Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 8

message: The two-sentence section on Rush's "military service" does not make sense to me. If anything, shouldn't the title be "Lack of Military Service"? If NOT being selected for the draft constitutes military service, then I don't know what Wikipedia is coming to. Denis Diderot II (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'll fiddle with it, but it might be best to delete? Bad title for sure. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Service? 

message: I think that statement needs to be modified because it's too broad.  Rush certainly does not mean that ALL environmental/climate scientists are 'environmentalist wackos'.  The reference cited could also be improved since it does not directly support the article statement.  The reference does not give Rush's own definition of an environmentalist wacko, but must be inferred from the reference text.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know where you're comming from, but it's Rush's term. If you do a little research, you'd find he's meaning those who don't practice sesible nature preservation, they basicly see us, mankind, as a threat to the world and want their ideas imposed onto all "Dittoheads Guide to Adult Beverages" by Britt Gillete
Elliott (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalist Wacko 

message: The term "school choice" down under The Rush Limbaugh Show links to "charter schools", not the Wikipedia article on school choice.  I believe that Limbaugh was referring to actual school choice (as in choosing what schools one's children attend) rather than charter schools.  12.13.176.152 (talk)Lissa 17:37 23 January 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It points to the :school choice article now. --Onorem♠Dil 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty Link 

message: Should there be a mention of a statement Rush made saying that he may not support the Republican presidential nominee...http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Rush_Limbaugh:_May_Not_Su/2008/01/22/66498.html?s=al&promo_code=439B-1assuming it was either John McCain or Mike Huckabee? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a lot of ways it does.  Seems there are many editors who wish to fill this article with every form of insignificance.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Campaign 

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

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

message: Why isn't this article in Category:Cyborgs? Rush Limbaugh has a Cochlear implant.
63.245.164.227 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyborg 

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

message: Should some mention be made of the fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, and other radio types came out strongly against McCain before the Feb 5th primaries, but yet their efforts didn't work and perhaps caused a backlash? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is zero evidence it incited a backlash, but I do agree that his recent anti-McCainism could be notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

message: "...maintains a page where our troops can register for a free 24/7 membership"
I can't access the referred article (registration required).  But does this really mean to say any country's armed forces, anywhere in the world?  Or should it perhaps read "...American troops..."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find info specifically stating it's just US troops, but it's probably reasonable to assume it doesn't apply to all troops from all countries around the world. Changed to US troops. --Onorem♠Dil 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Our" Troops?

message: I tried to correct his job description to "comedian" and add how me called Senator Obama "Curious George" but couldn't do it for some reason, as if the page is locked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.81 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, but the best part is Rush then pretended that he had no idea Curious George was a monkey, proving he'd rather be thought culturally illiterate than a bigoted oaf. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, clearly anyone who laughs at a joke who's humor derives from an allusion to Curious George knows who Curious George is! - Nunh-huh 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And what exactly is the encyclopedic value of mentioning any of this in the article?  Wikipedia isn't a forum for political debate.  I wish some people would understand that.----Asher196 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It becomes encyclopedic if it is used as, say, part of a litany of Limbaugh's racially insensitive comments in a reliable secondary source. It's the source that's lacking, at least at present, and not the encyclopedic value. - Nunh-huh 13:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By your tone, I can see you have a specific POV on this subject, which I believe would be carried to the article.  I still reject chuckling at a joke as encyclopedic, and think you should read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information on what and how information should be presented.----Asher196 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your clairvoyance has failed you badly. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can't edit page 

message: There was no discussion on the talk page regarding the dubious tag.  Absent any objection, I will remove the tag again.  In the cited source, Limbaugh refers to the UN panel on climate change as Environmentalist wackos.  There is nothing dubious about it.  Please explain the need for the tag. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked into it and have no opinion on the source itself right now, but the Environmentalist Wacko section above was started by the editor after tagging the comment. There wasn't much discussion, but it wasn't just a drive by tagging. --Onorem♠Dil 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Thanks for pointing it out.  The dubious tag referred to an earlier version of the statement (I had since rewritten it to respond to The Founder's Intent's objection).  I probably should have solicited some response here, rather than with my trailing "Better?" edit summary.  Anyway, I think the dubious tag should be removed since the objection given above refers to an out-of-date version.  If there are new objections, then an editor can restore the tag and object here. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

message: As I glance through the reference catalog, there are just too many POV sources to be credible.  Why are so many refernces from Media matters?  Are they not themselves a biased source?  I would not seek out Hillary Clinton for a non-devisive comment on Barack Obama.  Why should this be the case for Rush Limbaugh.  As of now, I see the best thing for this article is either severe editing so that there is little too the article, or better sourcing.  It shows gross POV violation for people to troll about and post up something from media matters everytime that Limbaugh says something that could offend.  This article has grown out of control due to inclusion of these things.  This article needs severe work, but there is too much bickering about it to see an end in sight.  Rocdahut (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My biggest problem is the bibliography.  90% of them are obviously biased against Rush.--Bedford 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just recently started looking at this article and I can't agree with Rocdahut more.  This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for political debate, and I strongly urge contributors to this article read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons----Asher196 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much POV Causes too long of an article

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

message: Are we going to write a section on every controversy that Limbaugh is involved in?  We better start a whole new article if that's the case.  How are some of these important and defining with regard to the Rush Limbaugh?  Is this done for every radio or news personality?  I looked at the article on Walter Cronkite, and I just don't see the similarity.  Cronkite had a much longer career span in his article and it isn't as long as Limbaugh's is now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LImbaugh is controversial (intentionally); Cronkite was not. There's no reason at all that they should be treated identically in this regard. - Nunh-huh 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: I updated the entry on the Texas primary to reflect its extension to include Ohio and the question of prosecution against Limbaugh or his listeners. I tried to be as unbiased as a rainstorm. :)  Eventually Pennsylvania may be included, or the fact that Limbaugh sells Operation Chaos-themed merchandise on his website. But I figured too much would give the section undue weight (WP:DUE) and on a controversial page like this I figure small steps are better. Wellspring (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This section could easily grow.  After Pennsylvania, Indiana also has an open primary, in North Carolina it may be on hold due to issue down ballot, and in Kentucky they are suddenly enforcing  an old rule about party switches.  If we need to add those, we can definitely add a mention on the merchandise.--Bedford 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As wikipedia editors, we don't know and couldn't care less (though of course when we're not editing wikipedia we have all kinds of views. That said, the section on Texas will probably shrink as mention of other states grows-- but overall we should keep this section fairly small. Once the immediate issue leaves the headlines, we don't want too much extraneous detail. If the situation becomes important enough, it will become its own article. Wellspring (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Chaos 

message: This Salon.com article talks about Rush Limbaugh's refined tastes (I wouldn't say it that way in the article) - http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/08/19/conason_two/index1.html - Would the info in it be too trivial for Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even sure what they mean by refined tastes. Yeah, too trivial. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Too trivial, the article appears to be an opinion column (such columns typically don't have strong editorial oversight as a main article would have, and it mostly references a Cigar Aficionado article already covered in this article. Wellspring (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salon.com article about Rush Limbaugh's refined tastes - Is it too trivial ? 

message: I removed a great deal of content over several edits that was reverted based on lack of consensus. Bad form I know, but I unreverted (or rereverted) the restoration because I didn't know how to restore the edits I felt met the policy for WP:BLP. The cigar and charity sections could remain, but marked for better sourcing, but the sections on hearing and surveys should be removed until they can be sourced strictly per WP:RS.
The section that discusses Limbaugh's hearing problems included unsourced content/opinion, information/conclusions sourced to forum posts and unrelated articles about drug use.
As to the Rasmussen study, it's still a primary source; I could find no mainstream article that quoted or used it in an article, so no matter how notable the source or study, we're still drawing conclusions when we're the only ones discussing and sourcing it.
Again, my intent is not to get into an edit war (especially with someone who's got 10x my edits), but I didn't know how to pick and choose among the edits without having to completely redo the ones I thought were important. Flowanda | Talk 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best thing is to either post here the statements that are questionable, or post the references and we can discuss which ones are questionable. That way, we'll all be on the same page, because though it is unreferenced, I don't see anything insulting or otherwise that would require immediate removal.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removal 

message: I moved the hearing problems section to the talk page for discussion and sourcing. "Okay" sourcing is not good enough when dealing with real, living, breathing people, no matter how cartoonish anyone thinks they are. WP:BLP is policy, getting it right first is policy, so there's no need for consensus, discussion, wiggle room, 3RR or whatever when removing content that is poorly sourced.
Since my edits around poorly sourced were reverted, I'm moving content here until it can be either properly sourced or removed. Here's one section:  
===Hearing problems===
"By August 2001, Limbaugh's listeners had noted changes in his voice and diction."
:Forum posts do not meet WP:RS.
"On October 8, 2001, Limbaugh acknowledged that the changes were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. He revealed that his radio staff was helping him receive calls on his show by setting up a system where he could appear to hear his callers. The system worked well but did not convince all listeners, some of whom noted a long delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding or Limbaugh occasionally speaking over a caller. At times Limbaugh asked callers to hold on while the caller's comments were typed and shown on Limbaugh's computer monitor."
:Specific details need to be sourced per WP:RS before they can be added to the article. These are details are about how someone, a real-life person, does his job, and these are *specific* details about public, on-air, probably documented, examples, that, if notable, have been included in a mainstream, third-party, objective news article in a publication meeting WP:RS.
In December 2001, Limbaugh underwent cochlear implant surgery, which restored a measure of hearing in his left ear. His voice and enunciation returned to normal after the implant.  According to his doctors, the deafness was caused by an autoimmune disease."
:Personal health details quoting personal doctors describing personal conditions. Not a single source in sight, even an "okay" one.
"Some medical experts have speculated that his use of opioids, such as OxyContin and hydrocodone , could have caused or contributed to his hearing problem. "
:These sources have absolutely nothing to do with Hello Kitty, open-pit diamond mines or Crank Dat Batman, much less the content and associations they are sourcing. 
"Limbaugh's doctors stated that they did not know the exact cause of Limbaugh's hearing loss, but ruled out "overuse of medication" as a factor."
:The one source meeting WP:RS, the single attributed sentence and the only verified fact. Think anybody sees it now?
"On February 27, 2007, in the BBC Radio 4 program, No Triumph, No Tragedy, Limbaugh explained that his deafness had been caused by a malfunction of his immune system which started attacking and destroying his inner ear. He also explained that he employed a full time stenographer, to make notes of everything that was said around him so that he did not miss a word."
:Another source meeting WP:RS, but I couldn't find the article or the content attributed to Limbaugh. The link is to a generic page.
Flowanda | Talk 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hearing problems section discussion 

message: "By August 2001, Limbaugh's listeners had noted changes in his voice and diction."
:Forum posts do not meet WP:RS.
"On October 8, 2001, Limbaugh acknowledged that the changes were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. He revealed that his radio staff was helping him receive calls on his show by setting up a system where he could appear to hear his callers. The system worked well but did not convince all listeners, some of whom noted a long delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding or Limbaugh occasionally speaking over a caller. At times Limbaugh asked callers to hold on while the caller's comments were typed and shown on Limbaugh's computer monitor."
:Specific details need to be sourced per WP:RS before they can be added to the article. These are details are about how someone, a real-life person, does his job, and these are *specific* details about public, on-air, probably documented, examples, that, if notable, have been included in a mainstream, third-party, objective news article in a publication meeting WP:RS.
In December 2001, Limbaugh underwent cochlear implant surgery, which restored a measure of hearing in his left ear. His voice and enunciation returned to normal after the implant.  According to his doctors, the deafness was caused by an autoimmune disease."
:Personal health details quoting personal doctors describing personal conditions. Not a single source in sight, even an "okay" one.
"Some medical experts have speculated that his use of opioids, such as OxyContin and hydrocodone , could have caused or contributed to his hearing problem. "
:These sources have absolutely nothing to do with Hello Kitty, open-pit diamond mines or Crank Dat Batman, much less the content and associations they are sourcing. 
"Limbaugh's doctors stated that they did not know the exact cause of Limbaugh's hearing loss, but ruled out "overuse of medication" as a factor."
:The one source meeting WP:RS, the single attributed sentence and the only verified fact. Think anybody sees it now?
"On February 27, 2007, in the BBC Radio 4 program, No Triumph, No Tragedy, Limbaugh explained that his deafness had been caused by a malfunction of his immune system which started attacking and destroying his inner ear. He also explained that he employed a full time stenographer, to make notes of everything that was said around him so that he did not miss a word."
:Another source meeting WP:RS, but I couldn't find the article or the content attributed to Limbaugh. The link is to a generic page.
Flowanda | Talk 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hearing problems

message: Primary sources do not support donation figures or support...limbaugh page requires subscription to see information and association page -- and website -- provides no information or reference at all to Limbaugh. I can't find any related news articles to use as references. Flowanda | Talk 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have missed that he is is listed as a director on the foundation's Board of Directors page. He also received their 2003 Johnny Michael Spann memorial award and is mentioned in a number of their newsletters. "provides no information or reference at all to Limbaugh" is not correct. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the citations do not go to the correct pages -- http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eib15th/leuk_award.guest.html and your sources don't support the statement that he runs a charity drive or your comments that this is a significant deal. Has there not been any coverage in national Marine association publications in the last five years?  Flowanda | Talk 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: The section "Questions about accuracy" seems only to be a gimmick to sneak in some liberal critique of Rush Limbaugh.  All of the "questions of his accuracy" have not come from liberal/progressive sources (FAIR, Al Franken, Media Matters) which are themselves biased.  Unless a non-biased source for questioning his factual accuracy can be found, I would suggest removing or rewording this section.
He has been attacked and criticized from a lot of liberal sources, maybe a section called "links to people who don't like Rush Limbaugh" would be more appropriate. Biccat (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about accuracy 

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

message: The following was copied from the Sean Hannity talk page in which the same content was proposed.Asher196 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now read and understand the whole article and you'll find the text to be added fair. CyberAnth (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My addition is a completely fair summary of the article. CyberAnth (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Perhaps it got edited out because of some controversy, but as of right now, there is no mention that Limbaugh lost his hearing.  Could this fact be added back into the article?  (The 'what' and the 'when' at least if people don't agree on the 'how'). DavidRF (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It did have an impact on his life and show, requiring a text transcript of phone calls and he has commented on his ability to hear music.  As long as it can be presented in a NPOV manner (which might be a problem). Biccat (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of deafness? 

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

message: FAIL!
Now how do we show this in the entry? Can we just say that operation Chaos failed to affect Obama's campaign? Or can we quote his radio show when he said he now wants Obama to win?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.200 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No you can't just say it failed, because it didn't.  It was intended to affect Hillary's campaign, which it did.  It drew her campaign out longer than otherwise would have happened.  Consequently the Hillary's attacks and the Rev. Wright contraversy brought doubt upon Obama.  He was likeable and squeeky clean up till then, but not anymore.  It did affect Obama's campaign, but probably not as you expected. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Chaos 

message: The last sentence of the article:
::However, public polls have shown that a strong majority of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, such as a Rasmussen Reports poll illustrating a 2-1 margin of unfavorable ratings, with 62% of those surveyed reporting an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen.[117]
Looking at the source linked here, this sentence is quite misleading -- particularly the phrase "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen."  What that really means is "the highest for any of the public figures mentioned in this particular article based on a particular Rasmussen poll."  But the way it is written implies that Limbaugh's unfavorable opinion rating is "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen" -- presumably any figure in any poll or at least presuming that this particular poll included a wide selection of public figures.  But the quoted article doesn't even include current public opinion ratings for President Bush, who has had higher unfavorable ratings in many polls over the past couple years compared to this number for Limbaugh.
This particular article is specifically dealing with comparisons between the approval ratings of candidates for President in 2008 (Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc.) versus media figures (mostly news media).  It's not a particularly wide selection of "public figures" and is certainly not representative of the standard Rasmussen polling data for a given week, which tracks approval ratings of people like Bush and Cheney on a regular basis... and both of them vie with Limbaugh on a regular basis for unpopularity.
I'm going ahead and simply deleting the phrase "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen," since that qualifier makes no sense without giving an explanation of this specific poll and which public figures were included.  If someone wants to put something back in about this, I won't object -- but it should mention the context of the poll before claiming that Limbaugh has the "highest" or "lowest" or whatever of anything. 24.62.5.186 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I see now that it is semi-protected, so I encourage someone else to rewrite this. 24.62.5.186 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Final Sentence 

message: I realize that this is an article under development, but the description of Rush's show is pretty blatantly biased, and requires some editing. Specifically the language about Rush's listeners being more aware of current events than non-listeners and the various explanations for the Michael J. Fox episode (which take up about 3 times as much type as the event itself.) Heavy editing needed IMO. SJennings (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to some extent.  Primarily, I think the Limbaugh Show section needs to be split up and refocused somehow.  Presently, it seems devoted to covering scandal after scandal, which is largely media sensationalism to begin with.  This information should be pruned down and probably given its own subsection.  As it stands, I feel that the section gives undue weight to recent events in relation to the Limbaugh Show as a whole.  Silly rabbit (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: OK, I can sorta buy that, although Ed Schultz isn't identified either way, and he's certainly got a political identity.  What about my "conservative" vs. "progressive" descriptive adjective point?  I see the term "progressive" as implying approval, which isn't NPOV to me, wheras the term "liberal" would seem to be the correct counter-view to "conservative", from an encyclopedic-language perspective.  Or am I just being picky?  Don't worry about my feelings.  Be Bold, as they say.--RogerR00 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "progressive" fails WP:NPOV. Trickrick1985 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV tag to show description 

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

message: Start of the second hour of the August 1st, 2008 show covers the Dan's Bake Sale, with Dans original call, plus other callers supporting it. This would be a REALLY nice time to get this section updated. Nintendo (talk) 10:17, August 1st 2008 (PST).
:Should we put it on this article, or on The Rush Limbaugh Show?  I plan to add it soon.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 17:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan's Bake Sale 

message: What the heck is that?  I think we're going over the top with a statement like this.  We need a citation for this, or it needs to go.  This is silly.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a citation for it.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a stretch, and it's weasel-worded WP:WEASEL.  It needs editing.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Precinct Captain 

message: After reading this entire talk page, should the article itself be mentioned in "Controversies"?72.16.143.185 (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Rush Limbaugh Controversy 

message: A recent edit was made by Lisasmall (talk · contribs)  to this article that appears to be in direct violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in that it cherry picks certain facts designed primarily to mock or disparage Libaugh by insinuating illegal conduct and moral turpitude while ignoring widely published news stories that showed there was no evidence that Limbaugh did anything wrong at the time of the discussed events.  This edit needs to be reverted immediately.
A quick search of the talk page article shows that this incident has been fully considered and repeated rejected for inclusion. 71.96.135.118 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Thank you for pointing this out.  I have rewritten the paragraph to remove horrible libel that has no place on Wikipedia.  I have no objection if regular editors of this article want to remove it completely or further rewrite it. --B (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] violations in article 

message: See this comment in Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia...72.244.200.179 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh's use of and views on Wikipedia 

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

message: See  and  for the factual basis of Limbaugh's claim.  I don't know how much linking Obama to it is real vs guilt by association, but it is a democrat proposal in the house and Limbaugh is not the only one associating Obama with it - he isn't just making stuff up.  The chairman of the committee supports the proposal so the LA Times characterization of it as a "single economist" is hardly correct. --B (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct in so far as Limbaugh is claiming that Obama is connected to this. The LA Times correctly said there's no connection. This isn't terribly complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okkay, so there was one economist making testimony.  Has anyone advocated this?  Is there a Democratic plan to privatize?  The issue is the accuracy of Limbaugh, who is now stating that this is a factual plan, and that Obama and the Democrats plan to take over 401(k)s simply because an economist was invited to testify before Congress?  Is that all it takes to say that there is now a movement to do so?  --David Shankbone 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

text: There is a reported plan to confiscate retirement accounts in the states. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, Gwen.  If there is a plan, where is it?  Until somebody can provide a source showing 1) Obama or his campaign making even minor mention of taking away people's 401(k)s; 2) a Democratic Congressman advocating such action; or 3) any proof that there is a "Democratic plan" to do so, then it remains in "no factual basis".  Cooking up a bunch of conservative political commentators all saying the same thing is not "proof".  The onus is to prove that there is a positive movement for such action, not that people conjecture that there is.  --David Shankbone 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The source says, "Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts..." The reports don't seem to be hoax, is all I'm saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sure the Canada Free Press is a reliable source, but the fact is, there is no plan.  One economist invited to provide testimony is not a plan...using political opinion pieces that are only conjecture based on an economist's testimony, when there is not one single news-based article to say there is any such plan is hardly the way we should be going about measuring the veracity of such claims.  This kind of logic is what makes Wikipedia look ridiculous.  --David Shankbone 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A proposal is someone's plan. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An economist's proposal is not a "Democratic plan", which is what is being purported.  Not that "Someone, somewhere, in testimony, has stated this."  --David Shankbone 20:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Canada Free Press is not a reliable source, in my opinion.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling sources one doesn't agree with unreliable is a mossy, boring and highly PoV tactic on Wikipedia. However, it is understood, all political commentators sometimes stretch their sources as far as they can. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith is a desirable tactic on Wikipedia. I came here because of the noticeboard and I commented on an aspect with which I had some familiarity. In my opinion, CFP is little more than a blog, which has repeatedly had to apologize for making incorrect statements. Why do you think it's reliable?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Saying "Democrats" makes it no less accurate a statement - go ahead an change "Obama" if you wish.  Indeed, your CNBC source shows little Democratic support to take away 401(k)s and put them in a Social Security trust fund, which is Limbaugh's claim.  Which is not only inaccurate, but false.  --David Shankbone 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that isn't the only problem.  The LA Times article made it sound like Limbaugh was claiming that the democrats were going to just steal your 401(k).  Actually read what he said, though.  You have two choices - keep your 401(k) at its current devalued level or put it into the trust fund and have its pre-August value restored.  They aren't stealing it and Limbaugh never said they were. --B (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The LATimes story is, in fact, editorial in nature and only valid as a cite for its author's opinions. I edited the article to reflect that the story is Rainey's opinion, and anything more is not a vlaid use of such a ref.  Collect (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it's the guy's opinion - it's obviously false.  He is taking Limbaugh out of context.  Limbaugh was talking about an OPTIONAL PROGRAM, made it very clear that it was OPTIONAL, and anyone listening with half a brain would know it is optional (the government can't just seize 401(k) plans of law abiding citizens any more than it can rob your wallet.)  Read the full transcript and it's blatantly obvious the guy is taking Limbaugh out of context.  Limbaugh was saying that under the democrats' proposed plan, you would have the option of turning your 401(k) over to them in exchange for having its full value restored.  The LA Times guy changed that to make it sound like Limbaugh was falsely alleging that the government was going to steal your 401(k). --B (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true, as I show below in the next thread.  --David Shankbone 21:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama and 401Ks 

message: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6089381.html  is an AP article relating closely to the controversy about what the future holds for 401k plans.  "Economics professor Teresa Ghilarducci, of the New School for Social Research in New York, said the current retirement system is leaving retirees without enough money, and poverty among the elderly will rise if nothing is done. “This will be the first time since World War II that the standard of living of elderly Americans declines while that of prime-age workers increases,” she said in a briefing paper for the Economic Policy Institute.
Alternatives suggested 
In her House committee testimony, she proposed a plan in which workers would get a $600 tax refund but must set aside 5 percent of their pay into a retirement account managed by the Social Security Administration. The money would be invested in government bonds to earn at least 3 percent interest.
When they begin collecting Social Security, the retirement account would be converted to an annuity, providing a guaranteed monthly check for life. Combined with Social Security, the retirement account of a full-time worker with 40 years on the job retiring at 65 should provide 70 percent of preretirement income, Ghilarducci said."
Which, all in all, appears to give credence for saying there are radical proposals to convert 401k plans to a "Social Security" annuity with no inheritance value. Collect (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all missing the point.  Regardless of the details of the plan or who supports it or whether Obama has heard of it or how many democrats can dance on the head of a pin, LIMBAUGH MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT COMPULSORY.  Read the full transcript (story #3).  The LA Times guy took a fragment of one sentence out of context and falsely alleged that Limbaugh said participation was mandatory.  If the plan ever happens, you have two choices (1) do nothing and keep your 401(k) as it is with its value probably reduced due to the stock market crash or (2) turn it over to the government in exchange for its value being restored.  Limbaugh made it clear that there was an option and he was ridiculing option #2.  The LA Times article, falsely claiming that Limbaugh did not say it was an option, is fiction. --B (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is now about as NPOV as we will get, as readers can see it is an edtorial, and that such proposals do, in fact, exist. I added the AP cite. Collect (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It sounds like she spoke specifically to a group of Democrats. It sounds like her ideas were found "intriguing" by them. See also  http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=310608887865483  . Collect (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She was testifying before Congress.  "Intriguing" means, according to the Princeton definition, "challenging: disturbingly provocative".  That does not translate to a "Democratic plan."  This bizarre logic that when an economist testifies before Congress, suddenly there is a plan to adopt their proposals, intriguing or not, is really poor form on Wikipedia.  Not one Democrat has endorsed her proposal ("intriguing" does not mean "yes, we can!"), and stating such is false and demonstrably inaccurate.  --David Shankbone 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the point of this discussion is not to establish what level of support the proposal enjoys.  The point is whether or not this belongs in a biographical article and clearly it does not.  The LA Times piece quoted Limbaugh out of context.  Whether the proposal is supported only by the woman who gave the speech plus a few democrats here and there or whether everybody in the country has signed on changes nothing - the LA Times is misquoting Limbaugh and then using that mis-quotation to make a point about conservative radio's coverage of Obama, when Limbaugh obviously wasn't talking about Obama.  Using this editorial here would be like using Philip Berg's website as a reference for Obama's article. --B (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Here, I'll quote from his "Democrat Plans for Your 401(k)" that I linked to above - 
*"Do you know what's going to happen to you? We don't know what's going to happen, but do you know what the Democrat plan for your 401(k) is?"
*"Then we're going to take it.  We're going to take your 401(k), and we will put it in your Social Security account that the government is monitoring for you, and we will invest every year 3% in government bonds."
*"So the bottom line is, they'll take your 401(k) and put it in Social Security."
*"The government takes over your 401(k).  Not so much flushes it, they just take it, like they're going to take some pension money.  Now, this is not centrist. This is not moderate. This is George Miller, and this is the kind of thing that Reid and Pelosi will go for."
*"I don't know where Obama will stand on this, but the odds are that it will sound attractive to him because these people are all about expanding government coffers.  And that's what they're going to do.  So that's what's ahead for people's 401(k)s if the Democrats get their way.  They may not, but that's what their planning is."
Are all those quotes taken out of context, then?  I'll let other people click on the link and decide. --David Shankbone 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not true.  Ghilarducci testified before an "Oct. 7 hearing before the House Education and Labor Committee".  That's a bipartisan committee, as are all committees in Congress.  Taking the conservative editorial board of the IBD's Op-Ed that only singles out Democrats and saying she specifically addressed Democrats either shows you misunderstand how Congress and its committees work, or how Op-Eds function.  And the "intriguing" bit didn't come from the AP story, it again came from the Op-Ed, and you again seem to have confusion about what "intriguing" means.  Additionally, there were many parts to her proposal, so pinning the "intriguing" quote from an unnamed source to one part of her proposal is WP:SYN and WP:POV.  --David Shankbone 22:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, yes, all of those quotes are taken out of context.  He is describing that particular plan.  Under the Ghilarducci plan, if you accept the bailout (meaning, that you want your 401k's value restored), all of those things will happen.  You're leaving out the most important part - "She wants to basically eliminate the 401(k), and the way she wants to do it is she wants to go to people who have a 401(k), who have seen its asset value plummet because of the market plunge.  So she wants to go back to August levels." - and you're cherry picking quotes that make it sound worse than it is.  What you are doing is trying to make it sound like Rush is accusing them of confiscating 401(k)'s.  In reality, what he said is that this plan is out there and under this plan, you have the option to participate.  If you don't participate, they are going to start taxing your 401(k), but that's a different story.  But you can't just go grab one-liners out without providing context for them.  The context is that this is one woman's plan and that plan is supported, in some part, by one or more Democrats.  But when you pick these one liners out, you are putting words into his mouth and making it sound like he said ZOMG OBAMA IS GOING TO STEAL UR 401K!!!!! --B (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank, I find that a total spin job on very plain language that anyone can read.  He is stating that the Democrats are going to adopt her plan and take people's 401(k).  I appreciate your a big Rush Limbaugh supporter, but there's no way to read that article and honestly argue that he was not unequivocally stating that this is "what [the Democrats] are going to do. So that's what's ahead for people's 401(k)s if the Democrats get their way...They may not, but that's what their planning is."  It's disheartening you are spinning Rush's unequivocal language - I would imagine he himself would disagree with you.  He seems to have no problems with stating it. Additionally, he talks out of both sides of his mouth re: Obama and taking people's 401(k)s, stating he doesn't know for sure, but that he thinks he is all for taking people's 401(k)s, despite there is no factual basis of ANY Democratic politician supporting that.  Can you find a quote from any Democratic politician supporting taking away people's 401(k)s and putting them into Social Security?   --David Shankbone 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it when people tell me what my politics are.  I quit listening to him in 2001 when he berated a Christian who called in to talk about the end times.  My bias here is the same as my bias on every BLP - just because you don't like someone doesn't mean their article can be turned into an attack piece.  My position is the same whether it's a liberal or a conservative.  If the position were reversed and someone were using a WorldNetDaily editorial that quoted a liberal out of context, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - they would have long since been blocked for trolling.  Limbaugh makes it very clear that he is talking about a particular proposal and that participation in this proposal is optional.  Only once you sign up for it, do the Democrats take away your 401(k).  Nobody who at all understands what a 401(k) is would even conceive of the possibility that the government could just come in and take it.  Rather, the plan is voluntary and that's the problem with what the LA Times writer said - he was misquoting Limbaugh as though Limbaugh had claimed that the Democrats were going to take your 401(k) period, not that the Democrats were going to take your 401(k) only if you signed up for the program. --B (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I only wrote one sentence about it, and I think it merits a sentence or two.  Certainly not an entire section.  But since it's been reported on in the MSM and in other places, certainly.  The multiple sentences right now are inaccurate, since User:B did not appear to be aware of the article I linked to in the thread above.  Otherwise, definitely - we are here to educate people on all aspects of Limbaugh, his life and his views, including his accuracy, and this is a prime example of problems with his accuracy, where he has unequivocally stated that the there is a "Democrat plan" to "take" people's 401(k)s.  --David Shankbone 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One person with an obvious ax to grind wrote a column where he makes a false accusation about Limbaugh.  In the transcript you linked above, Limbaugh even says that he doesn't know what Obama's position is on it.  An attack piece about "Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger" that falsely claims that Limbaugh made the issue about Obama is not worthy of a sentence. --B (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is not about "Obama" anymore, but about the "Democrats" and Limbaugh's language is plain, stated over and over and over, in a variety of ways, unequivocally.  --David Shankbone 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the AP article makes it clear where Limbaugh derived his information. I think one should consider the difference between "all Democrats" and "some Democrats" and I would suggest that Limbaugh was correct if he meant "some" and wrong if he meant "all."  Collect (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still false.  First, there is no federal Democratic politician advocating taking away people's 401(k)s and putting them into Social Security or anything else (I have continually asked you to prove that wrong, and you haven't).  Second, we aren't here to divine whether Limbaugh, when stating that if the Democrats get their way they will do such a thing, whether he meant 1, 10, 20 or all Democrats.  Fact is, not one has advocated such a policy. The section is entitled "Questions regarding accuracy" and this is clearly an example.  Spin however you want, but so far the anti- crowd on here has only used other conservative commentary using the same fear-mongering that has no basis in fact; are stating that because one economist out of many testified about this (and it's a mischaracterization of her proposal) it is clearly a "plan"; have stated that testimony to a bipartisan committee is actually only to Democrats; or are flat out stating this is not what Limbaugh said, when he unequivocally said it.  Wikipedia at its worst. --David Shankbone 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

text: If there's dishonesty here, it's not on the part of Limbaugh, it's on the part of the LA Times and James Rainey.  Rainey presents this as if it were some fabrication of Limbaugh's, and that's how Shankbone inserted it into the article.  But the truth is that whether there is or isn't a Democrat plan to seize people's 401(k)s, Limbaugh didn't make it up.  He was just repeating what he'd read and heard.  The first time Limbaugh mentioned it, as far as I know, was after the election.  And Rainey seems to agree with that, since he gives this as an example of post-election bitterness on the right.  But this article, which can't be accused of partiality to the right, was written before the election, and puts this accusation in the mouth of John McCain, on Fri 31-Oct!   So what's it got to do with Limbaugh?  It should be out of the article, for this reason if for no other.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could we please quit with the WP:OR? It isn't really helpful and doesn't do anything other than showcase peoples personal POVs. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't OR, any more than Shankbone finding the Rainey piece was OR.  I've proven that Rainey's allegation is untrue, and therefore shouldn't be in the article.  I linked the proof, so anyone can check it.  Where's the OR.  If you're claiming SYN, there's nothing wrong with SYN to keep false statements out of WP; you just can't put SYN into an article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be ridiculous. This is almost the precise defintion of OR. Shankbone is presenting a single source which makes the complete claim. You are taking a variety of disitinct sources and speculatively combining them to reach a conclusion not contained in any reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

text:  In general, SYN to keep something out of an article is not a hot idea unless it absolutely needs to occur or it is very blatant. Moreover, this isn't even in the bag original research. All you've done is show that some people other than Limbaugh made similar remarks prior to Limbaughs. At best that shows that Limbaugh didn't bother doing any factchecking beyond just quoting other parts of the noise-machine. That doesn't even remove the central point of the article. It makes a very weak argument against it. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  401k issue 

message: Looking at this in more detail, there's no major controversy over this just a handful of news reports. Given Limbaugh's long tenure, is this notable enough for inclusion in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only wrote one sentence about it, and I think it merits a sentence or two.  Certainly not an entire section.  But since it's been reported on in the MSM and in other places, certainly.  The multiple sentences right now are inaccurate, since User:B did not appear to be aware of the article I linked to in the thread above.  Otherwise, definitely - we are here to educate people on all aspects of Limbaugh, his life and his views, including his accuracy, and this is a prime example of problems with his accuracy, where he has unequivocally stated that the there is a "Democrat plan" to "take" people's 401(k)s.  --David Shankbone 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One person with an obvious ax to grind wrote a column where he makes a false accusation about Limbaugh.  In the transcript you linked above, Limbaugh even says that he doesn't know what Obama's position is on it.  An attack piece about "Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger" that falsely claims that Limbaugh made the issue about Obama is not worthy of a sentence. --B (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is not about "Obama" anymore, but about the "Democrats" and Limbaugh's language is plain, stated over and over and over, in a variety of ways, unequivocally.  --David Shankbone 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And the AP article makes it clear where Limbaugh derived his information. I think one should consider the difference between "all Democrats" and "some Democrats" and I would suggest that Limbaugh was correct if he meant "some" and wrong if he meant "all."  Collect (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still false.  First, there is no federal Democratic politician advocating taking away people's 401(k)s and putting them into Social Security or anything else (I have continually asked you to prove that wrong, and you haven't).  Second, we aren't here to divine whether Limbaugh, when stating that if the Democrats get their way they will do such a thing, whether he meant 1, 10, 20 or all Democrats.  Fact is, not one has advocated such a policy. The section is entitled "Questions regarding accuracy" and this is clearly an example.  Spin however you want, but so far the anti- crowd on here has only used other conservative commentary using the same fear-mongering that has no basis in fact; are stating that because one economist out of many testified about this (and it's a mischaracterization of her proposal) it is clearly a "plan"; have stated that testimony to a bipartisan committee is actually only to Democrats; or are flat out stating this is not what Limbaugh said, when he unequivocally said it.  Wikipedia at its worst. --David Shankbone 00:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

text: If there's dishonesty here, it's not on the part of Limbaugh, it's on the part of the LA Times and James Rainey.  Rainey presents this as if it were some fabrication of Limbaugh's, and that's how Shankbone inserted it into the article.  But the truth is that whether there is or isn't a Democrat plan to seize people's 401(k)s, Limbaugh didn't make it up.  He was just repeating what he'd read and heard.  The first time Limbaugh mentioned it, as far as I know, was after the election.  And Rainey seems to agree with that, since he gives this as an example of post-election bitterness on the right.  But this article, which can't be accused of partiality to the right, was written before the election, and puts this accusation in the mouth of John McCain, on Fri 31-Oct!   So what's it got to do with Limbaugh?  It should be out of the article, for this reason if for no other.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could we please quit with the WP:OR? It isn't really helpful and doesn't do anything other than showcase peoples personal POVs. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't OR, any more than Shankbone finding the Rainey piece was OR.  I've proven that Rainey's allegation is untrue, and therefore shouldn't be in the article.  I linked the proof, so anyone can check it.  Where's the OR.  If you're claiming SYN, there's nothing wrong with SYN to keep false statements out of WP; you just can't put SYN into an article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be ridiculous. This is almost the precise defintion of OR. Shankbone is presenting a single source which makes the complete claim. You are taking a variety of disitinct sources and speculatively combining them to reach a conclusion not contained in any reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: * And only for background, more meaningful talk about the confiscation of retirement funds in the states. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Interesting.  More conservative media talking about something that doesn't exist.  I personally like the national columnists that Carolina Journal highlights.  Too bad there appears no ability to get any mainstream news organization to report on this (Carolina Journal is owned by the John Locke Foundation.  Perhaps because there is no talk about "confiscating" (Gwen Gale's words) people's 401(k)s by the Democrats.  Oh well.  --David Shankbone 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

text: *Wow!  Even the John Birch Society ripped apart the Carolina Journal piece.  --David Shankbone 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then goes on to say, "Regardless of the spin from the Carolina Journal, Ghilarducci's remarks should not be discounted. What she is really proposing is that workers be tricked into believing that the theft of their wealth through inflation..." Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but we're discussing whether the Democrats have a proposal to take, or to use your word, "confiscate", people's 401(k)s, not the merits of an economist's position that nobody has supported, and that she has stated nobody supported (per the Reuters article I linked to in the RfC).  Regardless, the Carolina Journal piece is, essentially, trash.  And frankly, Gwen, I'm a little surprised that an admin is taking opinion pieces, all of which rest on this one economist, to support this notion, when you can't find any statements by Democratic politicians to this effect, nor mainstream news articles stating that this is any way a plan, proposal or hope of any politician.  I would expect more from an admin, and so far every source you throw out is pretty shoddy.  --David Shankbone 09:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David, to take a word you've used, here's what I'm getting at: Politics=trash. I think this goes to show what I said above, most political commentators of whatever stripe (and those who comment back) tend to stretch their sources, to stir things up. What Limbaugh does is more or less show business and it's how he and others quite skillfully draw big audiences, which themselves draw advertising revenue, which is much of the pith (somewhat akin to say, Professional_wrestling, but the pay can be much higher) and most sources having to do with politics, even many taken as scholarly, can wind up looking rather shoddy when one starts digging into them, something to keep in mind whilst editing this BLP, never mind the need to skirt edit warring over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that's not what we do here, Gwen.  We are supposed to be dealing in facts and WP:Reliable sources.  We aren't supposed to be propagating the trash.  We generally want people not to see us as part of the trash heap of noise.  Have you noticed I have not once used the Media Matters piece on this story?  Because I have standards for the sources I pair with my name and advocate for their use.  It's not good enough to say that "Politics=trash".  That's your opinion, and some of us find these showmen, who many people believe, to be the problems for spreading misinformation and lies.  It should tell you something that you haven't been able to find anything that even comes close to WP:V to support the contentions.  And if the guy is not accurate, we're not the ones who are here to say--wink, wink--that's all part of the big game, now isn't it?  That is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is meant to be.  And I'm surprised I have to explain this to someone who is supposed to be the front line to guard our values.  It's disheartening, Gale.  --David Shankbone 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less all politics is misinformation and lies but never mind that. One of the "values" here at Wikipedia is that we don't edit war and I was trying to show you why edit warring, much less over this, is so utterly pithless (which is one reason why edit warring comes under the threat of a block). Meanwhile, following WP:BLP (another strong Wikipedia "value"), you can't sway this article or its talk page into your own attack page. That's what your blog is for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think inserting one sentence in the entire article, for which I have provided multiple sources, makes this an attack article.  More, I find your problematic use of unreliable sources to be more an issue, and the language you use indicate a POV.  It's sad when people need to use obfuscation and distortion to win support for their views, be it a major media personality or a Wikipedia editor.  I've committed no BLP violations here, and I've hardly swayed this article by giving one example under an appropriately titled section called "Questions about accuracy".  So far, not only has the accuracy of his statements been shown to be non-existent, below in the RfC another editor points that he even gets Ghilarducci's plan wrong, in addition to the contention that it has support amongst Democrats.  Using verifiable information from w:Reliable sources hardly is an indication that I'm trying to turn a very large article into an attack page with the insertion of one sentence.  That's just..."Limbaugh logic".  --David Shankbone 15:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not a debate forum.  Making it one would irreparably harm WP. WP:NOT Collect (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I neither edited the article nor edit warred over it. I only came here to see that the edit warring stops. I offered the links/sources as background (see the title of this thread), not as citations for any assertion in the article. If you're going to start saying I'm using "Limbaugh logic" (never mind going on about me on your blog) I don't think you've carefully read what I've written. Either way, I'm not here to go back and forth over a content dispute. I'm more than happy to watch quietly. You can even have the last word :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  background 

message: The article mentions that his show is also carried on FM in some markets.  That's accurate, and it is very a growing trend in radio to change FM stations to non-music formats as iPods and other digital media cut into FM Music's audience - but I'm not sure why this is relevant to Rush Limbaugh, the subject of this article.  This isn't an article about the radio business in general and wikipedia is not about predicting the future.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, why don't you move it to an appropriate article and wikilink it here?  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FM radio 

message: The "incidents" are obviously controversy, it's disputed at a very heated level and to simple rename it "incidents" is trying to downplay them in an absurd and POV way. It meets what wikipedia says is acceptable for using the term "controvery" ( The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute (e.g., the AACS encryption key controversy). When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict.)Soxwon (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Soxwon on this issue, and it's a sword that cuts both ways, so I don't see it as a political issue.  On a large and full article like Rush Limbaugh, a controversy section works absent weaving the material into larger sections.  I had no problem renaming the "Controversy" sections on Burt Neuborne and Augusten Burroughs, since having something named that way made half those articles "Controversy".  --David Shankbone 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy v. Incident 

message: Where he got caught talking about being addicted to prescription meds or something and then the warrant got overturned for being a fishing expedition?
IT's not mentioned in the article? and I think it should be....
Kairos (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely because it has been discussed here repeatedly and found not to be usable in the BLP for more than the 35 lines or so it has.  Even the Viagra case is mentioned. Collect (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Prescription meds/drug controversy? 

message: :"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?" 
It is obvious to many, many people that Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than intentionally antgonizing, negative and divisive force in America.  Simply put, he's a hatemonger.  And in spite of his attempts to make people think that he stands up for the little guy he is consistantly a shill for the very rich and for corporations against the "average joe".  In the dark ages he would have been the guy who tried to organize mobs to exterminate some person or group who he hated because they wanted to be treated fairly.  A hundred years ago he would have been the Boss or Robber Baron ( remarkable likeness btw, compare to ) who ran his serfs and slaves into the polluted ground while keeping most of the profits for himself.  IMO, he has been nothing but bad for the United States (or should that be the Divided States thanks to his efforts) and the world.  What's sad is that he has been able to flimflam so many poor people into voting against their own best interests.
Anyway, I hope that someone can include the above quote from Powell into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.202.220 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Floodgate time if you use quotes from everyone notable about everyone notable.  This, last I looked, is supposed to be a "biography of a living person" not a collection of every quote about a person.  Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, also, Powell's statement is very loaded, and biased, and itself would require counter-quotes from his critics, and over this very statement. That could become cluttered. Maybe a topic would be needed just for this Powell diatribe, its background, what the 'code words' he used really meant, what was going on at the time, what he hoped to accomplish, how he hoped to position himself with both Republicans and Democrats, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell 

message: The section "alleged inaccuracy" is thoroughly peppered with weasel words. These include "liberal infotainer" as a pejorative and "which is what Limbaugh said all along". As with much of the article, this section needs attention and re-writing. Phobophile (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "liberal infotainer" bit is what Al Franken used to describe himself. I'll edit out some of the other weasel words. Soxwon (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Franken's self-description is appropriate. How about an encyclopedic description of who he is? A former Saturday Night Live writer and Senate candidate. It was clearly a pejorative. Phobophile (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and it is not customary to have long-winded quotes about organizations or people.  WP:NPOV is pretty clear in this case, and Franken is not described in the mainstream as a "liberal infotainer" no matter how he describes himself.  --David Shankbone 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, its just a quote taken out of context to denigrate SENATOR Franken. Limbaugh is a disgusting POS and a shining example of why the fairness doctrine was enacted.71.82.131.14 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So why wouldn't Franken on the radio be subject to the same fairness? or be considered disgusting for his physical outbursts and assaults, and his many offensive remarks? You're arguing, here, instead of commenting on the quality or content of the article. It's enough to say that Franken is a very radical leftist, and Limbaugh very conservative, very much of opposite opinions on many issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: In the 1990s on his TV program, Limbaugh called then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton a "dog." It was a sick, disturbing attack on a child and it repelled some of us. We weren't convinced by Limbaugh's ridiculous, idiotic claim that he didn't really call her a "dog" and that the whole thing was a technical screw-up. Indeed, the latter lame excuse and distortion of the truth is why many of us will never take Limbaugh seriously. Oh, and by the way, this article (which appears to have been written by a Ditto-Head) incredibly omits ANY reference to this incident. Even if one buys Limbaugh's idiotic excuse, the fact that the whole widely publicized incident isn't even mentioned in this article shows that Wikipedia loves to sanitize and re-write history. Stalin would be proud.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.27 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it was in there once before.  add it if you want and see what happens.  inevitably someone will remove it, but then we could at least get a discussion going about it and figure out if it should be there or not.  i would support having it included because it is one of the more notable of his many controversies.  just be sure to get good sources.  Brendan19 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Limbaugh would begin his show with a bank of three monitors, showing stills of the stories he was going to discuss. On that show, the last monitor was for talk of the family dog, and Chelsea's face was shown. It would appear to have been intentional. One can't know for sure. But in the wake of serious complaints which followed, Limbaugh claimed it was a mistake and that the dog should have been shown, instead. Furthermore, I think he claimed, later in the week, to have fired someone over the incident. But it did give the sense of the 'dog ate my homework', not working the first time. So for the article to report on this, wouldn't it have to draw from both sides of the story? And would that seem boring? Would it seem to some that the article is cluttered as is, and that a he-said, they-said interpretation a) from Limbaugh then b) from his critics would not be worth the trouble?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: This is Rush Limbaugh talking to Phil Gingrey. On Youtube, of course. 74.37.237.64 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason anyone should explain it?  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 00:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fake; it's a voice-over; it says comedy in the description. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain this? 

message: This section has several problems that need to be corrected or else the section needs to be removed.  First the section is completely unsourced.  Second the section gives undue weight to a station switch of Limbaugh's show by implying through its inclusion in his biography to the idea that this event has had a significant effect on his life or his public perception.  Third, there are neutrality problems due to the section be presented predominately from the view point of the canceling station with no attempt to show what this change has meant to either Limbaugh or the station that picked him up.  Finally the last sentence is dominated by speculation that this change might have had an impact upon Limbaugh or his show.
If this section detailed a significant drop in Limbaugh's ratings (other than the normal changes that follow the 4-year presidential election cycle) or showed that he was loosing a large number of affiliates then I would agree that this was a notable event.  However, a quick web search shows that the situation is not what is being implied by this section.  This was not the first time Limbaugh had changed stations in the Baltimore market.  He was in fact returning to a former affiliate.  The ratings argument also appears weak as the station Limbaugh moved to has overtaken the station that canceled him.  This just leaves the section to either hype a small event that has had no meaningful impact upon Limbaugh or serve as a vehicle speculate about what might have happened but never occurred. --Allen3 talk 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wittled it down, moved it to the Rush Limbaugh Show section, and added a cite, happy? Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems of why the actions of a single radio station are significant to Limbaugh's personal or public life still remains unclear.  You should also trim the remaining original research (your source which repeatedly mentions the move was made "to focus on local news and hosts", fails to mention news coverage lasting for weeks). --Allen3 talk 03:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with "Cancellation" section 

message: This section is getting to big, the edits by User:TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity are giving the section more weight than it needs. The new information should gets own section or be summarized more. Soxwon (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The brouhaha between Steele and Limbaugh is important and should be mentioned somehow. It's kind of a subset - a spinoff - of the Obama Fail fiasco. The quotes are pretty good and self-explanatory - they do not need interpretation. Maybe somebody could create a subheading under Obama Fail for this dispute and transition the paragraphs into it? 76.203.241.102 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't say whether it is important, you have to cite that it's important, and that can't be done until after the fact, when it has died down and its true importance has been realized. How many times does something happen that everyone is sure is going to be important only to peter out? It deserves mention, but not as much as it has been given.Soxwon (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama Fail 

message: I think this top of the page tag needs to be added.
:I agree Soxwon (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. 

message: "In his first bestseller" - I presume this is a book. This language is biased  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.215.225 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also fact. If you want to change the wording so it's less ambiguous, propose something. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bestseller? 

message: So amateurish. Heck, put in the whole damn speech. Better yet, delete the whole damn article and refer everyone to Rush Limbaugh's website for the real TRUTH!
5FWD (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down and try to constructively add to this article. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What with the HUGE Limbaugh quotes? 

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