Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 6

message: I've been bold and removed the section that was just a Limbaugh quote. That's what his web-site is for. He's said many bizzare things, but that alone doesn't justify their placement in an encyclopedia. The context and public reactions to the remark might be encyclopedic, but just "something he said" isn't. PTR, I'm here on the talk page-- if you've got a problem with my edits, let's discuss them. Wholesale reversions don't help. GertrudeTheTramp 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the recent edits you've made.  A lot of the material in the article is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.  It is not, however, our job to try to say - by inference or any other means - that we feel he is a hypocrit.  Our feelings about him are not important.  --PTR 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, our feelings aren't important, and they're not in the article. That said, his views on drug addiction are relevent to his drug addiction (much more so than, say, previous cases in the county he was charged in) and if his actions and his words don't match up, he *is* a hypocrite. Definitionally. We don't have to call names in the article, but we can (and must!) present the facts in the article, and let the reader draw hir own conclusions. I hold that the quote where he says we need to lock up drug abusers shoud go back in-- and I'm going to put it back soon, unless I see a consensus against it. GertrudeTheTramp 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Inclusion of Limbaugh's quotation about drug abuse to demonstrate hypocrisy is inappropriate because it depends upon an apples and oranges comparison to infer guilt (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Words to avoid).  While Limbaugh has publicly admitted to drug addiction, no reliable sources showing that he has either misused his prescribed medications or committed a drug related crime have yet been provided.  Without such a source any inference or accusation that Limbaugh has acted inappropriately is original research and subject to immediate removal under Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons. --Allen3 talk 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he got rehab for his addiction (voluntarily) sure does seem to suggest 'abuse,' and Limbaugh said that abusers should be locked up, not criminals. Plus that whole doctor-shopping bit... Looks like apples and apples to me, and the people below. The only reason I'm not putting the statement back right now is because of the discussion below to find a better way of phrasing it. I see consensus *for* inclusion. And removal from living person biographies applies to unsourced libel-- the quote's very well documented, and hence not subject to removal under WP:Biographies of living persons. Oh, and I'm removing the line about other doctor-shopping cases in Limbaugh's county. It's still irrelevant to Limbaugh himself. GertrudeTheTramp 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Gertrude's statements on this instance. A fair portrayal would include properly cited sources regarding the situation around his drug use, including his statements regarding drug use in general.Vassyana 10:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has never been a problem with the quote, only the thinly veiled and unsourced accusations of criminal wrongdoing that have accompanied the quotation.  I agree that the facts suggest the possibility that Limbaugh has acted improperly.  Using this possibility to jump to the conclusion that Limbaugh acted criminally however is original research and clearly falls under WP:Biographies of living persons.  Use of the quote is fine, use of the quote as a method to introduce unsourced insinuations of wrongdoing however is not. --Allen3 talk 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not the ones that were sloppy about differentiating between legal and illegal drug abuse; that was Rush. If the quote appears to be a veiled accusation of criminal wrongdoing, it's because in his 1995 blanket condemnation of drug abuse, he forgot to envision a situation where one could legally abuse drugs. (Which isn't to say that he didn't act illegally- it's likely, and should be given the perpoderance of weight in the article, but NPOV requires we present his assertions of innocence also.) Wikipedia is not resposible for cleaning up his past; it's responsible for reporting it in context, and if the past in context makes him look bad, I'm sorry for the guy, but it doesn't change what we came here to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gertrudethetramp (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's a bit overzealous to call Rush a hypocrite for these comments.  Has Rush made any blanket comments lately condemning all drug abusers?  IMO, Rush was simply unaware of the difference between recreational drug abusers and people who fall into a pattern of drug abuse through prescribed painkillers. Sure, it's easy for critics to say "Ha ha, look what you said and now look what you did," but ignorance is not hypocrisy. Applejuicefool 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion and Homosexuality 

message: The following facts were removed from this article: Some contrasted this deal to what Limbaugh said other drug offenders' punishments should be. "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.   Why was this removed? - KimmyChanga 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up about one inch . Caper13 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more helpful and polite and less snarky? About the only thing I can see above looks like somebody saying that a quote sourced to cbsnews.com and msnbc.msn.com is "original research." As the quote and comparison is reported by others and sourced to them, it is clearly not original research by Wikipedia editors. - KimmyChanga 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Libelous accusations must be removed from Wikipedia articles due to Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons.  The comparison of Limbaugh to "other drug offenders" is a direct inference of criminal behavior that is unsupported by the cited sources.  As a result the material is being removed to comply with Wikipedia policy. --Allen3 talk 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I see your point, thank you for taking the time to try to explain it clearly. So, I'll change the word "offender," which you are worried is libelous, to the word "user," since there is no debate (is there?) that Limbagh has been a drug user, and that phrasing is consistent with our sources. Does the word "user" sound accurate to everyone? - KimmyChanga 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took some pseudoephedrine this morning. Does that make me a drug user? You are still making a comparison between  illegal drug users and limbaugh and limbaugh has not been found guilty of any crime. What do you think that this passage is going to add to the article? Why is it important that it be included? Caper13 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the use of the pronoun "you" is appropriate as, again, "we" (all of us) are not making a comparison -- we are documenting a comparison made by several prominent cited sources. In general, I think we need to make sure that encyclopedia articles accurately reflect the differing sources about a topic, and that editors should not confuse those sources with the viewpoints of the editors quoting those sources. Does that makes sense? If we write a section and source information from Limbaugh, Limbaugh's attorney, the prosecutor's office, and news coverage, it doesn't mean that we personally agree with all or even any of the sourced material, and therefore suggesting that other wikipedia editors hold the views that they source to others is innapropriate. Let's try not to take this as or make this into a personal feelings thing, and rather talk about the article. Let's just include what the top sources have to say on a topic. Like, for example, the passage we are discussing. - KimmyChanga 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didnt use "you" in an accusatory sense. Only in the sense that I was responding to what "you" had said. The passage isn't appropriate given WP:BLP for the reasons stated twice above.Caper13 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You wrote, "You are still making a comparison between illegal drug users and limbaugh." You were wrong, as we are making no such comparison; we are documenting a comparison which several top-notch sources have made between Limbaugh's drug use and his statements regarding drug use. There is nothing libelous about documenting that Some contrasted this deal to what Limbaugh said other drug users' punishments should be. "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.   - KimmyChanga 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Some contrasted" is vague and weasely. Let's be specific: "Mainstream media organizations CBS News and MSNBC have contrasted this deal to what Limbaugh said other drug users' punishments should be."--Herb West 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were these facts removed? 

message: Are there any more neutrality issues related to this article? It looks like we've got the whole quote issue settled to everyone's (grudging) satisfaction, and the homeopathy debate seems to be more OR or notability related than POV... Unless anyone objects, I suggest we take the debated neutrality tag off the article. Anywho, if there still are issues, they need to be re-brought up because a lot has moved to the archive page. GertrudeTheTramp 15:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I think the POV tag was put there by someone saying the article was too friendly to Limbaugh. I still don't like the "contrasted" bit. I also think the article is very heavy on block quotes and recent material like the MJ Fox material and lacks biographical information like early life, family, siblings, etc. Using block quotes from various 3rd parties seems like a cop out for paraphrasing the quote. There's a 119 word quote from a media critic in there, thats ridiculous. There's also a 117 word block quote in the massive Prescription drug addiction section. We have around 1500 words describing the ESPN, MJ Fox and drug issues, but his parents names are not mentioned in the article. We also have him in a Kansas City category, but the article doesn't say how long he was there, just the he was in Pittsburgh in 1972 and left KC in 1984. Maybe that category should be replaced with Residents of Palm Beach or something. Of course this article doesn't even say he lives in Palm Beach.  If the tag gets removed, I'd expect somebody to pop it back up there. I won't but some Limbaugh hater with a grudge and about 6 edits will put it back there. --Dual Freq 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when they do, either they'll list their complaints on the talk page to be discussed and remedied, or they won't and we'll remove the tag. THe point of the tag isn't to consistantly sit on the top of articles that tend to be contentious-- there's a talk page tag for that (which I just added). Rather, the tag is to be used in response to specific complaints of non-neutrality that can be identified. It's a sort-of moot point, though, now that the page has been protected. GertrudeTheTramp 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't an article on Rush Limbaugh at least mention Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot ? I think that absence makes it pretty clear that viewpoints unsympathetic to Limbaugh have been reduced beyond the required minimum required for neutrality in the article. - Nunh-huh 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so. None of the other attack books I can think of-- Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly, Crimes and Misdemenors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President-- are given in-text mention in the articles about their subjects. At best, in a "related reading" or "Criticism and Controversy" page. GertrudeTheTramp 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part, that book isn't even about Limbaugh. By the same token, I note that Al Franken's page doesnt mention the book "Al Franken is a Buck Toothed Moron and other Observations. Caper13 06:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I've requested this page be unprotected or returned to semi-protection on WP:RFPP. GertrudeTheTramp 08:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no Rush Limbaugh Further Reading section, and an in-text reference give inappropriate weight to the book. If you'd like to construct a balanced Further Reading section to include the book, by all means go ahead, but please do not add an in-text citation; the article is about Rush Limbaugh primarily, not What Al Franken Thinks About Rush Limbaugh. GertrudeTheTramp 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, everybody can see that there's curently no section on books about Rush, and no, I am not suggesting that Franken's book should be the only one we include in such a section when we make one. I'd also like to see some more info on Limbaugh's books -- how long they were on Best Seller lists, critical response, etc. - KimmyChanga 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're proposing two diffent things- a list of books by Limbaugh complete with how long they were on best seller's lists, how many copies they've sold up to sometime, when they were published-- all sounds good and primary source. Franken's book, though, would have to go in an entirely seperate section of secondary sources, along with, I'm sure, some books praising him. GertrudeTheTramp 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are two things: 1) Add a section on books about Limbuagh and also 2) Expand the current section on books by Limbaugh. - KimmyChanga 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: The following was added to the 80's section: "In 1987, under Ronald Reagan, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, thus freeing radio stations to air opinion journalism without having to air opposing points of view." I was wondering if someone would like to place that in context. The referenced slate article / blog doesn't mention Limbaugh so I'm not sure what point is being made here. Similarly, I could say, "In 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded after liftoff", then cite an appropriate article, but neither fact is connected to Limbaugh without some reference stating that A+B=C. Is there a citation or reference that says how the fairness doctrine relates to Limbaugh? --Dual Freq 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of commentators believe that repealing the Fairness Doctrine was the act that gave birth to the conservative talk radio genre. You're right, however; this sentence seems like an unfinished thought. Seventypercent 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The repal of the Fairness Doctrine clearly helped Rush's career. I think the quote I put in (from the Wall Street Journal) makes this clear, as does the article, which is linked in the reference. Griot 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness Doctrine 

message: A reference to Limbaugh's habitual hate speech which has been in the article for at least the last 2 years has been deleted without comment, having been sanitized by the Limbaugh cheerleaders who habitually sanitize this article to make this BLP violation removed from talk page per WP:BLP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Q.E.D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, welcome to the Wikipedia.  An important guideline is assuming good faith.  What edit are you referring to and what is your proposed solution? --Rtrev 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate Speech Reference Removed Again 

message: There are many books written about Limbaugh, what is the criteria for including books here and how should they be sorted. Do we even need a list of books? --Dual Freq 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we necessarily need the lists. I'd rather have something in paragraph form that says a little something about prominent books -- who the author is, what type of book it is, how long it was on the best seller list, that type of thing. <I>"In 19XX job title Jane Doe wrote in TITLE OF BOOK that 'Representattive quote goes here" and 'Here's another quote.' It spent XX weeks on Publisher's Weekly's best seller list; Some Reviewer called it "whatever some reviewer said."</I> I'd also like to se this type of detail on Limbaigh's books. The lists are a really good start, though. KimmyChanga 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book List 

message: Dual Freq, I find completely innapropriate your suggestion that others should "Just admit that the reason you want this included is the alleged and unproven, uncitable sexual misconduct." That seems to run counter to the ideas that we should all Be polite, Assume good faith, and make No personal attacks as explained at the top of this page. My reason for wanting to include this information, as I've stated several times already, is that it is the type of widely-reported, notable, neutral and factual information that encyclopedia users look for. I'm not sure where you get "sexual misconduct" out of Viagra posession. Do you have any sources making such an accusation? Also, again you say that "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed," while on the other hand I recall this being discussed long after the incident. As I asked before, if someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? KimmyChanga 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cite TSG's "Rush Limbaugh's Dominican Stag Party" in the other article and pretend not to know what I'm talking about. I've already said the reason it was widely reported, per your mainstream sources, was the drug addiction and probation violation / potential arrest angle. That did not happen and it turned out to be a misunderstanding. The script was legit, no crime was committed. How does this rate inclusion in an encyclopedia? I'm not stupid, I can read between the lines here. I have nothing more to say until you admit that there is no reason to include this except for the insinuations of the smoking gun's tabloid / sex angle. --Dual Freq 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't cite the "Rush Limbaugh's Dominican Stag Party" article, another editor did. I hadn't even read it until moments ago. It's just a copy of a signed afadavit from Limbaugh, though the "stag party" title sounds like editorializing. Since there's nothing in it that isn't in the other sources, I don't see why it can't be removed. As I've asked before, if someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? Or will you just change your standards again? KimmyChanga 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you share your source instead of acting like you are trying to bait a trap. Caper13 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any more recent sources yet, but I think I could probably find some with some research. I recall seeing this in the newspaper recently, but I could be wrong, and I really don't feel like spending the time to dig up multiple independent recent sources if multiple independent recent sources aren't going to satisfy you two. I'm not sure how it's a "trap" to ask you what your standards are so I can make some attempt to meet them. You act as if we're working against each other rather than working together to create an accurate encyclopedia article about notable events in Rush Limbaugh's life. I don't think there is any question that this is accurate, but the question seems to be Wikipedia:Notability, and the notability question seems to have moved to a need for more recent sources. I just want to make sure that's the case before I spend several hours sifting through the coverage of this incident to try to find multiple independent sources from the past couple of months. So, as I've asked before, if someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? Or is there something else you are looking for, and if so, what? KimmyChanga 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, no response. I'll take that as a "maybe." So, I've looked for sources from the past few months to see whether it is true that "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed." It looks like the Wichita Eagle, in their 12/29/2006 "More best and worst of Opinion Line 2006" included "Regarding Rush Limbaugh and his Viagra situation, the bigger question is: Why would a single man require Viagra in the first place? According to conservatives like himself, sex should only occur within the confines of marriage."  KimmyChanga 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *And on 12/26/2006 the St. Petersburg Times gave one of their 18th annual Sour Orange Awards for the "the stupid, futile events that happen in Florida every year" to "BLOVIATORS GONE WILD, PART 2: Rush Limbaugh was detained at Palm Beach International Airport after customs officials found he was carrying a bottle of Viagra but his name wasn't on the prescription. Limbaugh joked on his radio show that he got the pills from the Clinton Presidential Library."  KimmyChanga 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *And on 11/23/2006 the Tucson Citizen named Rush Limbaugh their Hall of Shame Man of the Year in part for this incident. "Limbaugh - who has a well-known history of chemical dependency for Oxycontin and Viagra - ridiculed the actor, claiming he was off his Parkinson's medications while appearing in commercials supporting stem cell research in Missouri."  KimmyChanga 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm really sure about this one from the School Library Journal's review of American Icons [Three Volumes]: An Encyclopedia of the People, Places, and Things that Have Shaped Our Culture (Hardcover): "Though many well-studied subjects, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Marilyn Monroe, are present, in general the choices are strongly influenced by current trends in pop culture studies, so that separate articles on, for instance, George Washington or the American flag are shouldered out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Viagra." KimmyChanga 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Maybe you have to be a regular reader, but I'm not even sure I understand this from a 1/24/2007 column in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Pass the Viagra: QT Digest of Rush Limbaugh for the Week to Date (for Your Convenience): ". . . gorgeous . . . naked body . . . have a blast . . . ooh, baby . . ."  Some of this may be out of context." KimmyChanga 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Another from the Chicago Sun-Times, this time a 12/27/2006 Richard Roeper column on his "annual GOOF (Greatly Overhyped and Overexposed Fool) Award." "Imagine if a Democratic candidate for office had a past that included three failed marriages, a dubious reason for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War, a voting record that didn't commence until he was 35, addiction to painkillers, questionable public remarks about women and minorities, and an incident in which he was detained by customs because of a mislabeled bottle of Viagra." KimmyChanga 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *And the second holiday wish in this 12/21/2006 syndicated column from Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith is for "RUSH LIMBAUGH: Some sense. Who goes around carrying other people's Viagra? Even worse, who accuses Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson's symptoms? Ha ha ha! It's like a play on words. Rush gets caught with Viagra. Then, accuses Michael of faking it!" KimmyChanga 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith also but Limbaugh on their Tacky Taste Awards 2006 on 11/22/2006 in part for this: ""I think the top Tacky award should go to that pill poppin', Viagra-stuffin' egomaniac Rush Limbaugh for his tirade chastising Michael J. Fox for trying to save his own life as well as others with that totally debilitating condition." KimmyChanga 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not sure of the date on this one form U.S. News & World Report, but it seems post-November elections given the Pelosi reference: "Conservative yakker Rush Limbaugh is taking his one-man show to Washington this week. At the Thursday show, sponsored by WMAL and the Heritage Foundation for the benefit of the Fisher House Foundation, we hear he'll most likely touch on Fox, incoming Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the GOP's impotence, and his use of Viagra."  KimmyChanga 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Summary: An hour's worth of Googling to see whether "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed" back in July turned up seven stories in recent months, including one from this January, four from December 2006,and three from November 2006. The incident also seems to be referenced in an encyclopedia review, and possibly covered in the encyclopedia itself.  Rather than "news coverage went away," "the story died," and "That's the end of the story," it would appear that this incident has some life long after last July. KimmyChanga 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well.  You've certainly convinced me.  I still don't think it's a major event that should receive more than a mention in the this article but apparently it does at least merit that mention as those in the media are continuing to make reference to the event.  Thoughts on how to tastefully and appropriately mention this event and the subsequent coverage without giving it undue weight?  --ElKevbo 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work, KimmyChanga.  You've provided many solid sources.  The incident is clearly worth being mentioned in the article. Eleemosynary 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree.  Just because people are talking about and making jokes about something does not make it notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  People still make jokes about cigars and Clinton but there is no mention of it in his encyclopedia article.  We need to approach writing this article in a clinical, non-tabloid way.  --PTR 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also have to disagree... Wikipedia is not a tabloid. None of the examples of references listed above address the core issue... the notablity of this issue and it's relevance to the subject's notability. Gregmg 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detention, continued 

message: Please exchange the category block with the following data. It includes Persondata and  to make the category block more readable. No other changes were made.

<!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] -->
{{Persondata
|NAME=Limbaugh, Rush
|ALTERNATIVE NAMES=Limbaugh, Rush Hudson III
|SHORT DESCRIPTION=[[United States|U.S.]] [[radio talk show]] host, [[Commentator]], [[Author]], and [[television personality]]
|DATE OF BIRTH=[[January 12]], [[1951]]
|PLACE OF BIRTH=[[Cape Girardeau, Missouri]], USA
|DATE OF DEATH=
|PLACE OF DEATH=
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Limbaugh, Rush}}
[[Category:The Rush Limbaugh Show]]
[[Category:Alternative media (U.S. political right)]]
[[Category:American conservatives]]
[[Category:American political pundits]]
[[Category:American radio personalities]]
[[Category:American television talk show hosts]]
[[Category:American infotainers]]
[[Category:Global warming skeptics]]
[[Category:Ozone hole skeptics]]
[[Category:The NFL on ESPN]]
[[Category:WABC-AM]]
[[Category:Drug scandals]]
[[Category:People from Cape Girardeau County, Missouri]]
[[Category:People from Kansas City]]
[[Category:Deaf people]]
[[Category:People treated for drug addiction]]
[[Category:1951 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

Thank you. --32X 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Double-checked to make sure we weren't changing any content, but didn't catch anything. Doesn't seem related to the earlier content dispute which led to the original protection. Let me know if this causes any problems. Cheers! Luna Santin 03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persondata 

message: I,too, was only able to find his nomination by the Landmark Legal Foundation on Yahoo. Maybe the organization didn't take it seriously, or maybe it hasn't even happened.
Anyway, I have a question about a quote in the entry regarding his avoiding military service during the Vietnam War: "but he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to an undisclosed medical problem." But, the footnote/endnote sends you to a link that clearly defines his medical problem as a cyst on his tailbone region.
Overall, the entry seems rather biased towards Rush (especially when you read about his being arrested for prescription drug abuse). I mean, I don't want the article to be one big Rush bash, but what gives? It's as if he or one of his employees wrote it. The entry clearly needs to be rewritten with more accuracy and with readily-available information added in MANY areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evets70 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian Nobel Committee has posted the list of eligible nominators on its web site. If none of the persons or entities named by The Monster and others have been put forward by an eligible nominator then I would agree that their "nominations" should be removed and/or that Rush Limbaugh's nomination by the Landmark Legal Foundation should be added. Kpedsea 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment is simply not true.  The Landmark Legal Foundation is made up of well-known lawyers and law professors and judges.  They are qualified under the rules.  This decision-making about whether Landmark is qualified or not sounds like original research and must be rejected.--Getaway 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Someone being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is exactly the type of thing I would expect on Wikipedia.  I, for one, think it is notable enough to mention.  There are hundreds (thousands?) of people who get nominated for various entertainment awards and those nominations get listed on their article.  The Nobel Peace Prize is no different (it is a notable award after all).  It would also be very very difficult keeping nominations out of articles.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that an effective nomination is notable. To be effective however the nomination must come from someone entitled to make the nomination under the Norwegian Nobel Committee's rules. Do you know whether the Landmark Legal Foundation (upon whose Board Rush serves) is entitled to advance his nomination under the Nobel Committee's rules? If not, any article about his nomination would necessarily have to carry an asterisk noting the unorthodox nature of his nomination. Kpedsea 23:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur - This was a publicity stunt from a group who does not have the privilege of making a real nomination.  The press release even says that this was an unsolicited nomination.  It does not belong in this article.  I could myself make a nomination of just as much standing for Mike Malloy, for example.  Some jerk could even nominate Osama Bin Laden with just as much effect;  NONE.  --BenBurch 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur - I rewrote the nomination section without first checking the talk page (bad wikinoob! bad... no cookie for me!) and once I read this discussion I realized that the argument against conclusion is quite strong and completely valid.  Notability aside, there are potentially thousands of nominations for a given year, and just because one organization thinks a person deserves the prize does not make the nomination itself notable.  If the situation were different, and only a few nominations could be made each year (like the Oscars) this issue might actually be worthy of entry here.  As the situation stands, it is not.  Blueminneapolis 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply put, notability is not met seeing as there is only the single source and no further commentary or interest.  If something comes of this then yes it would be but for now it is pure PR as far as I can see. --Rtrev 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, notability is met by the inclusion of Al Gore's nomination--even though Al Gore's nomination could be construed to be a pure publicity stunt.--Getaway 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be silly. Al Gore's nomination came from people with no affiliation with Al Gore. Limbaugh's nomination came from an organization which includes Limbaugh on its board. That's what makes it a publicity stunt. --MiguelMunoz 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the list includes "university professors of law", I'm going to guess that the nomination may be legit.  I still don't think any of the nominations should be included since by definition the only verification will be the say so of the nominator. —Doug Bell talk 06:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact wording of the Al Gore Nobel Prize nomination is: Along with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_re_eu/norway_nobel_gore-----Getaway 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The precedent was set long before the Al Gore article to include these, although I think it's a bad idea.  See the discussion above for some of the other lusterous nominees who have that fact mentioned in their bio. —Doug Bell talk 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This nomination is like Al Franken being nominated by George Soros. You want to use Gore's article as an example, Al Gore's article doesn't include a 10kb list of Gore bashing books like this one has. Should we remove the list of Limbaugh hating books based on the Gore article? Gore's article is also filled with a bunch of poorly made references, listing only the url and no further detail, should we also follow that example here? My point is, who says Al Gore's article is correct? It's also typical for wikipedia to focus on whatever non-notable issue is being talked about in the blogosphere or whereever right now and ignore the historical context of the item. That's why the Sportscasting section is so large and why last fall the MJ Fox section dominated the article. If you want to add it where is it going to be placed? Right now it's in the 2000 section, which was in chronological order placing a 2007 item before a 2001 item. --Dual Freq 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Gore was nominated by an eligible party. Rush Limbaugh was not. Therefore, the citing of the nomination in Gore's article is correct. The citation in this article is improper, unless it is explicitly noted that Limbaugh was nominated by an ineligible party with views compatible with his own. Even then, I'm not sure it's noteworthy enough to be cited. We can't include every publicity stunt that Limbaugh, or his sympathizers, pull. Does Limbaugh's ineligible and improper nomination have significant media coverage or otherwise seem notable? Vassyana 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is a "publicity stunt" or not.  I don't know the motives in the heart of Limbaugh's nominator.  I don't know if Al Gore's nomination was a "publicity stunt" or not.  I just don't know and I don't pretend to know.  I don't think anyone knows execept the people that nominated Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh.  At any rate, as a Wikipedian it is not my job to read the minds and hearts of someone.  Now, as a Wikipedian I am to make a decision on whether something should be included in the article or not.  I don't know if Al Franken should have or should not have been nominated by George Soros. It is irrelevant.  There has been a discussion at Al Gore to include Al Gore's nomination.  That is a fact.  The Wikipedians of that article have decided that, even though Al Gore has only been nominated and has not won the Nobel Prize, the Al Gore article should have section dedicated to the Al Gore's nomination.  I do know that Limbaugh's nomination is as at least as notable as Al Gore's nomination.--Getaway 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now 10 editors can argue over wording and placement, but in a month the whole thing will be removed as non-notable. I don't care about Gore's supposed nomination, it is not relevant to this article. --Dual Freq 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from.  You personally don't care if Al Gore's nomination is relevant or not.  That is your personal opinion.  Unfortuantely, you don't speak for the whole Wikipedia community.  May be in a month the whole discussion will be non-notable or not.  I just don't know.  What I do know is that there are others in the Wikipedian community you find the source reliable information to be note-worthy and should be in Limbaugh's article--just like Gore's nomination is mentioned in Gore's article.  Now, you might want to ignore the opinions of the editors at Al Gore's page, that is you personal opinion, but I find the debate over there to be important and should be taken into consideration.  I don't know if the Al Gore nomination was a publicity stunt or not.  I don't know if the people or groups that nominated Al Gore were so-called "qualified" or not.  I just don't know.  It is possible that Al Gore's nomination is just a "publicity stunt" to promote his movie.  That is quite possible.  It is possible that Al Gore's nomination is just a "publicity stunt" to give him more attention in case he decides to take on Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President.  I just don't know. I do know that these complaints about Al Gore's nomination, that it might done as a "publicity stunt" or that the nominator was "unqualified", are not really determinative if we should ignore the opinion of the Al Gore editors because without third party independent reliable sources backing up the complaints against Al Gore's nomination they are just the red herrings placed out there by a few Wikipedians that do not want to see Al Gore's nomination in the article.  But I don't know that your opinion on this issues and my opinion on these issues is not worthy of placement in the article.  You have not provided a third-party independent reliable source to back up the assertions that you have been making concerning the Limbaugh nomination.  These are just your personal opinions, which of course is your right, but they are not relevant to whether the opinions of the editors at Al Gore should be totally ignored.  I don't believe that those opinions should be ignored based on your one opinion.--Getaway 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just wrote a rather long paragraph about what you don't know. May I suggest you instead look up the citations? (it's very easy to do, and took me less time than it did to read what you wrote.) If you ever do, you'll learn that Al Gore's nomination came from members of the Norwegian parliament, who are somewhat well respected by the Nobel committee, as they appoint the committee members. It doesn't take a lot of gray matter to figure out that this is not the sort of self-serving nomination as Limbaugh's. --MiguelMunoz 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  My mistake.  Have a good day!--Getaway 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Dual Freq:  That sounds like wild speculation to me.  See I really don't know if Al Gore's nominator is "qualified" or not.  I just don't know if Al Gore's nomination is a "publicity stunt" or not.  I just don't know.  Do you know if Al Gore's nomination was a "publicity stunt" or not?--Getaway 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to yahoonews (and the Nobel's website, as well as our article on the subject) Gore's nominators are quaified: "Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates." I don't think we can really debate that, although Rush's is certainly questionable. -R. fiend 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote to remove this entire section, for the reasons given by User:MiguelMunoz . Kdammers 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Al Gore received a serious nomination and may actually win the prize — that's pretty rampant speculation, and sorry, but your opinion on the matter is irrelevant in determining which nominations can be included and which can't.  You can't know the minds of the Nobel Committee.  None of them should be included for exactly the reasons you cite, but this needs to be applied evenly, and so far the precedent is to include them when they are made public.  As I mention above, Tookie Williams' is mentioned, and Limbaugh's certainly got as good a shot as a convicted multiple murderer who has been executed for his crimes.  We can't very well cite "MiguelMunoz said this one is serious, and this one isn't" when discussing inclusion.  Unfortuneately, Limbaugh's needs to stay until the rest of the nominations are removed from the other bios mentioned above.  To do otherwise is to base the inclusion/exclusion decision on original research and doesn't represent a neutral point of view. —Doug Bell talk 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm discussing RL.  If AG's nomination is not notable, then remove it.  The same goes for any other nominations.  But here we need to decide whether this particular nomination meets the criteria.  It doesn't as far as I can see from the above discussion and from the entry on the RL page (i.e., he's on the board). Kdammers 11:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making a distinction about some being notable and some not.  I'm saying, that for reasons cited throughout this discussion, that none of them are verifiable (the Nobel Committee neither confirms nor denies any nominations), and therefore they all need to go.  At best, you can say that so-and-so was "reportedly" or "alledgedly" nominated or that so-and-so "claims" to have nominated, etc.  The fact of whether the nomination was actually made is not verifiable.  Therefore it's against policy to include any of them, but since so far they are being included, it isn't a matter of whether this one or that one is notable because that sort of detemination is original research.  Notability isn't the issue because it never gets over the earlier hurdles.  What is needed is a centralized discussion on the matter and then to have the conclusion of that discussion applied to all the alledged Nobel nominees. —Doug Bell talk 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion that they cannot be confirmed is not entirely true. We can confirm whether or not the nominating party is eligible to make a nomination for the prize. One can find that reference HERE. Al Gore was nominated by members of a national assembly. Rush Limbaugh's nomination came from an organization that does not fit the list. Therefore, using the sources at hand, it is easy to determine that Gore's nom came from an eligible party and Limbaugh's nom came from an ineligible party. At the very least, if Limbaugh's nom is mentioned it should be noted that the nom came from a party that has no standing under the committee rules to submit nominations. It is misleading and inaccurate to have the nomination appear valid in the article. Vassyana 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Vassyana, that above comment is not correct.  We as Wikipedians cannot decide if Landmark is an 'eligible nominator or not.  We don't know if Landmark is eligible or not.  I am not on the Nobel Committe and I assume that you are not on the Nobel Committe either.  (I could be wrong and if I am I will quickly defer to your opinion.)  So it is not up to us mere Wikipedians to go through and decide for ourselves if a group is eligible.  We just do not know if Al Gore nominator is eligible or not.  Without a third-party independent reliable source determining that Al Gore's nominator is eligible or not then I have to assume in good faith that Al Gore's nominator is eligible--and by the same token we don't know if Limbaugh's nominators isn't eligible and therefore once again we must assume, until proven otherwise by a third-party (non-Wikipedian) independent reliable source, that Limbaugh's nominator is eligible.  I have not seen from any reliable sources any information to disqualify Landmark.  Your personal opinion as a Wikipedian is not eligible, if you will, to overcome the presumption that Limbaugh's nomination was valid. Have a good day!--Getaway 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the reference I provided. Vassyana 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't provide a reference to a reliable source making a determination of eligibility for Landmark.  Also, given the statement "The nominators are strongly requested not to publish their proposals," one could question whether the cited nominators of Gore, being as close as there are to the Nobel Committee, would actually have published their nomination.  Do you have a source the provides a any quotes from the alledged nominees themselves? —Doug Bell talk 16:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Landmark does not fall under any of the listed eligible parties in the reference I provided. However, Gore's nominators do clearly fall under those guidelines. It's fairly simple. Vassyana 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a reliable source that makes your claim.  You can't make the assertion yourself.  Surely if your claim is true, somewhere there is a reliable source the makes the claim.  I can't imagine that such a thing as an unqualified Nobel Prize nomination for Limbaugh is the type of thing that would go unchallenged.  If not such source is available, then your assessment that Landmark is not qualified is insufficient and original research. —Doug Bell talk 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Vassyana. It is not fairly simple.  I do not see that Al Gore's nominators are eligible.  I do not see a letter from the Nobel Committee.  No. It is not fairly simple.  I do not seel that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  I do not see a letter from the Nobel Commitee stating clearly that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  I understand that you have a personal belief and opinion that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible, but as I stated before you are a Wikipedian and it is ok for you to have a personal opinion, but your personal belief and opinion is not a reliable source for this determination.  There is a reliable source that has stated uncategorically that Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and therefore the information should stay in the article.  You have not provided a third-party independent (non-Wikipedian) reliable source to back up your personal claim that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  You also have not provided third-party independent (non-Wikipedian) reliable sources to back up your personal claim that Al Gore's nominators are eligible.  So the only real choice at this point is to leave in the information.  Wikipedia is not censored. Please see WP:CENSOR.--Getaway 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Getaway, please stop acting stupid. It's not very becoming. You're obviously literate enough to compose a complete sentence, so I'm convinced you're capable of processing what you read. I know you're smart enough to deduce that members of the Norway legislature are qualified to nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I have to wonder why you're pretending that you can't figure that out. Are you on Rush Limbaugh's payroll? --MiguelMunoz 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Since the whole question of whether the nomination comes from an eligible source is so debatable, I suggested an additional standard" A nomination is clearly not "notable" if it is obviously self-serving. Limbaugh's sits on the board of the organization that nominated him. That alone disqualifies the nomination from inclusion in my book. Let's keep that standard in mind. --MiguelMunoz 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure you could say that consensus was reached, but I've moved the general discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Including alleged Nobel Peace Prize nominations in bios to prevent it from being deleted from the VIlliage Pump.  It did generate a fair amount of discussion. —Doug Bell talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel Peace Prize & review/rewrite request 

message: I reinserted the factual, fully sourced information about Limbaugh's Nobel Prize nomination to be consistent with the precedent set in the Al Gore article.  As far as I know Al Gore has never won the Nobel Prize, but yet the Al Gore article refers to Al Gore nomination for the Nobel Prize.  So in compliance with the decision over on that page, I have re-inserted the Limbaugh nomination.--Getaway 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact wording of the Al Gore Nobel Prize nomination is: Along with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_re_eu/norway_nobel_gore-----Getaway 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The precedent was set long before the Al Gore article to include these, although I think it's a bad idea.  See the discussion above for some of the other lusterous nominees who have that fact mentioned in their bio. —Doug Bell talk 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This nomination is like Al Franken being nominated by George Soros. You want to use Gore's article as an example, Al Gore's article doesn't include a 10kb list of Gore bashing books like this one has. Should we remove the list of Limbaugh hating books based on the Gore article? Gore's article is also filled with a bunch of poorly made references, listing only the url and no further detail, should we also follow that example here? My point is, who says Al Gore's article is correct? It's also typical for wikipedia to focus on whatever non-notable issue is being talked about in the blogosphere or whereever right now and ignore the historical context of the item. That's why the Sportscasting section is so large and why last fall the MJ Fox section dominated the article. If you want to add it where is it going to be placed? Right now it's in the 2000 section, which was in chronological order placing a 2007 item before a 2001 item. --Dual Freq 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Gore was nominated by an eligible party. Rush Limbaugh was not. Therefore, the citing of the nomination in Gore's article is correct. The citation in this article is improper, unless it is explicitly noted that Limbaugh was nominated by an ineligible party with views compatible with his own. Even then, I'm not sure it's noteworthy enough to be cited. We can't include every publicity stunt that Limbaugh, or his sympathizers, pull. Does Limbaugh's ineligible and improper nomination have significant media coverage or otherwise seem notable? Vassyana 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is a "publicity stunt" or not.  I don't know the motives in the heart of Limbaugh's nominator.  I don't know if Al Gore's nomination was a "publicity stunt" or not.  I just don't know and I don't pretend to know.  I don't think anyone knows execept the people that nominated Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh.  At any rate, as a Wikipedian it is not my job to read the minds and hearts of someone.  Now, as a Wikipedian I am to make a decision on whether something should be included in the article or not.  I don't know if Al Franken should have or should not have been nominated by George Soros. It is irrelevant.  There has been a discussion at Al Gore to include Al Gore's nomination.  That is a fact.  The Wikipedians of that article have decided that, even though Al Gore has only been nominated and has not won the Nobel Prize, the Al Gore article should have section dedicated to the Al Gore's nomination.  I do know that Limbaugh's nomination is as at least as notable as Al Gore's nomination.--Getaway 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now 10 editors can argue over wording and placement, but in a month the whole thing will be removed as non-notable. I don't care about Gore's supposed nomination, it is not relevant to this article. --Dual Freq 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from.  You personally don't care if Al Gore's nomination is relevant or not.  That is your personal opinion.  Unfortuantely, you don't speak for the whole Wikipedia community.  May be in a month the whole discussion will be non-notable or not.  I just don't know.  What I do know is that there are others in the Wikipedian community you find the source reliable information to be note-worthy and should be in Limbaugh's article--just like Gore's nomination is mentioned in Gore's article.  Now, you might want to ignore the opinions of the editors at Al Gore's page, that is you personal opinion, but I find the debate over there to be important and should be taken into consideration.  I don't know if the Al Gore nomination was a publicity stunt or not.  I don't know if the people or groups that nominated Al Gore were so-called "qualified" or not.  I just don't know.  It is possible that Al Gore's nomination is just a "publicity stunt" to promote his movie.  That is quite possible.  It is possible that Al Gore's nomination is just a "publicity stunt" to give him more attention in case he decides to take on Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President.  I just don't know. I do know that these complaints about Al Gore's nomination, that it might done as a "publicity stunt" or that the nominator was "unqualified", are not really determinative if we should ignore the opinion of the Al Gore editors because without third party independent reliable sources backing up the complaints against Al Gore's nomination they are just the red herrings placed out there by a few Wikipedians that do not want to see Al Gore's nomination in the article.  But I don't know that your opinion on this issues and my opinion on these issues is not worthy of placement in the article.  You have not provided a third-party independent reliable source to back up the assertions that you have been making concerning the Limbaugh nomination.  These are just your personal opinions, which of course is your right, but they are not relevant to whether the opinions of the editors at Al Gore should be totally ignored.  I don't believe that those opinions should be ignored based on your one opinion.--Getaway 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just wrote a rather long paragraph about what you don't know. May I suggest you instead look up the citations? (it's very easy to do, and took me less time than it did to read what you wrote.) If you ever do, you'll learn that Al Gore's nomination came from members of the Norwegian parliament, who are somewhat well respected by the Nobel committee, as they appoint the committee members. It doesn't take a lot of gray matter to figure out that this is not the sort of self-serving nomination as Limbaugh's. --MiguelMunoz 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  My mistake.  Have a good day!--Getaway 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Dual Freq:  That sounds like wild speculation to me.  See I really don't know if Al Gore's nominator is "qualified" or not.  I just don't know if Al Gore's nomination is a "publicity stunt" or not.  I just don't know.  Do you know if Al Gore's nomination was a "publicity stunt" or not?--Getaway 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to yahoonews (and the Nobel's website, as well as our article on the subject) Gore's nominators are quaified: "Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates." I don't think we can really debate that, although Rush's is certainly questionable. -R. fiend 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote to remove this entire section, for the reasons given by User:MiguelMunoz . Kdammers 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Al Gore received a serious nomination and may actually win the prize — that's pretty rampant speculation, and sorry, but your opinion on the matter is irrelevant in determining which nominations can be included and which can't.  You can't know the minds of the Nobel Committee.  None of them should be included for exactly the reasons you cite, but this needs to be applied evenly, and so far the precedent is to include them when they are made public.  As I mention above, Tookie Williams' is mentioned, and Limbaugh's certainly got as good a shot as a convicted multiple murderer who has been executed for his crimes.  We can't very well cite "MiguelMunoz said this one is serious, and this one isn't" when discussing inclusion.  Unfortuneately, Limbaugh's needs to stay until the rest of the nominations are removed from the other bios mentioned above.  To do otherwise is to base the inclusion/exclusion decision on original research and doesn't represent a neutral point of view. —Doug Bell talk 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm discussing RL.  If AG's nomination is not notable, then remove it.  The same goes for any other nominations.  But here we need to decide whether this particular nomination meets the criteria.  It doesn't as far as I can see from the above discussion and from the entry on the RL page (i.e., he's on the board). Kdammers 11:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making a distinction about some being notable and some not.  I'm saying, that for reasons cited throughout this discussion, that none of them are verifiable (the Nobel Committee neither confirms nor denies any nominations), and therefore they all need to go.  At best, you can say that so-and-so was "reportedly" or "alledgedly" nominated or that so-and-so "claims" to have nominated, etc.  The fact of whether the nomination was actually made is not verifiable.  Therefore it's against policy to include any of them, but since so far they are being included, it isn't a matter of whether this one or that one is notable because that sort of detemination is original research.  Notability isn't the issue because it never gets over the earlier hurdles.  What is needed is a centralized discussion on the matter and then to have the conclusion of that discussion applied to all the alledged Nobel nominees. —Doug Bell talk 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertion that they cannot be confirmed is not entirely true. We can confirm whether or not the nominating party is eligible to make a nomination for the prize. One can find that reference HERE. Al Gore was nominated by members of a national assembly. Rush Limbaugh's nomination came from an organization that does not fit the list. Therefore, using the sources at hand, it is easy to determine that Gore's nom came from an eligible party and Limbaugh's nom came from an ineligible party. At the very least, if Limbaugh's nom is mentioned it should be noted that the nom came from a party that has no standing under the committee rules to submit nominations. It is misleading and inaccurate to have the nomination appear valid in the article. Vassyana 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Vassyana, that above comment is not correct.  We as Wikipedians cannot decide if Landmark is an 'eligible nominator or not.  We don't know if Landmark is eligible or not.  I am not on the Nobel Committe and I assume that you are not on the Nobel Committe either.  (I could be wrong and if I am I will quickly defer to your opinion.)  So it is not up to us mere Wikipedians to go through and decide for ourselves if a group is eligible.  We just do not know if Al Gore nominator is eligible or not.  Without a third-party independent reliable source determining that Al Gore's nominator is eligible or not then I have to assume in good faith that Al Gore's nominator is eligible--and by the same token we don't know if Limbaugh's nominators isn't eligible and therefore once again we must assume, until proven otherwise by a third-party (non-Wikipedian) independent reliable source, that Limbaugh's nominator is eligible.  I have not seen from any reliable sources any information to disqualify Landmark.  Your personal opinion as a Wikipedian is not eligible, if you will, to overcome the presumption that Limbaugh's nomination was valid. Have a good day!--Getaway 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the reference I provided. Vassyana 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't provide a reference to a reliable source making a determination of eligibility for Landmark.  Also, given the statement "The nominators are strongly requested not to publish their proposals," one could question whether the cited nominators of Gore, being as close as there are to the Nobel Committee, would actually have published their nomination.  Do you have a source the provides a any quotes from the alledged nominees themselves? —Doug Bell talk 16:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Landmark does not fall under any of the listed eligible parties in the reference I provided. However, Gore's nominators do clearly fall under those guidelines. It's fairly simple. Vassyana 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a reliable source that makes your claim.  You can't make the assertion yourself.  Surely if your claim is true, somewhere there is a reliable source the makes the claim.  I can't imagine that such a thing as an unqualified Nobel Prize nomination for Limbaugh is the type of thing that would go unchallenged.  If not such source is available, then your assessment that Landmark is not qualified is insufficient and original research. —Doug Bell talk 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Vassyana. It is not fairly simple.  I do not see that Al Gore's nominators are eligible.  I do not see a letter from the Nobel Committee.  No. It is not fairly simple.  I do not seel that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  I do not see a letter from the Nobel Commitee stating clearly that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  I understand that you have a personal belief and opinion that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible, but as I stated before you are a Wikipedian and it is ok for you to have a personal opinion, but your personal belief and opinion is not a reliable source for this determination.  There is a reliable source that has stated uncategorically that Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and therefore the information should stay in the article.  You have not provided a third-party independent (non-Wikipedian) reliable source to back up your personal claim that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  You also have not provided third-party independent (non-Wikipedian) reliable sources to back up your personal claim that Al Gore's nominators are eligible.  So the only real choice at this point is to leave in the information.  Wikipedia is not censored. Please see WP:CENSOR.--Getaway 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Getaway, please stop acting stupid. It's not very becoming. You're obviously literate enough to compose a complete sentence, so I'm convinced you're capable of processing what you read. I know you're smart enough to deduce that members of the Norway legislature are qualified to nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I have to wonder why you're pretending that you can't figure that out. Are you on Rush Limbaugh's payroll? --MiguelMunoz 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Since the whole question of whether the nomination comes from an eligible source is so debatable, I suggested an additional standard" A nomination is clearly not "notable" if it is obviously self-serving. Limbaugh's sits on the board of the organization that nominated him. That alone disqualifies the nomination from inclusion in my book. Let's keep that standard in mind. --MiguelMunoz 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Gore has never won the Nobel Prize either, but yet his page lists the nomination 

message: I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AT#Including alleged Nobel Peace Prize nominations in bios on this issue.  It may well eventually be moved off the Village Pump policy page at some point in the future, but it seemed a good place to get the discussion started. —Doug Bell talk 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you could say that consensus was reached, but I've moved the general discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Including alleged Nobel Peace Prize nominations in bios to prevent it from being deleted from the VIlliage Pump.  It did generate a fair amount of discussion. —Doug Bell talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of centralized discussion on inclusion of Nobel Prize nominations in bios 

message: throughout this article there seems to be efforts made by both sides to paint rush as either good or bad.  to read the opening couple of paragraphs one would think that rush was a beloved radio personality by everyone.  in fact, he can be quite polarizing.  transforming am radio?  really?  says who?  i couldnt even access the source to see if what it said because it is so old.
how about mentioning something up front about how he is at the same time loved and disliked by separate groups in this country?  
Brendan19 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the NPOV tag since you need to point to specifics before adding the tag.  Just saying you don't think it's neutral isn't a basis for the tag.--PTR 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, after reading the opening paragraph, I don't see where Brendan reaches the conclusion that "one would think that rush was a beloved radio personality by everyone".  The paragraph discusses mostly objective facts regarding his broadcasting career and references a few subjective outside analysis views on his impact on broadcasting.  There is no discussion of his viewpoints or their popularity, only a discussion of his broadcasting career.  On the other hand, the viewpoint Brendan proposes "he is at the same time loved and disliked by separate groups in this country", would need to be referenced.  Otherwise it would be be original research.  If a reliable source making that observation could be found, I think that could be added to the intro, but lacking a reliable source it can't go in anywhere. —Doug Bell talk 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: At some point, the cyst reference (as mentioned by Allen3 was removed without discussion here on the talk page (looking back thru the archives confirms this lack of removal discussion). I've put it back, referenced it with the  The Rush Limbaugh Story biography, and believe it meets NPOV. --LeyteWolfer 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyst 

message: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh is the place to add random quotes. This was worked out months if not years ago. --Dual Freq 01:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original entry I made was trying to balance out the presummed racism on Limbaugh's part with the brief foray into sportscasting. However, Allen3 correctly highlighted that the position I took was not really NPOV and suggested corrections. Since then, the statement has gotten moved and further altered in ways I felt weren't worthy of protesting without appearing to have ownership on my part. Now, I feel, it has become so diluted as to appear -as you intimated- to be pointless or as a target for anyone with a pro-POV, instead of standing in its stead as a NPOV entry. I look forward to your suggestions (other than outright deletion) that will help fix its original intent. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the point that you are trying to make is this? I assume the controversy mentioned actually was published in a newspaper and not just noted by media matters. Is this the commentary that is referred to? How is the Grossman comment the most profound or controversial thing in his post-super bowl commentary? Why is this noteworthy in the first place? Is it only because media matters chose to single out one sentence of a 15 minute monologue? I think he spent more time criticizing Kati Couric's hair.  I'm trying to understand how this fits in a biography. --Dual Freq 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of block quotes 

message: On his February 5, 2007 show, Limbaugh commented on why Chicago Bears quarterback Rex Grossman was considered a poor athlete by mainstream sports media, for the singular reason that he is white}}
I moved this to the talk page because it seems entirely not notable.  It has a single source and as far as I can tell has generated no interest beyond the initial event.  I am open to discussion.  Does anyone think this belongs in the article, why, and does it conform to WP policies? --Rtrev 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, obviously this is just an arbitrary quote not connected to anything in the bio.  I'm not sure it required discussion to remove it. —Doug Bell talk 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable? 

message: I propose to remove the following from the article:
::=Rushlimbaugh.com=
::In July 2000, Limbaugh launched the web site bearing his name, which includes brief overviews of the current show along with recent headlines from which Limbaugh drew content for his daily radio program. In the beginning, the Web site was a text commentary and transcript-only Web site that allowed his listeners to review the contents of the day's show from a news-based perspective. By December 2000, major changes to the Web site were made, and new downloadable audio-links of daily highlights were available to internet users free of charge. In spring 2001, the Web site had launched a brand-new subscriber based Web site to what would be called "Rush 24/7". Rush 24/7 was now making the entire commercial-free audio of the daily show available all day via streaming internet audio. The new subscriber Web site came to include Limbaugh editorials, commentaries from previous years, and reruns of Limbaugh's defunct television show. By the summer of 2002, a live streaming video feed (the "Ditto Cam") of the radio show was made available to Rush 24/7 subscribers. By 2003, the rushlimbaugh.com Web site introduced a fully interactive Rush Limbaugh store, selling products that Limbaugh marketed (including a signature line of golf apparel, sporting equipment and novelties). The Rush 24/7 site now includes the Podcast feature, in which subscribers can have daily audio and video of the radio show downloaded directly to their iPod or other MP3 player.
The paragraph is unsourced, appears to be original research, and constitutes advertising for Rush's commercial website. Kpedsea 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is too much unnecessary detail in that paragraph.  I think it should be cut down to one or two sourced sentences.  It's probably appropriate to move this to The Rush Limbaugh Show article as the Web site is really just an off shoot of the show. —Doug Bell talk 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur. --LeyteWolfer 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushlimbaugh.com 

message: Ive taken this case to mediate. Ive familiarised myself with the basics. Im curious - Id like to see a quick vote from each of you - are you for or against inclusion and your reasoning in a sentence or two . -Ste|vertigo 08:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic --Dual Freq 06:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with including it, as its been noted in the media. Dont make it a big section that repeats all the various speculations though. -Ste|vertigo 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a non-story and not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Press coverage initially focused on the drug abuse angle expecting that Limbaugh would be sanctioned due to his previous drug issues. However, no charges were filed and the story died. The only reason for including it has been an attempt to drum up some illicit, tabloid style sex tourism rumors. There wasn't much support of a merger in the AfD. --Dual Freq 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The common exclusionist argument is moreoften than not based on a preconcieved or biased notion of what an encyclopedia is. Wikipedia is much more than a typical encyclopedia. -Ste|vertigo 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Much more than a typical encyclopedia, but I thought it was much better than the Weekly World News. There is nothing in that story worth repeating except to imply some sort of unreferenced, unsourced sexual misconduct angle. The only reason it made the press in the first place was the potential for further drug abuse charges. No charges were filed and noteworthiness of the incident was gone. Basically, the story was "Limbaugh got busted with drugs, hopefully he'll be arrested", then when he wasn't, the story became "oops, never mind." The AfD indicates that the community doesn't support a merger of the material. --Dual Freq 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate article was created by an editor after the same information was repeatedly deleted here. The separate article was then proposed for deletion as a POV fork, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic, not because the information was not "notable". (All of this occurred at roughly the same time the Request for Mediation was pending). Deletion of the separate article as a POV fork thus cannot fairly be claimed to have addressed the propriety of including the information here. The Mediation Committee accepted the case and the neutral Mediator designated by the Committee, Ste|vertigo, recommends inclusion. I propose to return the information to the article as framed in the RfM, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh. Kpedsea 05:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not quite what happened in this case. A user was trying to make a point and created a stub article that was deleted and not supported for merger by a fairly wide margin. Comments included: "Non-story. "Celebrity uses Viagra." Really? That must be so uncommon.", "I don't think Wikipedia needs it at all, but it certainly doesn't merit a separate article of its own." "Forking out a news article that does not belong in the encyclopaedia is not the way to solve a content dispute over a biographical article." I'd say the AfD is defiantly pertinent. --Dual Freq 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor Dual Freq was originally listed as an “Involved party” in the RfM but withdrew, writing (as shown on the history page): “don't drag me in to this, I removed the item because it was placed in improper chronology. I only engaged the talk page once a separate article was created.” Two other editors involved in the RfM, who originally opposed inclusion, have also withdrawn. The neutral Mediator supports inclusion. I think it is time to move forward. Kpedsea 16:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wanted to be removed from mediation because I don't like going around in circles with a bunch of single purpose accounts. I will be removing the non-notable material per the community consensus not to merge on the AfD. --Dual Freq 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There has already been lengthy 5000+ word discussion on this matter, it is clearly not worth a single word in an encyclopedia. A point was made creating the article, the article was deleted, there is no reason to dump this here. --Dual Freq 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who nominated that article for deletion, I think that interpreting the results of that AfD as "this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all" is a false interpretation of those events.  The only correct interpretation of that process was that particular article, at that particular time, was judged by some group of editors to be unsuitable for a stand-alone article.  The issue of including the material elsewhere and in some other form is a separate one altogether.  --ElKevbo 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am for inlcusion, as the media coverage of this issue shows it to satisfy the notability criteria. Also, some of those who support deleting the material have withdrawn from the mediation process. Is there any reason not to include this material now? Lurker oi! 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: What happened to the controversies page on this guy, there used to be a huge segment, and I think a whole separate page on Limbaugh controversy, now there is barely a paragraph.  Same thing with the Page on O'reily too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.228.96.42 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: "Limbaugh has been attacked for his views on global warming. He claims that scientist's "consensus" results are predetermined by benefactors (i.e. the United Nations) with a pro-warming agenda. As evidence he cites the Kyoto Agreement's exclusion of the world's largest polluter, mainland China, from severe restrictions that would otherwise apply to the United States economy."
I don't think the first sentence belongs with the rest of the paragraph.    After reading the first sentence, I was expecting a summary or selection or attacks.  Instead, there is a discussion or RL's criticism of scientists.  Shouldn't these be in two sepatate pragraphs if included? Kdammers 04:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The first sentence should be followed by a summary of the "attacks", and then by a paragraph describing Rush's position on global climate change. Kpedsea 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming text 

message: Limbaugh's image is probably going to be deleted from wikimedia commons. When I originally uploaded it there it was Cc-by-sa-2.0 licensed on Flickr, but #REDIRECT now the Flickr source shows it non-commercial. Bottom line is there is no way to prove it wasn't always listed non-commercial so it will probably be deleted. I suggest that we find a replacement image. --Dual Freq 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh Image