifically because of Lee Vonce's argument on notability.  I have no problem with it because it has become notable.  However, if you have watched this page (or scroll through the history) you will see a lot of "Rush said this... its sooo controversial" edits that often never become notable, hence the caution.  So stop the name calling and accusations, its not fitting for the Wikipedia.  --Rtrev 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DUST is a good guideline in this case. Otherwise, we will just have an edit war back and forth. Let it sit for a week or so and see how much of an impact this will really have and whether anyone cares about it. It is just the flavour of the week currently. In any case, the version that is there is not written in a neutral voice and is attacking Limbaugh rather than simply recounting an event that happened (is still happening) dispassionately. I looked back through the history and this has not been a consistent part of the article and keeps being reinserted by drive by edits. Wikipedia isnt the place for name calling or partisanship. If you are only here to damn or praise Rush, go to DU or FreeRepublic.Caper13 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The incident is on the MJ Fox page.  Apparently, there are no concerns about "dust settling" on that page.  Someone has replaced the event here, with an appropriate "current event" tag.  Letting the "dust" settle is inappropriate and smacks of whitewashing.  The Mark Foley business went up on Wikipedia minutes after Drudge posted it.  Limbaugh's attack belongs on this page, albeit with the "current event" tag. "Let the dust settle" cannot exclusively apply to right-wing radio hosts who mock the infirm.Eleemosynary 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) A Representative having to resign from office is automatically encyclopedic
2)Who says that they should have added it to the Fox entry.  Then again, seeing as how he is finally being talked about for the first time since Spin City, one could see where it is relevant for Fox.  As this is just another attempt by the left to smear Rush, it is hardly notable, as it falls in the "dog bits mailman" category.--Bedford 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion.  And entirely unsupported by facts.  NO CONSENSUS for censoring the page.  Eleemosynary 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Claire McCaskill's name should be removed from the Michael J Fox Commercial section. This article is not about Clair McCaskill and she has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Wikipedia is not an advertising space to create links to political candidates from every conceivable angle. Agreed? This sort of link spamming is sophmoric and only encourages partisans to disrupt articles to try to get "their people" a mention. Caper13 13:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linkspam? Are you serious? Readers will want to know not only about the opinion-monger and the actor, but also about the politician(s) that they're talking about. A link to the Wikipedia Claire McCaskill site isn't linkspamming, because (for one thing) it doesn't link to her campaign site. Instead, it links to the Wikipedia entry about her (which, as you must know, is editable by anybody—her supporters and detractors). Since the ad in question supports McCaskill against Jim Talent, perhaps it would be appropriate to note his name (and wiki site) in the description, as well. Would that unruffle your feathers?--RattBoy 13:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Claire McCaskill isnt part of what this "story" is supposedly about. We could include a link to Jim Talent, but how about Ben Cardin and Michael Steel who were also part of the attack ad campaign that Michael J Fox was part of, but that will just bloat this thing even more. Since the story that has evolved is either "How dare Limbaugh criticise someone with a disease" or "Michael J Fox was purposefully using his Parkinsons as a political weapon", neither of which have anything to do with the candidates it was made "For" or "against", I say again, that a link to Clair McCaskill has no place in this story. If any ONE candidate should be linked to, it should be Jim Talent, who was the target of this ad, but I wouldnt even support that. Caper13 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove link to Claire McCaskill - this is not relevant to Rush Limbaugh 

message: You can thank me later. Zabrak 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the Controversy section 

message: I saw that the neutrality tag was added and it pushed me to add one more.  I have been meaning to add the NPOV check tag for a while but have been holding off to see where things were going.  I am not the only one to notice that this article really reads like a litany of Limbaughs foibles and it seems that it is a constant attempt by editors in holding back pure vitriol towards the man (although I can certainly see why he is disliked).  I think that the neutrality and NPOV tags are good for now and discussion -- EVEN MINDED AND LOGICAL DISCUSSION... PLEASE-- should follow.  I hope this to be a serious and critical look on whether this article is giving a truly fair and neutral biography.  Before any claims of "this is a conspiracy by Limbaugh supporters" arise I would like to state where I am coming from.  The pages I edit tend to be people that are living and elicit a strong reaction and/or are very controvertial.  This includes Matt Drudge, Nancy Pelosi, Rush Limbaugh, and Barack Obama to name a few.  I really don't have a strong opinion on Limbaugh and don't listen to his shows or read his books.  I just like to keep things on an even keel.  That being said I would like some critical and logical responses and hopefully edits. --Rtrev 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think anyone who sees this article as their canvas to take a swipe at Limbaugh should step back and really ask themselves if this is the purpose of Wikipedia. In the discussions above I see  examples of 'so and sos page is vandalized by right wingers on a daily basis'. Yeah, and? Does that then entitle you to go out and throw purely negative comments into another page for the purpose of getting even. Wikipedia is either going to end up like a blog monopolized by its loudest and most persistent users, or it will enforce a standard of professionalism in its presentations. I made the example of an obituary style above. This should be written focused on the main points of someone's life. Many people's lives do have embarassing or negative elements to them. Limbaugh's drug addiction problem would certainly qualify as being notable as it had a major impact on his life and career. Is it the main focus of his life? No, its a paragraph and a relatively short one, but it is there and I wouldnt support removing reference to the episode. Questioning whether Michael J Fox was exaggerating his symptoms because the change in his image from what we all were used to was so jarring (and politically convienient)? No. That wouldnt even warrant a footnote. Limbaugh has pissed off plenty of people through the years, Fox can get in line. But I get the impression that those most eager to push this story (and others like it) into the article are motivated by a desire to take a swipe at someone they don't like and to pile on. People may be going and vandalizing Barack Obama's page too, and that isnt right, and if you need help to help hold it back, I will. But for those who consider themselves "against" Limbaugh to do the same thing is just as wrong. As another example, Franken's book is trash IMHO, but that being said it's probably fair game to put it in the list of books since it did get a fair amount of press. But do we really need a book like Kimble, Crawford W., Sr. (2004). Rush Limbaugh, Apostle of Hate? How Long Will He Last?. . which is so well known it has been out for two years (I suspect it is self published) and hasnt yet garnered a review on Amazon, even from the rabid Rush haters? This is another example of the NPOV on this article being tilted needlessly towards the negative, just for the sake of taking a swipe. Caper13 02:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well.  If you compare Rush's entry to someone like Al Franken, you will notice certain remarkable differences.  For example:   Al Franken doesn't have a controversy section.  He has no hate-Franken links in his referneces and Books page (nor am I advocating that either should be added - they shouldn't).  By simply reading the headlines, you'd never know what type of person Al Franken was (Personal life, Writer and performer, Radio Show, Political aspirations, Books, CDs and Compilations) while an image of Rush would most certainly appear from reading the headlines alone with headlines like:  "Subject of criticism", "Prescription drug addiction" (and a seperate entry for "Deal reached"), "Controversy", "ESPN controversy", "Michael J. Fox comments controversy", "Philosophy", "Defining the conservative movement", "Statement regarding abortion and homosexuality", "Balance and point of view", "Books written about Limbaugh", etc.  Now don't misunderstand me, the information in most of those headlines is very relevant and belongs on wikipedia (ESPN, Drug addiction, etc).  Some of the headlines though ("Subject of Criticism" for example) seem to deal with Rush's crime of being a conservative and the defence there-of.
Hello everybody, I am the user who has added the NPOV tag. See this page is so bitterly devided with haters and fans that putting this tag on was a task you people should have done a WHILE ago. Zabrak 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Neutrality 

message: The desire of the GOP to rewrite history in their favor is best illustrated by this article.  Wikipedia should NOT be trusted to provide useful or truthful information.  The fact that anyone can defend someone who openly mocks a man with a terminal disease for expressing an opinion is disgusting, but what is more disgusting is that this fact can be actively hidden by his supporters.  But hey, if the GOP can support and cover for a pedophile  such as Mark Foley, I guess they can support anyone who agrees with them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.188.51 (talk • contribs) .
:There's no way this article will ever be neutral with people like you adding 'mockingly flailing arms'  accusations, unsupported by the reference you cite. --Dual Freq 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally not the policy of Wikipedia to delete articles representing hundreds of edits by scores of editors over the course of years because an unregistered user with 7 edits to their IP who doesn't sign their posts or cite their sources well has the idea that there is a GOP conspiracy to rewrite history.  I don't know a lot about internal GOP politics but they are probably too busy rewriting the 9/11 page to seem like it wasn't a government sponsered massacre to be worried about Rush Limbaugh's page.  --Rtrev 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article represents the worst of wikipedia and should be deleted completely 

message: Maybe I'm off base here, but I thought I'd add the idea of semi-protection for this article. Repeated name calling and addition of POV terms and this is just a few since 22:48, October 27, 2006 (UTC):
This article is a lightning rod and probably should be permanently semi-protected since a lot of time is wasted reverting cranks. --Dual Freq 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you are off base at all. It is obvious that a certain amount of vandalism is taking place by participants who are afraid of 3R. Semi protecting the page for a while would stop this, as well as discouraging drive by vandalism while he is in the news. As to permanent semi protection. We can discuss that as well, but I would unhesitatingly agree to at least a temporary SP. Caper13 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand, I'm suggesting semi-protection which applies to anonymous users such as the ones listed above. Those are pretty much all obvious vandalism, and have little to do with NPOV. Of course semi-protection might not have stopped this edit , but I think it could be done. --Dual Freq 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is enough push for it and no one seems opposed as far as I can tell.  How about tomorrow someone puts it up or I will.  That is barring significant opposition. --Rtrev 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like its done... so nevermind. --Rtrev 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I just put in the request and it just got semi-protected. --Dual Freq 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Allen3 talk 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A case for semi-protection