Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 7

message: After a bit of poking around the :Category:Cyborgs page, I noticed that Michael Chorost was listed because he has a cochlear implant. Since Limbaugh also has one, I thought it would be logical to add him to this category as well. This was promptly reverted, apparently viewed as vandalism. Unless somebody can give me a good reason why one person with a cochlear implant belongs in the aforementioned category, and one does not, I'm going to add the category again.65.31.149.61 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyborg category 

message: I have reverted the reintroduction of the Nobel Prize information. Rush Limbaugh's nomination came "unsolicited" (by the nom's own admission) and from a party that does not even fit the criteria for potentially eligible nominators. All I can find to support it are reprints of the press release, summaries of the press release, brief secondary mentions, and blogosphere chatter. Please show me a reliable source on the matter. Claiming Al Gore's nomination is on his page is just not relevent. Al Gore's nomination had primary coverage from the mainstream media. Al Gore's nomination was explicitly legit since Norway's legislators have the privelege to nominate candidates for the prize, according to the AP, AFP and other reliable sources. Trying to justify the inclusion of Rush's nom because Al's is included is based on a false comparison. Vassyana 17:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we had this discussion before.  Please review previous discussion above.  We don't know that Al Gore's nomination is valid or not.  We don't know if Al Gore's nomination was solicited or not.  We don't know if the nominators of Al Gore are eligible or not.  Yes, it is relevant whether the Nobel nomination is mentioned on Al Gore's page.  It is Wikipedia and we need to maintain consistency. Please provide me a reliable source that Al Gore's nomination is valid. That is the NPOV manner to handle the situation.  Have a good day.--Getaway 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are questions about whether or not Al Gore's nomination was valid, those should be addressed on the talk page for Al Gore's article.  It has absolutely nothing to do with this article. --Onorem 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Jackryan 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm. Seems a stretch. -Stevertigo 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone want to discuss this rather than revert/revert?--PTR 18:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The info listed is accurate.  It says they issued a press release saying etc.  They did issue one.  There has been much discussion on whether or not nominations belong in the bios with no consensus being reached.  I think we should err on the side of inclusion until we have discussed and come to consensus.  This is and will be a current event until the Nobel Prize is awarded.  If people want information about it they should be able to find out the facts.  It will probably be non-notable after the prize is awarded (to someone else of course). --PTR 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version of the Nobel information added today is a re-insertion of the version agreed to in the previous talk page discussion, where no concensus was reached.  The wording has been vetted by several other Wikipedians (once again, please review previous discussion) and the information was found to be as accurate as Wikipedians we could be.  Also, it is clear that many, many Wikipedians believe that Al Gore's nomination should be mentioned and your decision to delete the information negates the opinions of those Wikipedians, which is not in line with principles and concepts of Wikipedia to reach consensus and mutual agreement.  You can't just decide that the opinion of other Wikipedians is not important.--Getaway 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, since a Nobel Prize nomination is meaningless unless given by a qualified group or individual, please show that the Landmark Foundation are elligible to nominate, or the section will be removed. Oh, and your statement The version of the Nobel information added today is a re-insertion of the version agreed to in the previous talk page discussion, where no concensus was reached is oxymoronic. If no consensus was reached, how can there be "a version agreed to"? Lurker oi! 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article seems to suggest the nomination is invalid http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070222.wnobel0222/BNStory/International/home. Therefore, I am going to have to insist on the material being justified by evidence that the foundation is actually eligible to nominate. If we allow ineligible nominations to be included, literally anyone could be nominated for a nobel prize by anyone else, and get it mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Lurker oi! 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, the article is subscribers-only, unless accessed via Google News here: http://news.google.com/news?q=%22rush%20limbaugh%22%20nobel%20prize&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn Lurker oi! 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good information.  Don't you think if someone is coming here to find out if Rush Limbaugh had been nominated it would be good to have the information included?  I think this is one of those current events people want to look up and in 6 months it won't be of interest or notable anymore.  --PTR 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Contrary to edit claims by Cylonhunter, Getaway and others in their edit summaries, the removed section does not cite appropriate resources. One source is a press release, which is not a reliable source. The other says nothing about Limbaugh's nomination and even if it did, vanity claims by Limbaugh would not be a reliable source. See my above comments for more of my take on all this. Vassyana 17:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gores source is ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100377.html isn't that a press release. --Cylonhunter 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad link.  I've replaced it, in the Al Gore article, with http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16920923/.  And no, that wasn't a press release by an organization that had absolutely no authority to make a nomination ("unsolicited" or otherwise), it was an Associated Press story based on talking to a Norwegian legislator who is one of the limited number of people who can make such a nomination.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hm. Maybe Limbaugh was nominated by a Bush administration official, in which case that would make it a legitimate nomination? (Sort of). But ala, in the absence of such evidence, it would seem this particular matter would be closed, with any mention of such claimed "nomination" being entirely removable. That said, I have never been a stickler for exclusionism - it may be appropriate to include mention of the nomination, but only provided the appropriate context is given - that his nomination came from an unqualified source, that supporters compared Limbaugh's nomination to Al Gore's, though Gore's was legitimate. -Stevertigo 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the secrecy surrounding the nominations talking about them is an inexact science at best anyway.--Cylonhunter 13:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then when he actually is nominated to join the pantheon of Nobel laureates, we should certainly make a mention of it. -Stevertigo 10:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is exactly why we need to so strictly interpret WP:ATT about reliable sources. Blog chatter, brief side mentions, press releases and regurgitated press releases won't meet the mark. Like Al Gore's nomination, we need primary coverage in a reliable source, preferrably confirming the eligibility of the nominating party. Otherwise we're just engaging in speculation and original research. Vassyana 11:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree if  and when the Nobel Committee releases the nominations in approx. fifty years then we should mention nominations.I have listened to his show and within all liklihood this is a joke--Cylonhunter 13:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Nobel Prize information 

message: Alright, if reuters does not say that the Nobel Prize committee has acknowledged Limbaughs nomination, could we at least say that "Limbaugh CLAIMS to have been recognized by the committee?" I mean, this issue shouldn't be that hard to resolve, it's not like he's going to win or something....Judgesurreal777 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to take this opportunity to announce my intentions to nominate Rush for the next 35 Nobel Peace Prize awards.  The nominations not being valid shouldn't have any bearing on the decision to include them... --Onorem 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, come on Onorem, he has been going on about it since January, and it is notable at least from the merchandising aspect, which he is certainly capitalizing on. Judgesurreal777 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he's capitalizing on it.  The stunt wouldn't make sense if they didn't try to capitalize on it. I won't revert you a third time if you add the section to the article again, although I'm guessing others might.  I just don't believe the "nomination" is newsworthy.   --Onorem 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well how about this: I'll add it taking what we talked about into account, and you can either amend it or we can talk more. :) Judgesurreal777 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Nobel Prize nomination 

message: From what I remember, he also wrote two book, "The Way Things Ought to Be" and "See, I Told You So".  Aren't published books worthy of note?  I remember doing book reports on the in middle school. -64.9.55.250 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rush Limbaugh#Bibliography, right above the list of 4,000 books written about Limbaugh. --Dual Freq 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: I readded the Media Matters link, which was removed without comment a while ago. As Media Matters reports and quotes Limbaugh and contains commentary it should be included. Arbustoo 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MM is acceptable per WP:EL. Arbustoo 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no discussion, though it was removed. Arbustoo 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters external link 

message: Isn't the term "ultra-liberal" POV? Therefore 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAIR, ultra-liberal 

message: Does anyone know where you can find sources where nonporfits get their funding? I think 204.58.248.32 comment while not neutral was accurate in a sense,"Democrat-funded and Democrat-staffed organization that is" that it not funded by the democrat party, democrats fund this organization according to this website http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Matters_for_America (although, they are probably conservative). Media Matters is hardly fair in coverage or neutral, though--Kolrobie 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't a wikilink to Media Matters for America enough?  The article about that organization should describe its funding, purpose, executive leadership, connections to political parties, etc.  The group probably comments on dozens of individuals and organizations; do we really want to have content disputes in dozens of articles about what the group is and isn't, as opposed to working for factual and NPOV language in the article that is just about the group itself?  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I think maybe a link with maybe a short sentence explaining the link. --Kolrobie 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non profit funding? 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a section or reference to Limbaugh's racist song about Barack Obama, "Barack the Magic Negro"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.99.154 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, figuring that it wasn't Limbaugh that came up with the "Barack the Magic Negro" concept in the first place.65.40.171.85 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, considering that Limbaugh is the one who popularized this racist attack on Barack Obama, and considering that it is a good example of how Limbaugh operates to ridicule and belittle those he disagrees with, and incites his followers to do the same. But, practically speaking, it is not worth adding such a section as this page is heavily patrolled by Limbaugh flacks who ensure it sanitizes his reputation of any of his more objectionable and un-American antics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, it's made news and headlines and adds to the notability of the subject.  I'm surprised this article does not have any type of Controversy/Criticism section, like the Michael Moore article does.  I hope this is changed soon. Justinm1978 06:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprised?  Indeed.  It is not for lack of trying.  There used to be a considerable section of controversy way back when, before the Limbaugh flacks/lackeys started working full-time to censor and keep this page lily-white and free from any of the Goebbels or hate speech references that Limbaugh so readily conjures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: During the 1980s he poked fun at "The Reverend Jessee Jackson", so he knows how to make money by poking fun at whichever Negro happens to be in the spotlight.  He became a very rich man;  I give him credit.HYPERDUNCE 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people relish his cornball sense of humor and pay him millions of dollars for producing the materials which bring laughter to them.HYPERDUNCE 11:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And some people just don't have a sense of humor. The Magic Negro song WAS funny! (if you're not a humorless PC drip, that is.)68.36.127.193 10:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  barack the magic negro 

message: Before we rush off and delete the whole thing.  Let's discuss it and work on obtaining some sources for the text.
We are supposed to assume good faith.  I add some  tags and kickoff a discussion.
Only if I believe the unsourced text is false do I delete it, otherwise I leave the tag to an editor who cares. patsw 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh on Global Warming 

message: Let Asia take care of that one, the US is already doing hybrid cars.  I need a break on this topic.  Back when we debated the Renewable energy topic, there was evidence of global warming occouring thousands of years ago, so it must just be climate change?  So Al Gore really looked like a fool a few months ago when he testified on global warming.  Just let him and John Malone form a non-for profit organization together, then Al gore would be sorry for calling malone darth vader in the 80's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.216.141.167 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please observe Wikipedia policies on civil discourse, I know Global Warming is a sensitive subject, but still. Judgesurreal777 15:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't worry about Global Warming 

message: I'm adding a full explanation what I think are minor edits since this is a quite active page. Under the Prescription Drug Addiction section, I deleted the sentence "The Florida courts ruled for Limbaugh." It seemed to me to be more NPOV to simply state what the court ruled, and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. Since the next sentence all ready did just that, I felt the sentence was a throwaway that could be deleted. I also moved the term "doctor shopping" into the lead sentence of the paragraph dealing with Limbaugh's surrender/arrest on that charge. The way the paragraph read previously, you had to read three sentences down to learn the charge. It also could have lead to the incorrect impression that Limbaugh turned himself in on a different charge, but ultimately plead not guilty to the doctor shopping charge.  Finally, I made a very minor tense agreement change. Xymmax 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: I am disappointed to find no "Controversy Section" in the Rush Limbaugh article, considering his reputation.  Virtually every figure on Wikipedia has a controversy section, and the absence of one here suggests that this article is overly biased.  This is not an intellectual article as required by Wikipedia's mission, this is self promotion.--Waxsin 22:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Controversy Section" for the same reason that there is no "Praise Section".  Information in well written articles intentionally interweaves both positive and negative information together to provide a balanced and neutral text compliant with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view and biographies of living people.  Such an effort also has the advantage of being easier to understand because all information regarding an event are co-located in the article instead of fragmented into multiple statements located in separate sections.  The down side to this organization is that individuals coming to this article looking for information supporting their preexisting biases are forced to read the entire article.  As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advocacy site, this should not be a problem. --Allen3 talk 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Such an effort also has the advantage of being easier to understand because all information regarding an event are co-located in the article instead..."  Then I wouldn't consider the "Rush Limbaugh Show" an event as it was a period in his life, while the events involving Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease and the "phony soldier" incident are specific events that occurred in Rush Limbaugh's life and were part of his notoriety from the public perspective.  The reason why biographies are written is because the subject has achieved some level of notoriety in the public eye, hence a biography's purpose is also to point out and explain why that subject is famous, whether because of positive or negative reasons.  As an example, Roseanne Barr has her own controversy section which helps the reader understand other references to an incident within the article and helps clarify something the reader may have heard only by word of mouth.  The "Rush Limbaugh Show" has its own article already, while these incidents are specific to Rush Limbaugh, thus I do not think there would be much disorganization if a controversy section were made.--Waxsin 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You may agree but it still doesn't make much sense.  He doesn't have a praise section, or a controversy section.  Controversies are mentioned as in any biography but they don't need a stand alone section.  Calling it smoke and mirrors is just an ad hominem attack and doesn't do much for consensus, so please refrain. --Rtrev 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: I've protected this article until the dispute over this section are resolved. When consensus is achieved on how to refer to FAIR and other matters, please make an unprotection request at WP:RFPP. Thanks.--Chaser - T 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper term to use for both FAIR and Media Matters is progressive.  This is because both organizations self-identify as being progressive and provide verifiability of this term on their own web pages( and ).  --Allen3 talk 14:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: To tell you the truth, I am happy with the way this part of the article reads now; however, I still prefer to see the whole section deleted.  I don't think the criticism of the opposing political view point belongs in an encyclopedia.  From my perspective, seeing sections like this in an article makes me question the neutral standpoint and validity of wikipedia.--Leiding 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue Post-protected

message: Shouldn't the outburst towards Michael J. Fox be mentioned here? It was the one event that has made his name known other places than the US. Madskile 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't an outburst, it was a premeditated attack. It was on his October 23, 2006 broadcast, when Limbaugh gave his considered commentary on Michael J. Fox's appearance in an ad endorsing Claire McCaskill for her support of stem cell research. Limbaugh noted that Fox was "moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." He added, "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two." Of course, the full effect was only for his ditto-cam viewers, since his listeners couldn't appreciate the little "spastic dance" Limbaugh was doing as he spoke. In fact, Fox's tremors were the result of his medication, not of a failure to take them for effect, as Limbaugh charged. Limbaugh later issued the following non-apology: "So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act." Bernie Goldberg, commenting on the incident on The O'Reilly Factor, said, "I love Rush Limbaugh. He made one mistake that I wish he hadn't. He did that spastic dance. If he didn't do that we wouldn't be talking about Rush Limbaugh, and neither would Diane Sawyer. And that's the point." The various videos, as featured on Keith Olberman's MSNBC program, can be seen here.- Nunh-huh 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you don't seem to be actually reading the article, I thought I'd answer your question here. It's already mentioned in the article proper. - Nunh-huh 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, Limbaugh chose to address these supposed "lies" not by discussing them, but by a bit of mocking choreography, and some lies of his own. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: fyi, Parkinson's drugs treat only the ('spaz') symptoms, and are eventually ineffective as the actual disease progresses. When not killed sooner by other cause, Parkinson's patients die due to Parkinsons's. AFAIK, there is no cure for Parkinson's. though there must be a Parkinson's page on wp... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_disease#Prognosis read "PD is not considered to be a fatal disease by itself," .. "PD may cause complications such as choking, pneumonia, and falls that can lead to death." IOW, when the nervous system can no longer keep critical muscles working, the patient dies.  2z2z 02:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is discussing adding anything to the article. Which you'd see if you read it. - 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't assume anything, I concluded it after you (repeatedly) have written things that fail to indicate--even yet--that you realize the information is already in the article. - Nunh-huh 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have a source for this claim, it would be great to include this. Ausman 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fox made no such admission.  It's only Limbaugh partisans who pretend he did. Jhobson1 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael J. Fox 

message: I don't really care about Rush's relationship with the draft.  I find anti-military POV in this statement:
:"… [failing in everything] would have normally made him eligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War …"
This makes it sound like being a loser is qualification for military service.  I doubt that such a notion can be verified and humbly request that the sentence be amended.  I would have it proceed:
:"…according to his mother, 'he flunked everything,' even a modern ballroom dancing class.  He was also deemed ineligible to be drafted for service in the Vietnam War, being classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to …"
Or, perhaps the failure theme could be propagated in that he failed to get into the draft.  I am not sure whether anybody feels that such should be reason for disappointment, though.—Red Baron 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the point is that having passing grades would have qualified him for an exemption from the draft. When he failed all of his classes, he would have become eligible if not for the undisclosed medical issue. I think you are seeing a POV by thinking of it as "being a loser is qualification for military service" instead of "failing out of school is a qualification for losing draft exemption status." Perhaps the section needs to be worded better, but I don't believe there is any intentional anti-military POV there. --OnoremDil 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft POV 

message: For all of his claims of being more "objective" and "scientific" than those "political" scientists who acknowledge global warming, something should also be said about Mr. Limbaugh's own publicly stated views and positions on evolution vs. intelligent design/creationism, and perhaps contrasted with other instances when, while arguing other topics or making jokes, he seems to imply that he accepts evolution. Also, I remember him insinuating that Magic Johnson must have had sex with a gay man in order to get HIV; does this mean he believes only gay or bisexual men contract HIV (known as the "AIDS virus")? This issue should be explored also. 
Shanoman 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was when Magic first announced in late 1991, that should be mentioned in the context that between gay sex and using intravaneous drugs were the only known ways (at that time) to contract it. WAVY 10 Fan 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rush & Science (Evolution and AIDS)

message: "...and he was sharply critical of broadcasters in all media for claiming to be objective when, as he described it, their bias was overwhelmingly evident. His bias, he says, balances things out."
I don't think that was that was the point he has made. He said that most of the media is liberal biased, while claiming to be unbiased. Rush, on the other hand, always tells you that he is biased, and is unapologetic about it. Should I change it? Anyone disagree?
Sorry for not signing
Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the point 

message: I find it interesting that while Rush devoted an hour and a half or so of his show discussing this very topic, you only take a handful of excerpts to attack him. To all those who don't think this is a POV article from people who don't like him - you are so full of it.
Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that says Fox admitted that? If so, I'm not sure why it wouldn't belong in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael J. Fox 

message: *The Media Matters Organization is an organization centered on a political ideology, and therefore violates the neutrality of the article. --SirAndrew1 02:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they are self described as "A non-profit progressive research and information center"  progressive is liberal.  They should be taken down for POV and bias reasons.Wvfd14 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  Yes they are self described as biased but they are generally factually accurate.  This has been long discussed on WP:EL and WP:RS.  The conclusion I usually see is that if the citation is a fact (i.e. Limbaugh is 6 feet tall) then it is reliable.  If it is opinion (i.e. Limbaugh is a liar) then it is not ok.  However, it is ok to mention something Media Matters has done in relation to Limbaugh (i.e. "liberal media group 'Media Matters' called Limbaugh a liar on national TV, Limbaugh denies") as long as it maintains WP:NPOV and can be verified without WP:OR. --Rtrev 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truncating and placing comments out of context should be reason to remove them.  By your own reasoning, they are "generally" accurate.  It is their bias that they clearly take anyone with a tinge of republican/conservative out of context, and fail to mention anything against democrats/liberals.  How can they be called 'neutral' when they only semi-report in one direction?Wvfd14 14:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Media Matters is totally biased. They were started by democrats to scrutinize conservative press. They should not be considered a NPOV. Ryratt 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Media Matters Link

message: There is some serious warring going on here, I'm saying this as a third party observer and that just shouldn't happen, my evidence to the fact, the reason I noticed this is because an IP blanked the whole disputed section.
Tennekis 05:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection has been requested. 

message: I think we should add this under the Television Show section (2.3.2). It is sourced in numerous places and was an important event in his career and is already included in the Chelsea Clinton page.
Perhaps since this event is controversial, we should indicate that by using the following proposed wording:
----
Rush Limbaugh is reported as saying on the television show about then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" []
[]
The transcript of the show appears to indicate that it was a flub, which is what Limbaugh stated the next show, when he said "I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks."
----
Ausman 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have read that as flub.  I read it as second joke.  "she can't control the way she looks" is a very dry sense of humor that reinforces the original joke.  It's a backhanded apology designed to be funny.  He uses this form of humor all the time.  --Tbeatty 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is how I read it, too, but I was going to just post the words he said and let people make up their own mind. Ausman 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with this proposed addition is that it is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy due to the fact there are two clearly viable interpretations of this event: a flub or an attack.  Without indisputable evidence that this event was more than an innocent mistake on the part of Limbaugh and his staff, Wikipedia policy is clear on material like this NOT being included. --Allen3 talk 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the next paragraph Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I think that this is a clear example of that kind of situation. The Washington Post is a "reliable published source," though I have contacted the author of the original piece to ask her to source her statement. I am perfectly happy to have it rewritten so that the article entry is a neutral POV, what I am not happy with is that someone just pulled it because they didn't like it. This is an important event in Rush Limbaugh's career and the biography of him is incomplete without mention of it. Ausman 19:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelsea The White House Dog 

message: Rush has announced that this article has recently become the target for vandals who have been traced to one of the Democratic presidential candidates' headquarters.  Therefore, I believe that this article should be checked frequently for subtle damage, even though the last attempt wasn't so subtle.  Rush has said that he doesn't edit the page, so it's up to his informed listeners to keep the page acurate. Flag-Waving American Patriot 16:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that too. I've watchlisted this page. Smokizzy (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto (no pun intended).  WAVY 10 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, the vandalism Limbaugh was talking about wasn't "recent".  It happened in 2005. --Hiddekel 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me remind everyone that Wikipedia discussion pages are to talk about the improvement of the article. They are not message boards. Trusilver 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Specific information about what you feel is incorrect would be more helpful than soapboxing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Target for Liberal Vandals. 

message: The BBC story about CIA edits to Wikipedia, also includes this:
:The site also indicates that a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic," a "racist", and a "bigot". An entry about his audience now reads: "Most of them are legally retarded."
Just wanted to be sure that those editing this page knew about the article, which was marked, "Last Updated: Wednesday, 15 August 2007, 17:46 GMT 18:46 UK" -Harmil 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC story 

message: After reading the first paragraph, I think it is a little suspect (POV even) that nothing about the considerable controversy he stirs up is mentioned. Full disclosure: I usually vote democrat, but don't consider myself particularly fond of either party. But when I think of Rush Limbaugh, three specific things stick in my mind: 1) he's a conservative pundit 2) he admitted to being addicted to painkillers and that this appeared somewhat hypocritical 3) he got kicked off of NFL Countdown. Now 1 is mentioned, and 3 might just be because I'm a big football fan, but I'd wager a lot of people remember 2 as well - or remember other controversies he's caused. If he can be "considered to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's Congressional victories in 1994" shouldn't he also be, I don't know, 'considered a rabble rouser' or something? Wouldn't that be more balanced. Normally I'd be bold, but since its a first paragraph... Clemenjo 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Items 2 and 3 on your list are not included for the same reason that the paragraph does not mention that Limbaugh is a former television host, and best selling author.  The core of Limbaugh's fame is based on his radio show and political commentary.  After these first two interlinked items, the things that Limbaugh are known for depend as much upon the observer's perspective as upon Limbaugh himself.  As a result building a list for the introductory paragraph that extends beyond item 1 on your list becomes as much an exercise in POV as it does in describing Limbaugh. --Allen3 talk 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly relinquish his addiction to painkillers, his termination from NFL countdown, and his status as a popular author/TV personality as items which are central to his fame. Certainly, all came afterwards. However, I can't quite totally discount that the frequent air of controversy surrounding him has been somewhat integral to his career. I think you could argue that it is a part of the way he conducts himself as a radio personality, and a key component of his political commentary. He certainly didn't get famous catalyzing the Republican Party in 1994 (not outside his base, at least), yet that's mentioned in the intro. There are a lot of conservative pundits, yet he is by far the most famous, precisely because he's the most controversial. Clemenjo 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The charge that Limbaugh is controversial has been discussed before and has been removed due to the fact that it is unverifiable.  At the core of the issue is a confusion between the message and the messenger.  Limbaugh, in his role as a political commentator, expresses a number of opinions on controversial contemporary issues.  The fact that Limbaugh's opinions do not receive universal approval does not mean that Limbaugh is controversial, or even that his opinions are controversial, just the topics discussed in such a manner are controversial.  The assertion that Limbaugh is famous because he is controversial is also opinion.  Limbaugh has hosted a highly rated radio talk show for over twenty years, which is reason in itself for Limbaugh to have gained a significant level of celebrity.  Limbaugh's show has provided a very large pulpit from which to preach his political philosophy, and at least one editorial has suggested that Limbaugh's large audience is the reason the political left has tried to marginalize the radio host. --Allen3 talk 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph  

message: Since this is a place to point out vandalism or mistakes, I would like to draw attention to the misquote that claims Mr. Limbaugh said something to the effect of "...let the stupid Mexicans do the unskilled labor".  This is found towards the end of the Balance and point of view section.  I would have removed this quote, yet I do not know how to remove the false footnote (which in no way backs up the quote, and is in fact an article about his time at ESPN) without damaging the numbering system.  Furthermore, I think that a goodly portion of the section titled "questions of accuracy" fails in noting biased sources as such.  It can hardly be claimed that an organization that claims progressivism as part of it's make-up and Al Franken, consitute credible sources that should be relied upon when discussing Rush's accuracy.Rocdahut 07:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for the quote does back up what is in the article. The comment about Mexicans is in the second to last paragraph. --Onorem♠Dil 10:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a source like that needs to be weighed carefully. It is a republication of a Boston Globe op-ed piece on a "progressive" website. I am anything but a Limbaugh fan but a good researcher has to determine the credibility of sources as well. IvoShandor 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake

message: How is his name pronounced? Is it "Lim-Bough", "Lim-Bo" (as in "Snow"), or "Lim-Buff"? Rusty2005 10:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thankyou for letting me know! Us foreigners sometimes have difficulty pronouncing the names of people who make you lot squabble so much ;-) Just a light-hearted joke, I have no interest in this man and the arguments surrounding him but he seems important over in the US and it's confusing when you don't know how those important names are said. I'll see if I can put an IPA transliteration after his name, always helpful on names with those awkward vowel groups. Rusty2005 14:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hello,
I have now completed my review of this article.
The article is very well written. A fantastic set of references, citations, and external sources are provided - over eighty in fact. The article doesn't appear to have any edit warring etc. that would affect its stability. The image used appears to be licensed correctly, though you may wish to give it some ALT text. I am quite satisfied that this article was written from a Neutral Point of View. The editors who have worked hard on this article should be proud of themselves.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  
As a result, the article on Rush Limbaugh has been passed and promoted to good article status.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Congratulations, and I hope this article will continue to receive the attention that it has, and may one day end up a featured article. Pursey Talk | Contribs 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review for [[Rush Limbaugh]] 

message: in 2007 he was nominated for a nobel peace prize. i dont usually edit things on wikipedia, but when i tried to do it it was locked or something and i couldnt do it.
heres a web sight as proof
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.63.248 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look through the talk page archives (links adjacent to this page's table of contents) for an explanation as to why this nomination is not included in the article. --Allen3 talk 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Allen, that seems like an unreasonable request, since the archives are extensive and not well indexed.  Please summarize your objection to the inclusion of a factual statement. Although such a nomination may be trivial, the man himself is trivial but notable. --Kevin Murray 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it. There is no "Nobel Prize nomination" in any meaningful sense, as there is no formal procedure and any correspondence with the committee is kept secret. Limbaugh knows this: When he mentions his "nomination" on the show, he's joking. It's that simple. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nobel peace prize nomination 

message: Can a description of the parody of Al Sharpton singing " Barak, the Magic Negro" That was aired several times on his radio show, and the resulting controversy be included in this article? http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/BarackSection/Drive-By_Media_Misreporting_of__Barack_the_Magic_Negro__Song.guest.html Die4Dixie 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The L.A. Times reference is correct; but since Paul Shanklin does a lot of parodies mostly for Rush's show, I think if that comment is still in the article, it should be modified to mention Shanklin's involvement.  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Sharpton Parody

message: It might just be me, but it seems that this page (as well as Wikipedia) lacks any actual criticism of Limbaugh (which there is much that is definitely substantial, O'Reilly even has a page for that, it is ridiculous that this sharply criticized figure has only two paragraphs of criticism.Planetsconspire 00:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to work with me to insert the "Barack, the Magic Negro!" controversy? Follow the link above. There are several audio files of the song available on line. We could probably link to one and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.We could discuss proposals on how to include it here.Die4Dixie 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's unacceptable that the page doesn't include the recent "phony soldiers" development. Commentators are very rarely rebuked by sitting members of congress. If the moveon.org page has a reference to it's "betrayus" ad, this article should mention an event eliciting a nearly identical reaction from congress. 134.84.102.150 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would invite you to get an account; Reference what you would like to put in the article and put it in.Do you have any ideas for adding the "Barack, the Magic Negro!" story?Die4Dixie 21:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can mention it, but should also mention how the claim that he called all anti-war soldiers "phony soldiers", and not just the actually phony soldier he was discussing, is a complete falsehood created by taking his comments out of context in order to attack him for his conservative beliefs. Put that in the article too. Judgesurreal777 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened to the five minutes before and after the comment and do not see Media Matters' analysis of the comments as incorrect. However, I feel that both of these instances might be more appropriately placed on the radio show's entry rather than his entry as they happened on the show. Planetsconspire 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a very good point, I think that's best. Judgesurreal777 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you could include a link to the previous five minutes that'd be great. It might also be worth pointing to ABC's segment on "Phoney Heroes" two days prior to the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwnW08uUCLY Alanstrohm 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI including a controversy section is pointless, Limbots sanitize this article 24/7 removing any factual unsavory information about this buffoon.  You may as well include a section on his favorite vacation spots, like the Dominican Republic, which once upon a time was in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Most controversy sections are POV and create balance issues. If there is a specific issues, add it to the section where it talks about it, for example, his drug use in the section on his show for example, so it wouldn't need its own section. Judgesurreal777 04:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: There is one instance of the word "compete" in this article.  It should be "complete".  I would fix it myself, but the article is locked...
Alanstrohm 21:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out where? WAVY 10 Fan 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo 

message: The Lymphoma charity stuff is strangely under 'Philosophy'.
Also, there is no direct link to Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the pilonidal cyst that kept him out of the army. It's mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 01:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sinus incyst.  Thank You.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 02:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of Lymphoma?

message: I wanted to add that Mr. Rush Limbaugh was doing nothing wrong in the island of Dominican Republic, where he traveled as a normal tourist to enjoy the beauty of the country. Certain reports are indicating that he might have been traveling for sex, because of the Viagra bottle issues he faced at the customs checks of the Palm Beach airport. If he was indeed in a place where people go with the intention to have sex with women ( www.charlisangels.com )the site in question displays adult women, consenting European of ages 22-28 who travel from halfway around the world to earn thousands of dollars entertaining visitors of those "escorts resorts" and in the end help their poverty-stricken families back in Eastern Europe. In the last decade we have seen many scandals involving elected officials that really put into question who we are as a modern society. Mr. Rush is just another divorced man who will always feel the need for a relaxing Caribbean trip, as millions do.
Oskar0967 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add something in the article related to this, the key word here is "references", so post some reliable external links. Judgesurreal777 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It can't have been a terribly "sexy" vacation, since he used only one of the 30 Viagra tablets he took with him to the island. - Nunh-huh 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be quite a valuable addition to verify that Limbaugh goes to a well-known sex tourism spot frequented by pedophiles carrying viagra in order to enjoy the natural beauty of the scenery. Please add this sourced information as soon as possible, so that Rush's saintly reputation may go unbesmirched!  The Dominican Republic's young boys will live in fear until this can be clarified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rush Limbaugh`s Dominican erotic vacation 

message: Rush is more accurately described as a neo-conservative, not a conservative. The article should be edited to reflect this. His strong support of nation-building and preemptive warfare are not traditional conservative views, they are neoconservative. Please view the wikipedia aticles on "conservative" and "neoconservative" if you do not know the difference.Byates5637 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with this change, even if true, is that it violates Wikipedia:No original research.  Limbaugh calls himself a conservative and is commonly referred to as a conservative in mainstream media reports.  Thus it is possible to provide verification to the claim that Limbaugh is a conservative with a minimum of bias.   Without a proper supply of reliable sources attesting the a neo-conservative label, Wikipedia policy is clear on which term should be used. --Allen3 talk 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allen3 is exactly right on this on.  However, you should also take a look at the wikipedia page for Neoconservatism.  I think you will find that Rush really doesn't fall in well with the likes of Podhoretz, Kristol and/or the crowd at Commentary Magazine or The New Republic.  He seems to be more in line with regular old conservativism if you will allow me a little editorializing. --Rtrev 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to fall more in between traditional and neo-conservatism, I think.  WAVY 10 Fan 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neo Conservative is a liberal code word used to refer to Jewish conservatives, so it would be POV to call him that as a fact and not just an opinion by someone. Judgesurreal777 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, neoconservatism is a distinct school of political thought. It differs sharply from from traditional conservativism. It has nothing to do with religion, and to suggest it does shows your own POV. I am relpacing the phrase conservative with "self described conservative" and adding a controversy section. Byates5637 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, even though Bill Kristol coined the word "NeoCon", liberals use that word to attempt to discredit/silence conservative critics (especially if they're Jewish), rather that debate the substance of any particular topic. TodKarlson 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative? 

message: The link is dead.
Cs302b 10:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference #60

message: See his website. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsletter

message: I recently moved a large chunk of material out of the "Rush Limbaugh Show" section for a variety of reasons.  First, this section is far too long in proportion to the other sections at the same level.  Secondly, the section has of late become a dumping ground for material critical of Limbaugh and his show.  In particular, all of this additional material refers to controversies of the Limbaugh show over the past 1 year.  So it was clearly out of place in the chronology.  70.20.97.103 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently one editor is having problems with popups, and (here and elsewhere) reverted too far back into the revision history.  I come along and try to set things right, and suddenly every anti-vandalism warrior is on the bandwagon against me.  Please note that, although it may appear as though a section was deleted, it was in fact moved down to the appropriate position in the chronology.  71.182.215.210 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the edit was reverted as simple vandalism.  This is not appropriate:  see WP:BITE, WP:VAND.  Moreover, a descriptive edit summary is otherwise ordinarily required for reverting an edit otherwise.  My take is that it was a mistake on the part of the reverting editor, who seems to have had popup rollback issues elsewhere as well.  How about we let the edit stand, so that someone with an opinion one way or the other comes along?  Surely you don't feel strongly that three paragraphs documenting events in the past year should remain in a chronology for the 1990's? 71.182.215.210 (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Things are starting to become a little better with the article structure.  However, I still feel that the Rush Limbaugh show section suffers from some structural problems.  First of all, I don't think the other sections (Television show, etc) are supposed to be subsections of it, but I could be wrong.  Another thing is that I wonder why there are all these controversies in the section over the past year or so?  In fact, the section is primarily about recent Limbaugh controversies.  It would be more accurate to rename the section "Limbaugh Controversies from 2007" (not that I advocate doing that).  It seems clear to me that much of this material should be moved to another section.  Otherwise the article seems to give undue weight to stuff that happened only in the past year (see WP:Recentism).  Moreover, the section loses focus, and it becomes mired in these sort of irrelevant trivialities.  My final issue, which may or may not reflect a bias on my own part, is that the controversial material (as well as its placement in the article) seems to communicate a clear anti-Rush POV.  It would be better (for me at least) to have it separated out so that a reader who is interested in finding out about recent Rush controversies can do so more easily.  Anyway, that's my two cents.  Sorry it took such a long edit-warmisunderstanding to arrive at this detente.  Cheers, 71.182.215.210 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About my recent edit 

message: In the spirit of fighting vandalism, many editors have been reintroducing some sneaky vandalism.  Please see:
* This edit: .  The word "left leaning" was inserted by anon.  T have removed this, since the stronger language is supported by the reference.Furthermore, this issue has already been addressed by previous editors:   I have reinserted the words "stupid and" into the quote, since these were removed from a direct quote by 71.7.218.110.  71.182.215.210 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More detailed edit summary 

message: Rush did not define the conservative movement anymore then I define the conservative movement when I edit the wikipedia page for conservativism. The Title of the section "Defining the conservative movement" is biased. I changed it to "Opinions on the conservative movement." If anything, he helped define the neoconservative movement, but thier seems to be a strong bias against the word "neoconservative" among wiki editors. Byates5637 04:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time the term "conservative" is used as a blanket phrase covering both movements. WAVY 10 Fan 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining conservative movement