Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Music left AM radio because of Limbaugh???

I strongly question this statement, despite the citation given: "The Rush Limbaugh Show has been largely credited for the large shift in AM broadcasting from music to news-talk after an audience decline in the 1970s." Huh? While it's true that Limbaugh has been a goldmine for AM radio, it is beyond belief that AM would NOT have shifted from music to spoken word programming. The real reason why music left AM is FM's superior sound quality and improved FM programming by the early 80s. Once the FCC stopped requiring stations to get approval for format changes, Top-40 radio went to FM and the rest is history. Limbaugh SHOULD be credited as the reason why AM radio in the U.S. is so thoroughly dominated by conservative talk; he should NOT get credit for music leaving AM -- that was clearly the result of superior audio technology on FM. Goeverywhere 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point of that statement was to give Limbaugh credit for changing music on AM to talk radio, but to state that he revived AM radio by introducing talk. Perhaps it does need some revising to avoid confusion(?)

Straczynski Quote

I think J. Michael Straczynski sums him up best. When asked "Who is Rush Limbaugh", he replied "Leading American proctologist. Trust me." Nice and brief. Any chance of putting that in the summary? [1] -AlexLibman 20:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)  ;-)

Uh...last I checked, J. Michael Straczynski is a comic book author. Not exactly a political commentator. Charming.

He's not just a comic book writer. (Not to insult those writers as it may be interpreted.) In fact he's not even well known as a comic writer, he's more known for his philosophical television shows, namely Babylon 5 and Jeremiah. I'd find it insulting if someone referred to me in the way you do. It should take note that authors of science fiction and comics tend to have more political commentary in their works than other genres. 216.191.40.149 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh's Hearing Loss

I removed some of the text that discusses Limbaugh's hearing loss. I removed the part that talked about chronic use of opiates and its influence on deafness. There is absolutely no proof that Limbaugh's deafness resulted from the use of prescription painkillers and listing this fact would suggest otherwise. Wikipedia is supposed to be a sort of encyclopedia and since this information is not known as fact, it should not be included. (even though I know it will only take about five minutes before another liberal takes the opportunity to stick one more reminder in that a popular conservative had an addiction)-- 69.252.194.146

Your article blanking, for which there was no consensus, has been restored. Check the archives for detailed discussion of this issue. And your bad faith comment at the end is just silly. Cheers. Eleemosynary 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Franken and weightloss

The whole purpsoe of this section is to suggest that Franken's book title inspired Limbaugh to go out and lose weight. That seems like maybe the most blatant example of post hoc ergo propter hoc I've ever heard of. And the evidence is that three years later he lost weight? That's pretty silly so I'm removed it. I realize the section cleverly avoids making the unprovable assertion that the book caused Limbauhg's weightloss but its entire purpose is to imply that. I also tried to tighten up the writing by, for example, changing "critisize" to the American spelling, removing the queue/bumping redudancy, and by trying to make the Kennedy/alcohol sentence a little less mangled. Thoughts?

fwiw, A dittohead guest on Al Franken's radio show has agreed with this theory, crediting Franken with actually saving Limbaugh's life.

The argument also ignores the existence of at least one newspaper article discussing Limbaugh's attempts to loose weight years before Franken's book was published (Dowd, Maureen. "A Shy, Sensitive Guy Trying to Get By in Lib City", New York Times, March 24, 1993. pp. C1, C10.) --Allen3 ^talk 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Rush no doubt has been trying all his life to loose weight, but it was only after Franken's book that he actually did, though judging by the dittocam it is all back and more. We can only pray for a slow and painful MCI to put him out of our misery and return some sanity to the airwaves he has polluted for 20 years.

Rushwire

Limbaugh keeps a (see[[2]]) running update on his website of court decisions and transcripts, legal positions, and media and editorial coverage of his case.

I removed this because the link is broken and it seems to me the whole feature has been removed from the site. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fraudulent Colonel Interview controversy

I noticed that a section has been added to the article today claiming a new controversy involving Limbaugh. When I performed a Google search looking for news articles on the controversy the only relevant link I found was from the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America. Does anyone have any reliable sources that Limbaugh's use of a fictitious character has caused an actual controversy, or is this just another case of a partisan group disapproving of Limbaugh's shtick? --Allen3 ^talk 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the American Air Force cared enough to actually investigate, don't you think that it merits mention? An official Air Force investigation doesn't deserve mention?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.195.232 (talk • contribs) 03:26, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that such an investigation took place, or are we still stuck with a partisan accusation as the sole basis for the claim? Also what type of investigation was performed? The Media Matters press release does not claim that any investigation took place, only that "Pentagon officials and the Air Force" reported having no record of the fictitious officer or his unit. Based on the press report it is possible that this alleged investigation is nothing more than some airman basic working in a Pentagon public relations office answering a phone query from Media Matters. Until independent third-party sources are found to verify the section's claims, this section will have the problem of giving undue weight to a partisan claim. --Allen3 ^talk 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh reported about this on-the-air, surely somebody heard the broadcast and can quote from it? Bjsiders 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A show transcript would be an appropriate source to verify what was said on the show. In addition to a transcript other sources will most likely be needed to provide confirmation of the sections claims regarding alleged Air Force statements or that the incident has caused a real controversy (the section header implies one exists). Please understand that I am not questioning the truthfulness of the sections claims, only the section's ability to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites without resorting to original research. --Allen3 ^talk 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been my experience that Media Matters is quite reliable and well-sourced. Instead of assuming that because the issue was breached by this site, it must be suspect, it would be more appropriate to consider this site's presentation with the same assumption of veracity as other news sources. 152.31.193.132 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Black Max

An internal Air Force inquiry does not constitute a controversy by itself. Finding no mention of this in the main stream media, or in fact, from any source other than mediamatters.org, I removed the offending text. Gregmg 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

1980s

The article states regarding the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, "This emboldened many radio stations to modify their line-ups in order to attract those wishing to hear varied points of view." This is ridiculous, and misrepresents the entire effect of the repeal of the doctrine. In fact, the repeal of the doctrine encouraged conservative radio owners to "pack" their talk lineups with right-wing hosts and either reduce the role, or simply fire, their left-leaning hosts. Limbaugh would have been far less likely to have experienced the success that he has enjoyed if he, and his employers, had been constrained by the "equal time" provisions of the doctrine. 152.31.193.132 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Black Max

How would you like to see the section rephrased? Bjsiders 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Limbaugh would have been far less likely to have experienced the success that he has enjoyed if he, and his employers, had been constrained by the "equal time" provisions of the doctrine." There's no way you can know that. The radio market is pretty simple. If people like what they hear, they will continue to listen. The more people who listen, the more successful the program. If Limbaugh's program is successful, it's because of it's popularity. There are plenty of liberal leaning hosts who have had radio programs. It's up to the market to decide what they like. If you can't get ratings you don't stay on the air. 65.48.21.32 02:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

order of height measurement

Since Rush Limbaugh is an American, shouldn't the imperial measurements be listed first and the metric second in ()s? 168.166.196.40 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily...even in America, SI is the "preferred system of measurement", even though casual usage still favors the American (not Imperial) customary system. Note, however, that scholarly usage (which would seem to apply to Wikipedia) favors emphasis on the worldwide standard measurement system. It's a good point for discussion. Thanks.... Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDB as a primary source

A much bigger concern than the ordering is the use of a site that accepts anonymous contributions as the source of the information. While I appreciate the sentiment that people are trying to help find useful additions for the article, compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and online sources is also important. --Allen3 ^talk 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point...if so, then any material drawn from the IMDB would be suspect and should be avoided (at least as a primary source)...the subtext is that IMDB is not so much a factual source, but rather a direct competitor to Wikipedia (at least for information about celebrities)...definitely worth further review and discussion. Thanks.... Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Stark of CallingAllWingnuts.Com's Call-in Campaign

Limbaugh article or show article could use mention of recent campaign by Mike Stark to call in questions to Limbaugh and then post the audio on www.callingallwingnuts.com

>The reference to callingallwingnuts.com as a group in the entry should be deleted or placed elsewhere in the entry. It is not a group per se and is more of a blog.

Deletion and change

I deleted the following:

"On November 6, 1992, three days after the election, in reference to who was in and out at the White House, Limbaugh joked on air that he didn't know Bill Clinton had a pet dog, and held up a picture of Chelsea.[citation needed]"

Because here is a (partial) transcript of what really happened:

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

_____

(and, as you can see, Limbaugh did NOT hold up any photos. All photos were flashed on a video monitor. The only thing Limbaugh was holding in his hands was the article from which he was reading (which contained no pics)

Also, the following reads:

"On a later broadcast, Limbaugh played a video clip of then-President Bill Clinton laughing on his way into a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown with Tony Campolo and then looking mournful (see [3])."

The part of that which reads: "Clinton laughing on his way into a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown" was wrong. Clinton was videotaped LEAVING the memorial service after it had ended. Not going to it. So I changed that to:

"Clinton laughing on his way leaving a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown"

Also removed the following:

"According to a transcript of the broadcast, there were at least three times Limbaugh had shown a photo of the Bush's dog, Millie, while referencing Chelsea. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032838/posts] Critics of Limbaugh have maintained that these were deliberate acts on his part."

That is certainly a blatant misinterpretation of the transcript. According to the transcript of the broadcast "(that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton,"), Limbaugh was refering to two other mistakes in the past that the crew made. But those two past mistakes had nothing to do with Millie or chelsea, etc. This mistake with Chelsea and Millie was their third mistake, yes. But NOT the third time they did this.

Note to the "humor"-impaired (in the wingnut sense, whereby humor must involve physical or emotional damage to another person [3]) this was Rush's attempt to milk the joke. Gzuckier 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the following:

" , and then suggested that Amy Carter was "the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country" and also disparaged the looks of Margaret Truman."

Reason: The part about Carter: Out of context. The part about Truman: false.

Here is what happened:

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'

_________________________

Some malicious Limbaugh hater put back the following:

"On November 6, 1992, three days after the presidential election, Limbaugh made a reference to the daughter of the incoming President Bill Clinton, Chelsea. Limbaugh stated: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" a picture of Chelsea then appeared onscreen."

As is seen by the original transcript above, that did not happen:

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

_______________________________

I see that the following was put back by some vandal:

"On November 6, 1992, three days after the presidential election, Limbaugh made a reference to Chelsea Clinton, daughter of President-elect Bill Clinton, Limbaugh stated: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?"

I'm giving up at editing out that innaccurate piece of info. Let it stand right where it lays. It will only help to expose rush's critics as liars. The transcript (above) proves a different story.

Rush bragged that he didn't need viagra

I am not a Rush fan but used to listen to him occasionally. Some time in the last few years I remember he was discussing medical care and he said he was proud to announce that he did not need Viagra. Anyone have a way of finding the exact quote?

Give it time. Every thing Limbaugh has ever said about Viagra or impotence will be in the media within 48 hours. I'm sure he's fired off plenty of remarks. Lately he's been making fun of Democrats for not being able to "finish the job," and implying this makes them poor lovers. Bjsiders 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has found that reference? I think it is quite significant. I believe it occurred some time between 2001 and 2003. My best guess would be the first half of 2003. ManiacalMonkey 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He probably wanted a little reassurance. AFter all, after three ex-wives, what man trusts his tool to work?--Bedford 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Palm Beach International Airport

Rush Limbaugh's Attorney Roy Black Responds to Media Inquiries

MIAMI, June 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, issued the following statement today in response to several inquiries by the media:

While going through routine Customs inspection of luggage at Palm Beach International Airport upon his return from an international trip, Rush Limbaugh was detained by customs agents after they noticed a non-narcotic prescription drug, which had been prescribed by Mr. Limbaugh's treating physician but labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes. After a brief interview, Mr. Limbaugh was permitted to continue on his journey.

patsw 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So we're now posting every little incident of someone's private life? Is this an encyclopedia or just a gossip column? The Viagra incident is irrelevant until that joke of a prosecutor decides it's all he has to nail Rush.--WinOne4TheGipper 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the above is true, and it is the end of the matter, it would be hard to make the case that this detention is even newsworthy, much less encyclopedia-worthy. So please, make the case it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. For guidance, see articles on living persons, "let the dust settle", and what the Wikipedia is not patsw 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"If the above is true" is indeed the question. The source is Roy Black, Limbaugh's attorney. Hardly objective and neutral. Limbaugh may have violated his plea deal, as press reports today say. It merits inclusion. Eleemosynary 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't. There is no arrest. Viagra is not a narcotic. In the end, all we have is an event that Limbaugh's political enemies think make him look bad, which I suspect is why everyone is so intent on keeping a non-event like this in the article. If you want to beat your chest over Limbaugh's private life, I suggest you do it at some dumpy little website where people actually care about that sort of trash.--WinOne4TheGipper 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Viagra is not a narcotic, however it is ILLEGAL to bring ANY medication into the United States without the bottle being properly labelled (The bottle had the name of a doctor, not Rush). An arrest WAS made, the only immediate news source I see (after google-ing the event)that claims that there was no arrest, seems to be FOX.

The matter is still under investigation, according to news reports. You are misrepresenting the facts, and assuming your fellow editors are not acting in good faith. And please, no personal attacks. Eleemosynary 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this belongs in his article. Given that Limbaugh is a tough "law and order conservative", every time he is detained is newsworthy. --Asbl 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's newsworthy doesn't mean it's worth printing in an encyclopedia. We're not even sure he broke the agreement. We're not sure that it's a breach of the law, and it's Viagra, for crying out loud!

Without a doubt, it belongs in the article. Transparent attempts to whitewash it will be called exactly that. Eleemosynary 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that it belongs. There have been no charges (yet) and there's no evidence of any wrongdoing. It was a routine stop at airport security. I've been detained before. I'm sure many of us have. It's a reality of air travel, especially when you come back into the country with prescription drugs that have odd labels. Bjsiders 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source that it was a "routine" stop. I doubt "many" of us have been detained at airports, especially in possible violation of plea agreements. And Roy Black's spinning on behalf of his client is hardly objective truth. This was covered by hundreds of news sources, including Fox. More to come, I'm sure. Eleemosynary 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, if you have come under police scrutiny for abuse of prescription drugs, you should take special care not to transport bottles of prescription drugs with "odd labels" through airports. Viagra is, for better or worse, a controlled substance, and transfer of a controlled substance to a person other than that for whom it was prescribed is an offence. If anything, this is likely to bounce back to Limbaugh's physician, since Limbaugh's lawyer says Limbaugh's doctor prescribed the drug but didn't put his name on the bottle for privacy reasons. And, of course, from now until eternity, Googling "Rush Limbaugh Viagra" and "Rush Limbaugh, sex tourist" now produces results.... - Nunh-huh 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, we assume good faith, if Black's version of the incident is false, then offer evidence it is.
• There is no obligation to keep prescription drugs labeled and in the original container.
• The existence of material on the internet and its appearance in Google is not per se a reason for inclusion. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
• Viagra is not a controlled substance. patsw 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• We are not under any obligation to "assume good faith" by outside advocates not even posting to this page. Thus, we are under no obligation to accept Black's statement at face value, nor to mount evidence disputing it. Black is Limbaugh's lawyer, with obligations to his client. Consider the source.

• You have not provided any source or evidence for your second assertion, particularly as it applies to Limbaugh's plea bargain.

• The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are just 3 of the hundreds of news organizations who have reported the story. It is a legitimate news item.

• Whether or not Viagra is a "controlled substance" is not the issue. The issue is whether Limbaugh violated the terms of his plea bargain. That is the matter that is currently under investigation. The incident deserves inclusion here, as Patrick Kennedy's drunk driving did on his article page before any charges were filed. Eleemosynary 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The original quote described the incident as a "routine" search. Define "many" and "us." When I say, "many of us" I mean a good number of people who travel frequently by air. I've been detained once, searched three or four times, and had my luggage taken and searched and had items removed from it (once they took my Christmas present for my sister - a candle - they were convinced it was a jar of explosives of some kind). This sort of thing is indeed routine. Admittedly, I've never been detained for three hours. Why is Fox some magic arbiter of what goes into Wikipedia and this article in particular? Just because something made the news doesn't mean it belongs here. I agree, there's more to come, let's see what happens before we engage in a bunch of editing now, when it's all going to be re-written as soon as more details come out, no matter what actually comes of this. I haven't checked on the story again today, so there may be some new information out there that I'm not aware of, but when I read the briefs this morning, the story was simply that Limbaugh was stopped and questioned and released, a bottle of pills taken, and no files charged, no arrest, nothing. If that's what it was, I don't think it warrants inclusion. If there's some new info out there, it might warrant inclusion. Bjsiders 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm changing my vote. Read up on the newer stories and this does indeed appear to have a possible bearing on Limbaugh's previous prescription drug issues. I vote that it be kept. Bjsiders 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

.

The question I have is, what was Limbaugh doing alone in the Dominican Republic, without his wife, with Viagra? This is potentially a much more interesting aspect of the story than the fact that the bottle wasn't labelled properly, considering his preaching against sexual immorality. If there is anything to this, presumably the press will dig it up shortly. --Xyzzyplugh 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rush is not currently married. He could easily have a secret rendezvous with a new girlfriend.--Bedford 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh doesn't preach against consenting adults having wahtever sort of sexual relationships they wish, including homosexual. He has articulated this many times. What he objects to is "children" (by which he means teenagers) doing it and being "encouraged" by their parents, teachers, and government. Limbaugh announced his trip to the D.R. on his show last week, and said, "we're going" there, suggesting he's bringing somebody along with him. It's hardly the clandestine under-the-cover-of-darkness trip that it sounds like. Bjsiders 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is to show that Roy Black lied. The burden of proof is to show that placing some doses of Viagra into a container without a personal prescription label and entering the United States is an illegal act, or a substantial violation of the terms under which Limbaugh's not guilty plea was accepted. (Nunh-huh argued for inclusion of the story on the basis that Viagra on a mistaken claim it is a controlled substance.)

Apparently, this is a story that's evaporated in one news cycle -- it potentially becomes a story beyond mere suspicion only if there is an allegation of criminal behavior. There is no story if it is merely poor judgment on Limbaugh's part to put some doses of Viagra into a container without a personal prescription label because it trigger a brief detention by Customs or embarrassment.

I personally experienced a detention such as Limbaugh did. I never learned the reason why I was detained but I was simply thanked by Customs for cooperating and free to go.

We are not obligated to parrot every Limbaugh story that crosses the wires. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat room for whatever interests the editors, such as the curiosity as to why Limbaugh was in the Dominican Republic. It's news for a 24 hour news cycle but not encyclopedic (given what's been reported so far) patsw 03:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's far more than a "24-hour-news-cycle" story. Today's reports indicate there will be a decision by the Palm Beach attorneys in a few days. It hasn't evaporated, and wishing will not make it so. We are not obligated to scrub the article of any story that might cast Limbaugh in a less than hagiographic light. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Eleemosynary 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a Content tag to this section of the article. Crockspot 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why my content tag was removed? I am adding it back in. Crockspot 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can merge his Pain-killer charges with the airport incident, as both stem from the same source...the fact that Palm Beach Democrats are trying to destroy him. We can shortne both and then merge them.--Bedford 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Let the dust settle and wait for the next improper leak from the office of Barry Krischer. If there's no legal consequence to Limbaugh, what's makes this merit inclusion in this encyclopedia? The Wikipedia is not a hate or harassment site. patsw 23:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

People are seldom searched like that, and given the fact that the authorities could not wait to tell the media shows that it was pre-planned harassment. One has to be extremely naive or stupid to believe it wasn't a set-up.--Bedford 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bedford, you are in strong violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Take that back. --Asbl 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever gone through customs? People are routinely searched like that. My bags are taken from me and hand-searched about 50% of the time when I leave the nation, either when I arrive at my destination or when I'm coming home. Especially when I'm coming back from Mexico. In fact, I got searched coming back from Canada once. I was detained and questioned briefly in the Toronto airport once for writing "America" as my nation of origin. Because there's "no such country as America" in the world according to Canadian customs. You play along and do whatever customs says. Especially when they're bored and want to hassle some tourists. So a famous celebrity comes back from the Dominical Republic, they're going to search his bags, especially given Limbaugh's love of cigars. It would not surprise me at all if they were actually hoping to dig out some Cubans and found the pills instead. Bjsiders 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As of now the story is in the headlines and many people are talking about it, so I don't see how anybody could consider the Viagra story to be irrelevant. Perhaps in a couple of months when the smoke has cleared it will not be considered so important, but most people looking up Limbaugh's entry on Wikipedia recently are probably looking for the Viagra story.--Bunbury18 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Every gotcha news storm doesn't get into the Wikipedia -- especially in this case which lasted precisely one news cycle. This is an encyclopedia and not a blog or a substitute for Google News. patsw 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically I suppose, but if you look up any current news event it inevitably has a Wikipedia article, and the latest news is always incorporated into an existing article. Why should Limbaugh get special treatment?--67.20.253.97 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[refactored per WP:BLP]. unsourced pure speculation

More on the sex tourism charge

An IP editor added a line about sex tourism. I added a fact tag to it, and also replaced the content tag (again) on the section.Crockspot 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I went back and checked news.google.com again and there are still only two "commentators" who suggest this. One is a blog and the other is the Huffington Post. I suggest that we either source and quote these commentators or remove the implication. I originally put it into the article, with quotes and citations, under the theory of maximum information, and it was removed with a decent consensus on this page. Does it need to go back in? It's pure crystal ballery, in my opinion, and maybe a little wishful thinking. Bjsiders 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That user has made several edits to other tangentially related pages today. I created a talk page for them and told them to source the info. I also mentioned that, after more thought, I may just remove it. I've given it more thought. I'm removing it.Crockspot 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Being verified is necessary but not sufficient for being added to any article. patsw 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you would need very compelling evidence to remove. You have yet to provide anything compelling. --Asbl 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does this compelling standard originate? It would be useful to know when editing the biographical articles of people on the political left, for whom, oddly enough, their articles are regularly scrubbed of private and insignificant but nonetheless verifiable information. patsw 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you prove that somebody didn't do something? The charge is, "he went to the D.R. for sex tourism." Other than getting eye witness reports of what Limbaugh was doing for 100% of his time spent in the D.R., how on earth do you gather compelling evidence that this is not the case? I think a more reasonable standard is that used in journalism - that the editor has the responsibility to provide compelling evidence for his story, rather than just saying whatever he wants and defying everybody else to prove him wrong. Bjsiders 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

busted at the airport

its funny how conservatives are the ones who initially come up with these laws and regulations that have the potential to violate peoples rights. then when it actually happens, conservatives are complaining that they are being picked on. my response....boohoo. cry me a river. youre the ones who come up with these stupid laws to begin with. left wingers try to warn people that these stupid things such as homeland security and patriot act have the potential of violating peoples rights but conservative fools ignore them. if youre going to complain about getting hassled at the airport why support these stupid rules to begin with?

Your unsigned partisan argument is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is, is the incident noteworty/relevant/encyclopedic enough to be included in the article.Crockspot 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slant

The Rush Limbaugh page fails to represent much of the criticism that Limbauch has recieved. It can be factually demonstrated that Limbaugh both fails to adaquately consider all the factors in his arguements (such as ignoring any facts that contradict his viewpoint), as well as never permitting liberals to pass his call screenings, flat out lies, and deliberately goes out of his way to insult anyone who opposes him based on completely non-political evidence.

One of the people where I work listens to his ranting, and he has never presented one argument that I could not find at least 3 fallacies in, even based only on the evidence he presents.

Limbaugh relies heavily on emotionalism and verbal shock tactics to verbally ause people who disagree with him, as well as compensate for ny evidentiary lackages.

I am not strongly liberal. I actually think that the liberal, optimistic viewpoint is rather impractical, and Limbaugh still manages to offend me.

68.6.113.146, July 02, 2006, 3:54 AM PST.

yes, that is because Limbaugh is a classic demagogue along the lines of Joseph Goebbels (i.e. replace 'liberal' with 'jew' in Limbaugh's rants and the similarity becomes downright uncanny), but the PC admins will not allow the use of the objective term demagogue in the main article, leading to the average reader's confusion that you describe so well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.122.233 (talk • contribs)

To the anonymous editors, why not go the policy pages and argue for a policy change: let every biographical article of the Wikipedia be filled with blog-like original opinion criticism from every editor? patsw 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

QED see what I mean? To add a link to demagogue in the Limbaugh article is to inject blog-like original opinion criticism, but to sanitize the Limbaugh article so that it contains no such objective references is, of course, to be fair and balanced. Welcome to 1984.

That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Wikipedia's not a blog - try & remember that. Dubc0724 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did we just see the Wikipedia compared to 1984!? As I live and breathe! If you have a constructive, no original research (see WP:NOR) addition that does not violate WP:BLP or WP:NPOV then please add it with a citation to the verifiable source (see WP:V). Until then please try not to compare the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to a fascist oligarchy in which everyone is personally monitored, which is cutely ironic in that your comment is anonymous. As far as the claim of Limbaugh's anti-semitism, you can take anyone who talks about not liking someone or something replace that with "jew" and sound a lot like Goebbels. Rtrev 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Rush to Goebbels is stepping over the line. A lot of the criticism about Rush comes from what he says, and in many cases, his correct assesment of what is happening with the world. He does take liberal calls, he wants to take them first. Let us also not forget that Rush doesn't have to take any other viewpoints other then his own, since it is his own business, and one doesn't agree or like Rush, just don't listen. But, when you don't listen, you make up stuff, like in a lot of the criticisms about Rush

A short-lived opening paragraph, nice try though

how did this intro ever survive more than a day?:

Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (born January 12, 1951 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri) is an American radio talk show host. Violently conservative, he "discusses" politics and current events on his show, The Rush Limbaugh Show using a style that bounces "between earnest lecturer and political vaudvillian".

I altered the intro; the previous was definitely left-wing kool-aid drinking drivel.--Bedford 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was pretty accurate, so of course it must be reverted. Limbaugh is the one on kool-aid, popping 20 oxycontin per day and ranting about his S/M fantasies or his sex tourism trips to the Dominican Republic to his 20 million geriatric neo-nazi minions. How he is still on the air is beyond me. Rumsfeld and Cheney find him to be a very useful idiot, I guess.

Objectively, the 1990 description of Limbaugh as "vaudvillian" may have had a place in the article but it doesn't now, and certainly never in the open.

• The lead should not contain anyone's subjective opinion (pro or con).

• What may have been true about Limbaugh in 1990 may not be true today. It's stale.

• Since 1990, Lewis Grossberger changed his opinion of Limbaugh -- acknowledging his role as spokesperson for the conservative movement.

• Over time, the New York Times itself dropped the flash in the pan template and adopted the dangerous demogogue template to describe Limbaugh. patsw 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

A private non-notable event

The dust has settled.

The State Attorney's Office said today that it will not file charges against conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for possessing a bottle of Viagra prescribed to his doctor.

[4]

Before you revert, please identify a biographical article of the celebrity of the American left where a private embarassing incident which had no legal consequences was entered into his or her article. patsw 00:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is under obligation to follow arbitrary rules you set out. But credit is due to NawlinWiki for refuting the challenge so well. Eleemosynary 01:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Response to Patsw. A large fraction of the article Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies consists of incidents where allegations were made against Clinton that were found to be false or unsubstantiated. One in particular:

---

Gold Star Mothers

A May 26, 2001 article by Carl Limbacher on Newsmax.com claimed that Senator Clinton had refused to meet with members of the Gold Star Mothers, an organization of mothers whose children had been killed during military duty, and had been the only such Senator to refuse a visit. [33]

In fact, the mothers had not had an appointment, Clinton had not been in her office that day, and Clinton's receptionist had not recognized the Gold Star Mothers organization. The Gold Star Mothers subsequently met with Clinton and issued a statement absolving Clinton of any criticism in the matter. [34]

---

In other words, a false allegation made by one website remains in the Clinton article, while a true incident reported by hundreds of newspapers stays out of the Limbaugh article? I don't think that's appropriate, and will revert (for the second time). NawlinWiki 00:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would support you in the removal of that particular section of the Hillary article. This kind of extra junk does not belong in Wikipedia. Two wrongs, yada yada... Crockspot 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• I deleted from Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. It didn't happen. Are you going to argue there for its insertion? patsw 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not a newspaper The fact that it was widely reported in not in itself make it notable. What made it newsworthy was the potential that: (a) the Viagra was not prescribed to Limbaugh (making Black's June 26 public statement on Limbaugh's behalf a lie.) and (b) that possession of Viagra, even if prescribed, violated his agreement with the court in dismissal of his doctor-shopping indictment. What would have made it notable would be only if some aspect of the incident incurred legal liability for Limbaugh. patsw 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not dictate the standard for what is (or is not) notable. Eleemosynary 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am in full agreement with patsw. I too would like to see an example of such an incident that is included in an article of a celebrity of the left. But of course, the article was reverted with a simple charge of vandalism. That, to me, would seem to be vandalism in and of itself. Crockspot 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to replace text that has been removed without consensus. One look at this Talk Page shows no such consensus exists to remove the Palm Beach Airport incident. And I find this "show me a celebrity of the left who has undergone the same horrendous treatment" argument a bit flimsy. It's as if noting Limbaugh's actions are dependent on what Al Franken does. If you'd like to insert some relevant (though potentially embarrassing) information on Franken's (or another person's) article page, be my guest. Then you can have another endless hairsplitting debate in which you brook no argument, no matter how well-reasoned. Eleemosynary 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• No thank you, I have better ways to spend my time on Wikipedia than inserting petty jabs into articles about liberals. What I DO consider vandalism is the repeated removal of the content tag that I inserted several times. And I find the tone of your reply to be verging on uncivil and insulting. Crockspot 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the content tag should not be removed until consensus is reached. The "you" in my comments directly above was not addressing you specifically. It's a hazard of Wikipedia that it can occasionally look that way. And there are a lot of tones around here (authoritarian, craven, supercilious, etc.) one would rather not see. But sometimes that's the nature of the beast. Eleemosynary 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we have two options 1) merge with previous section about doctor shopping to show the history of Palm Beach authorities harassing him, and rename the section. 2) Take a vote on whether or not to include the section. I'm not sure which way to go.--Bedford 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job, NawlinWiki, for shooting down the flimsy straw men arguments that seem to pepper this page. And, please, no trying to game the system, Bedford. It's your opinion that Limbaugh's been the victim of harassment by the Palm Beach Authorities, and hardly fact.

Kudos to the Wikipedia editors for having a concise, well-balanced summary of Limbaugh's detention at the Palm Beach airport that now runs four well-written paragraphs. The dust has settled, and this newsworthy, encyclopedic incident remains. Good work.

Why does the content tag that I have repeatedly put in this section keep getting removed? The relevance of this section is obviously still in dispute, and the removal of the tag is rude.Crockspot 01:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was to let the dust settle. There was no need for me to delete the speculation on the incident until it was over. It's over -- and it's a non-notable ending. What makes the incident encyclopedic? patsw 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Asked and answered. See previous comments. Eleemosynary 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Bjsiders also expressed the same sentiment, and supported removal in his comments above, if what has come to pass were to come to pass. Perhaps an RfC is in order. Crockspot 02:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An RfC might be a good idea. Eleemosynary 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If stories like this exist in other articles, I support removing them from all such articles. I do not wish, however, to fight that fight. Trying to get all such non-stories out of articles about the Clintons, George Bush, John Kerry, and a thousand other articles is a task that no mortal man has the time or energy to undertake. It may be easier to leave it here for consistancy's sake. However, I do not believe the story merits its own subsection and four paragraphs of exposition. It's worth a sentence, perhaps. Bjsiders 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A sentence will do fine. Eleemosynary 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A newsworthy, notable event

As long as we're creating headings to reference in our edit summaries... Eleemosynary 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to you for that extremely productive contribution. Crockspot 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It was as productive as proclaming it a "private, non-notable event," pronouncing "the dust has settled," and proceeding as if that were canonical law. Eleemosynary 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is the Palm Beach Airport incident encyclopedic?

RfC:

• No. For reasons detailed above. I waited for the dust to settle and for the speculation to end. It was a incident without a legal consequence merely a minor embarrassment. If this is encyclopedic, then surely every media reference to Limbaugh must be encyclopedic. patsw 02:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• No. As per discussion above, consensus seemed to be to let the dust settle, and remove if no charges were brought. Now that no charges will be brought, we must count the votes again. Crockspot 02:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• No. In light of the fact that he had a prescription, this isn't even newsworthy. Gregmg 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• No. Nothing to it, private life, leave out. Wasted Time R 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• It pains me. Really it does. It could have been such a fun little bit of trivia. But it seems there's really nothing to it if the doctor is telling the truth. So . . . sigh . . . no. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• No. Dust has had time to settle and this is nothing more than an individual with a legal prescription. --Allen3 ^talk 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. He, a public figure, was detained for 3 hours and had a history of drug abuse with allegation of doctor shopping. --Vsion 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• No. No charges means non-event. --Vector4F 04:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• No. Police detain people all the time. Not relevent. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not in its current form. This story doesn't deserve four paragraphs of coverage. It could be included as a single-sentence blurb. Bjsiders 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. If something makes the news, that means it might be news-worthy, go figure. 141.212.142.247 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that "newsworthy" is not synonymous with "encyclopedic." Not all news is encyclopedic. The debate is over whether or not this piece of news is. Bjsiders 15:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. But I would argue for shortening it and appending it to the drug issue. I don't like the guy, but I would think that his supporters would appreciate having an accurate description of what happened. Limbaugh is a public figure, thus his drug problems and the legal issues associated with it are indeed relevant. This wouldn't have been an appropriate entry if he hadn't been under probation. If you think this isn't relevant, then we should probably get rid of all his dating info/personal life/etc sections. Notmyrealname 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no "drug problem" and there are no "legal issues" in this event, which is why I submit that it's non-encyclopedic, and merits no more than a blurb in passing. I fully support removing any unverifiable "is dating"-type information. The man's personal history is relevent, but his current girlfriend isn't personal history. We don't have a list of all the women he dated before, I see no compelling reason to keep a running tab now. That's celebrity gossip magazine fodder. Bjsiders 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that he wouldn't have been detained nor his viagra confiscated had he not been under probation as a result of his drug addiction and doctor shopping. This has been a very widely reported incident and many people will come to this entry to find out accurate details. Again, I think the whole thing should be condensed into a sentence or two and appended to the drug section. Notmyrealname 20:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a foregone conclusion but agree that it's possible that he'd have been left through. However, Rush Limbaugh caught with Viagra at customs after coming back from the Dominican Republic? That'll be news regardless of any other circumstances. The question is, does it belong in Wikipedia? Bjsiders 01:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Agree that it could be shortened, to something like the blurb BJSiders is recommending, as an addendum to Limbaugh's arrest and plea deal. Some may wish to note that the aftermath of the airport incident (the decline to prosecute) puts Limbaugh in a rather positive light. It was covered by hundreds of news sources. Eleemosynary 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely Yes. Was already on probation for doctor shopping with his abuse of prescription drugs. --Asbl 23:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh is not on probation. His plea of not guilty was accepted and there will be no trial. He has an agreement with the court that's detailed in the article. patsw 00:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a voting section. No need to dispute a user's reason for his vote. And Limbaugh's requirement to submit to drug testing and not to own a handgun are indeed probationary conditions of the agreement. If he violates it, the deal's off. Eleemosynary 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes because people who may have heard of this incident second or third-hand may come here to find trustworthy information. (For the same reason, I favor keeping the section on Hillary Clinton and the Gold Star Mothers -- my objection was to the inconsistency, not to the inclusion.) NawlinWiki 00:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with Eleemosynary that this was a pretty big story and needs to be mentioned, but not in its own subsection and no more than a sentence or two. It doesn't matter if there was nothing to it and it's not for us to decide if something is newsworthy. Maximusveritas 08:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A reminder that we're determining if something is Wikipedia-worthy, not whether or not it's newsworthy. Bjsiders 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you reminding me or the people above who tried to say that this information should not be included on the grounds that it is not newsworthy since nothing came of it?Maximusveritas 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As I implied in my comments above, in retrospect this story isn't even newsworthy. There is a higher standard for what is encyclopedic, thus, there is no reason to include any reference to this. Gregmg 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Although I disagree, I have no major problem with your reasoning. I just thought it was odd that Bjsiders would direct that comment towards me. Maximusveritas 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's barely newsworthy, much less encyclopedic. The reference should be deleted. J. Langton 22:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. The event is obviously being included because widely publicizing a prescription for Viagra is perceived as embarassing, not because it's really a noteworthy incident. There's nothing noteworthy about being being stopped for a crime and then not being charged because there was no crime. If it *must* be included, it should be described as a prescription without mentioning Viagra, since the exact name of the drug is neither newsworthy nor noteworth except for the embarassment factor. Ken Arromdee 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The principle of hundreds of news sources

The story was only newsworthy while there was the possibility of a legal liability, since the dust settled on that aspect, we're left with a big nothing now. So what's the principle here? That any news story -- no matter how transient or insignificant -- about a celebrity is encyclopedic -- all that's required is hundreds of news sources. patsw 23:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right. It's called noteworthiness. --Asbl 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. In a interesting way, the noteworthiness of the incident seems to increase the louder Limbaugh's advocates scream that there's "nothing of note here." Eleemosynary 00:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on the question: Are you claiming the everything "noteworthy" goes into the Wikipedia? patsw 02:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from asking bad faith questions, and from changing the subject whenever one of your arguments is refuted. Eleemosynary 03:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The fallacy that Liberal celebrities' article pages do not contain similar information

On the Al Franken page, his satirical, fake, sexually-themed letter to John Ashcroft (and other conservatives), for which he later apologized, currently merits 4 paragraphs and 429 words.

That's right. An embarrassing incident for which there was no legal consequence (and scant news coverage) is noted in great detail on a liberal celebrity's page.

Oh, and as for the "privacy" fallacy. Limbaugh's detention was not a "private matter." We do not wish to include the sleazy suggestions that he was in the DR as a "sex tourist." Nor do we speculate on his reasons for needing the Viagra. But please... a celebrity being detained in an airport for a possible violation of his plea agreement, who then jokes about it on his radio show to 50 million listeners, is hardly a private event. Eleemosynary 01:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Al Franken's letter was public -- where has a privacy claim been asserted regarding it? His apology was public.
• Airport detentions are not a matter of public record as arrests are.
• The dust has settled: his possession of prescribed Viagra was not a violation of his plea agreement -- the nine days in which it was possible are not encyclopedic.
• Limbaugh's jokes on the incident are not encyclopedic. patsw 02:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The "privacy" claim was asserted by you regarding Limbaugh, when you laid down the gauntlet to find an embarrassing, non-legal private event noted on a liberal celebrity's Wikipedia page. Limbaugh's detention was not a private event; nobody claimed Franken's letter was.

• Celebrity airport detentions are a matter of public record when reported by... (wait for it)... hundreds of news sources.

• The dust seems to be pretty unsettled around here, impassioned declarations to the contrary.

• Limbaugh's jokes on the incident are encyclopedic by Wikipedia standards, as they relate to the bigger story of his drug arrest and plea deal. Eleemosynary 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken's letter is noteworthy because of his status as a political comentator and activist and the fact that the letter is a controversial piece of political commentary and activism by him. Rush's incident isn't. Moreover, Al Franken's letter is embarassing because it appears to show him acting poorly, while Rush's incident is embarassing for reasons unrelated to anything he might have done wrong. It no longer relates to his drug arrest or plea deal, since he is not to be charged. Ken Arromdee 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh's (real and speculated) dating history, his clothing line, and his opinion of the Internet

... are all deemed encyclopedic by virtue of their inclusion in the article.

By that standard, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest the Palm Beach Airport Incident deserves not even a one-sentence mention. Eleemosynary 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put his dating, his clothing line, and opinion of the Internet under review now as not being significant, I'm up for evaluating that. patsw 04:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks. I think they're completely encyclopedic (at least by Wikipedia standards), and belong in the article. As does the Palm Beach Airport Incident. Eleemosynary 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That "Dust" we've heard so much about...

... apparently hasn't settled. Here's [5] the transcript of tonight's The O'Reilly Factor, from that leftist citadel known as Fox News. The transcript title is "Rush Limbaugh Not Yet Off The Hook."

Kasich subs for O'Reilly. No doubt he'd be for striking the incident here. Suskauer is the guest; I suspect she'd be for including it. So... we're back where we started.

Honestly, if Fox News is claiming the story's not over, how can anyone claim it is? Eleemosynary 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not even a claim but speculation by Michelle Suskauer to fill a slow summer news day and not encyclopedic. The dust has settled on this one. patsw 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "wishing will not make it so" comes to mind.

Fox wrote the headline and did the segment; Suskauer was a guest. It was not her "speculation," but a pro-Limbaugh segment which saw the issue as very, very alive. And as for a "slow summer news day," yes, I guess nothing was going on in Iraq. Or Mexico. Or North Korea. Or over at Ken Lay's autopsy. But I suppose those subjects put the administration in a less than ethereal light.

Take it from Roger Ailes: Limbaugh's airport detention is notable and encyclopedic. Eleemosynary 02:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeated removal of content tag

I have now replaced the content tag on the disputed Palm Beach Airport section for what seems like the tenth time. Not one person who has removed it has made ANY justification for doing so. The section is OBVIOUSLY in dispute, since there is an RfC on it. Stop it. It is rude, and I consider it vandalism. Crockspot 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be clear to everybody interested in editing an article like this that unilateral action taken in the midst of diplomatic discussion is counterproductive and can result in unexpected and undesirable long-term consequences. :) Bjsiders 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Eleemosynary 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest it's time to remove the {content} tag. patsw 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, and done. Crockspot 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

More Dust (the kind that isn't settled)

Now a cardiologist and Rush's addiction counselor are being questioned by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office. Here's the report[6], as of yesterday, by the local NBC affiliate.

How long before we hear on this page that 1) The Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office is just out to get Rush, and 2) it's all a plot of the (eerie music up) "Liberalllll Mediaaaaaa." Eleemosynary 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an extension of the existing investigation, probably into wrongdoing on the part of the doctor rather than Limbaugh. If a guy asks, "can you prescribe this in somebody else's name?" and the law says no but the doc says, "sure" and does it anyway ... well that's wrong. The impression I got from the article is that the doctor may have run afoul of the law rather than Mr. Limbaugh. In any case, it bears watching. I don't think we've seen the end of Limbaugh's legal problems yet. For the rest of his life, he will carry the stain of drug addiction and all of his medical activities and health problems will be scrutinized intensely by the press. It will be difficult and challenging to determine which of these events is worth putting in here. Bjsiders 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I read, the doctor acted properly. Apparently it is not improper for a doctor to issue a prescription in his own name for a patient for privacy reasons, as long as all parties understand who the prescription is for. I can't pull the article out of my hat right now, but I read that last week. Crockspot 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

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

How should we clean up this page?

I just read over the WP:BLP. I don't think this page is in any real violation of it. The bigger problem of this page is all the excess garbage on here. Before slashing and burning too much, I thought we should have a little discussion about what could be cut to make this more concise and relevant.

I propose removing or severely shortening/condensing with others the following sections:

• Nicknames in intro
• Relationships (leave in the facts of who he married and divorced and dump the rest).
• Newsday quote in "1980"
• Reduce "Television Appearances" to a trivia section
• Delete "Clothing line"
• Shorten "ESPN Commentator" by at least half.
• Circumcise the Viagra episode to a sentence or two and append to his drug section.
• Delete "Defining the Conservative Movement" (Does anyone think "We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles" belongs in an encyclopedia?)
• Delete "demographic appeal" section. Most of this is blather. Any bits that aren't belong on the page for his show, not here.

Any objections? Additions? Notmyrealname 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a worthy endeavor to me. I did not even realize that there was a seperate article for the radio show until a few days ago. A lot of what is here should be over there. Crockspot 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of those. Bjsiders 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Three changes to the list I would like to see. 1) Change Reduce "Television Appearances" to a trivia section to Simplify "Television Appearances". The creation of an explicit trivia section would be bad idea if your goal is to cleanup the article as trivia sections tend to attract a wide variety of unverified junk that just help to re-clutter an article. 2) I would recommend changing Delete "Clothing line" to Combine "Clothing line" and "Author" into "Other ventures". Both the books and the neckties are important enough to deserve a mention but as they are secondary to Limbaugh's fame they probably do no each deserve a separate section. 3) Delete the "American Armed Forces Radio Network controversy" section. It currently consists of nothing more than a link to a section in the article on Limbaugh's show and is concerned primarily with his show and not directly with Limbaugh. --Allen3 ^talk 20:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep Relationships (not overly detailed for a bio of this size), Newsday 1988 (first MSM coverage of him in New York), author (both books were record-setting), his definition of the conservative movement (it's not long and it's his core values in a nutshell)

Drop Nicknames in intro

Downgrade Television appearances, clothing (a suggestion I made some time ago), Palm Beach Airport (I took care of it earlier today)

Defer Demographic appeal (I have some ideas on how to rewrite this, what's the Rush?) patsw 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that relationships (if verified) with other celbrities or public figures should be included. If he is dating private individuals that don't have Wikipedia articles, then that is irrelevant. Therefore, there is no consensus for deletion of the Kagan relationship, especially since it did impact Kagan's work (having to recuse herself on any story involving Limbaugh). Calwatch 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any current info on the sales figures for his ties? Just Googling, it looks like there are a few resellers that sell one or two of them. Not sure if it's still a going concern or if these places are just selling old overstock. Notmyrealname 21:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The ties appears to have gone the way of the pet rock and other short lived but notable fads. The original manufacturer, Carpediem International of Salt Lake City, does not appear to be in the operation as a clothing manufacturer (Google finds a learning center using the name), and the designs were primarily the work of Limbaugh's third wife. As a result, I am left to believe that you are seeing nothing but overstock or secondhand merchandise. --Allen3 ^talk 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about adding a section about his weight problems? Notmyrealname 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with this page is that half of an article on this man's life is taken up with commentary on Limbaugh's drug addiction fiasco -- one of the last "contradictory" quotes is given that is only admitted to be sarcasm afterwards. This is the kind of NPOV that can only be argued against with the critism of the *choice* of selection of information. If the point of all of these quotes is that none of Limbaugh's ideas and commentary are worth anything because he has historically been tough on drug-related crime, then perhaps the entire article should just be replaced with a sentence or two: "Rush Limbaugh is the most popular conservative pundit of all time, with more support from his idealistic base than any pundit before him, but contradicts his own words. Therefore conservatism (by means of deduction) is by its very nature false and we should all vote Democrat." It sounds ridiculuos, but this is the way this page reads -- like him or not, commentary and criticism of his views to this extent is not NPOV. -- Nicholas T. Becker

I took out the quote that was obvious satire because it was irrelevant and obviously not in conflict with a serious quote. I personally have no problem with the other quotes of his about drug use; it's fair to show any actions that may be in conflict with his words. However, his response should be added to ("Just because a person doesn't follow their own advice deosn't make the advice any less valid") if a cite can be found for it to maintain NPOV. Troodon 04:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hundson

I noticed that the issue of several news reports from the late April/early May time frame having given Limbaugh's middle name as Hundson instead of Hudson has once again appeared in the article lead. As the addition includes original research and open speculation (how else do we describe that the name may have been merely a "typo"), I have reverted the addition. This still leaves the question of how to handle the name discrepancy. As this is at best a minor controversy I do not believe that dedicating half of the introductory paragraph is appropriate. This leaves the possibility of a show explanatory footnote being added or the issue being dropped entirely. What do the article regulars think the better course of action to be? --Allen3 ^talk 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This spelling of his name originates with the booking report [7] which is already linked to in the article. There is no earlier reference to it. Given that the subject identifies himself as Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, without evidence that his father and grandfather were likewise named "Hundson", this is with total certainty a non-story. Of course, there's 250 "hundson" Google hits now, vs. 330,000 for "hudson", maybe in the not too distance future, those numbers will be inverted. patsw 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"All-boy's weekend"

Handface, we had a quote in here from Limbaugh himself describing the event as a "guy's weekend" and we ultimately decided to remove it as unnecessary and superfluous detail. If you want a mention of it back in, start talking here and stop edit warring over it. Clearly, nobody agrees with you so far and belligerantly putting the same change back in a half dozen times isn't exactly a worldview-expanding exercise. Bjsiders 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• This person has a history of inappropriate edits, incivility, and vandalism, and has been blocked numerous times. In fact, they are just coming off of a one-week block. Too much time on his/her hands? Crockspot 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Handface is quite something. He was subject to blocking for edits here, but he got blocked just now for something completely different. Many irons in the fire, eh? Crockspot 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, he should receive the benefit of the doubt. It appears that his own behavior has spared us an edit war here for the time being. Bjsiders 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ.... everytime you're here all you do is suck up to Rush and try to censor/eliminate any details remotely negative about him in the name of "fairness", despite him being controversial and disliked like O'Reilly and Michael Moore. I'm starting to wonder what the "bj" in your name stands for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.29.9 (talk • contribs) .

NPOV problems with new "Controversial Statements" section

Once again a Limbaugh quotation has been added to this article and labeled as having created controversy. The neutrality of the addition is questioned for the following reasons:

1. The section claims that the quotation has caused controversy yet provides no reliable sources to verify the claim of controversy, only sources supporting that the statement was made by Limbaugh. This problem is compounded by extensive use of weasel words in the introductory paragraph.
2. The sources are given undue weight as both are opinion pieces that are utilized as the sole basis in determining the correctness of the quotation's viewpoint.
3. One of the sources partially rebuts the claim of being one of the best known examples of controversy in that the editorial commentator agrees with some of Limbaugh's comments and observations while disagreeing with others.

--Allen3 ^talk 09:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How does this create a controversy that didn't already exist? For the reader to understand in what context this was said, the article would have to reconstruct what had been made public from on-the-record sources and anonymous sources to that point. As more verified information became available after May 4,2004, Rush didn't maintain this opinion.

The reference for this controversy is an opinion web column by CBS News's Dick Meyer. I've got nothing against Meyer, but what makes him different from any other blogger writing 26 months ago on Rush's opinion-based comparison of Abu Garib with hazing which he might have held for 3 or 4 weeks?

Rush says one thing, opinion web column writers respond. It's all controversial. What's the bright line rule that makes one include this one and not his controversial opinions on soccer which he has maintained over a far longer period? patsw 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

{{POV-section}} added to "Controversial remarks" section

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

Global Warming

Just so we are on the same page here:

• Rush's opinions on GW are: 1. the observed increase in temperature is not significant, and 2. the increase, if any, is not attributable to human activity but to natural causes, and 3. among scientists there isn't a consensus.

• The conclusions of Global warming article here is the polar opposite of Rush's opinions (which isn't a surprise). In fact, from the talk page the only controversy is that there isn't a controversy, at least among scientists according to the Wikipedia editors.

After reading the GW article, I don't have a problem with "many" vs. "majority" as descriptive of that consensus. patsw 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Global warming page: "Only a small minority of scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the predicted consequences." From this, I think we could say that there is a "consensus" among global scientists (a few cranks doesn't destroy a consensus). We could also say the "vast majority," or at the VERY least a "majority." These are all factual statements, not POV. Reducing this to "many" is POV. Heck, even the oil and car companies agree if you look at their latest advertising. Notmyrealname 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitron

"His show was first nationally syndicated in August 1988, and as of 2005 (according to Arbitron ratings surveys) its audience was estimated at 13.5 million listeners per week"

Can someone give me a link to Arbitron's weekly ratings? I can't find it on their site. Tim Long 03:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are not going to find Arbitron ratings on their website. The ratings book is available to subscribers only. If Arbitron gave away the data for free, then radio stations and others who use the data wouldn't pay big bucks for it. If you want to verify the ratings, your best bet would be to call a radio station and ask if they can verify it for you. Or, you could try to find a news article that mentions it.--Monkeybreath 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Mbreath

Rush, Military Service and Anal Cysts

Why no discussion of Rush's avoidance of Vietnam era military service due to an anal cyst?

Rush's Anal Cyst

Take a look at the Education section of the article. --Allen3 ^talk 11:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

see also the article on Chickenhawk (politics)

Could Mr. Limbaugh be considered a cyborg given his hearing augmentation through means of a cochlear implant? Wikipedia lists Michael Chorost as a such for his implant. It's not really necessary, but might be kind of neat to have him on a "cyborg" list. No, I'm not a detractor. I'm actually an avid listener and a fan.Philcarr 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Army rejected Limbaugh, not the other way around. --Tbeatty 02:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

fwiw, Randi Rhodes has stated on her radio show that she was accepted into the military with the same pilonidal cyst condition.

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

National Enquirer as a source

As highly unlikely as it seems, the National Enquirer did actually break the story of Rush's drug abuse, and what they printed on this subject turned out to be true. This has been covered previously on this talk page, although I'm not inclined at the moment to track down the previous discussion. I've removed the verify credibility tag. Gregmg 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the plea agreement didn't touch on any of the allegations in the NE article, I am suspicious of their reliability. There are other sources that are more reliable. Making uncredible allegations that he purchased drugs from his housekeeper and using the NE as the source is a WP:BIO and WP:RS violation. All of those allegations should be taken down or a more credible source cited. NE may have published first but that doesn't make them accurate. They were the first to publish articles on Neanderthal babies and 800 lb newborns but it doesn't make them reliable. I will remove the housekeeper accusations unless a more notable source can be found. --Tbeatty 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. It is a fact that the National Enquirer broke this story. Are you disputing this, or is there something else in the article that is problematic? Gregmg 02:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, and you can verifiy this via Google, the N.A. did break the story. Perhaps a few citations would be in order in either direction. Rsm99833 03:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute "first." What I haven't seen is any verification on the maid story. There were no charges. I haven't seen any other Reliable Sources reporting those accusation. NE may have been first, and may have gotten part of the story correct, but they are not reliable enough to be the sole source for any allegations, especially criminal ones that haven't been followed up by prosecutors. The article should perhaps ackowledge that NE was first, but remove anything that hasn't been corroborated with a WP:RS. --Tbeatty 02:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As no one has come forward with any other sources for the maid allegation, I have removed it per WP:BLP and WP:RS. NE may have been first but they are not reliable enough as a sole source for these types of allegations.--Tbeatty 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few other sources that confirm the maid (Wilma Cline) made allegations.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98871,00.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/limbaugh/100303_limbaugh.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/122839p-110349c.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/News/10/03/rush.drugs/

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/03/ltm.05.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34887

http://www.nbc6.net/news/2530362/detail.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12536446/

I could go on. After all, Google turns up 17,700 hits for this news story. Wilma Cline not only sold her story to The National Enquirer, but she also spoke to prosecutors. The fact is that she made allegations. Those allegations were widely reported in the news. I still don't understand where you are coming from on this. Unless you can explain why exactly widely reported allegations cannot appear in this article, the reference should be reinserted. Gregmg 01:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that on Wikipedia, it is not normally necessary to provide citations for facts that are widely known and generally accepted. Gregmg 01:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

When publishing negative information about a living person on Wikipedia, it is normally necessary to provide citations, regardless if the fact is widely known and generally accepted. Read WP:BLP carefully. These guidelines come straight from the founder of Wikipedia, whose pleasure we all edit at.Crockspot 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

They all confirmed that the NE published the story. The story itself is not reliable as it has not been confirmed by independant new sources. Rather, they all say that she spoke to NE. --Tbeatty 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rush was charged on multiple counts based in large part on what Wilma Cline told prosecutors. She made allegations. She sold her story to the National Enquirer. She spoke with prosecutors. Rush was charged with doctor shopping and other violations of the law. This is all a matter of the public record.

People make bizzarre allegations about Rush all the time. They say he's a homosexual, space alien, etc. Nothing ever comes of those allegations, thus, they aren't deserving of mention in this article. Based on the success of the prosecutors in this case, it seems that Wilma Cline's allegations were largely proven true. I'm not sure that every facet of her allegations were independently evaluated and corroborated, but that doesn't matter. The story is reliable and notable because it was corroborated in large part by the successful prosecution of Rush and the widespread reporting of this case in the media. Gregmg 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point to consider is the fact that Rush has publicly acknowledged that he had a drug problem. That tends to lend credence to Wilma Cline's accusations, doesn't it? Gregmg 14:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Cline's allegations, if well documented by reliable sources, can be presented as her allegations. The article cannot draw any conclusions, such as adding one source to another, to come up with new statement, as that would be original research. Crockspot 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AS far as I can tell, Wilma Cline did not allege doctor shopping at all and that is not the charge that is in dispute. Rather, Cline alleged that he purchased drugs from her without a doctors authorizationg. This was never alleged by prosecutors and he was never charged with this. "Lending credence" is not the standard, a reliable source that verifies it is the standard. THere is no reliable source that says Rush purchased drugs from anyone other than a pharmacy.--Tbeatty 17:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that Cline made a public allegation to the media and prosecutors. This is what led to the criminal prosecution. It is fairly standard for prosecutors to agree to lesser charges to secure a conviction. This is all part of the public record. If you agree that the Willey and Broaddrick allegations should appear on the Bill Clinton page, than I think it's fair that this appears here, with the appropriate qualifiers.Notmyrealname 17:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of first name

I noticed that there are several places in this article that talk about the subject using his first name, like:

...it should be noted that Rush often uses heavy sarcasm to make his point.

Per MoS:BIO, it is recommended that except for members of royalty:

...it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.

I would think that anyplace that the article says "Rush said ...." or "Rush did something....", it would be better to say "He said" or "Limbaugh did something....". I thought that since this article is so heavily edited, I would bring this up on the talk page first rather than jump in and make these changes. --rogerd 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead image

If a free image exists, in every case, it has to be used over a fair use image per the fair use policies. · XP · 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Find a higher quality free image that includes only the subject of this article. An older, group photo is not an adequate replacement. Thank you. --Dual Freq 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being that bold in editing... I was unhappy with the new photo and I agree that proposed replacement is not adequate. Unless there is consensus to replace it I think the fair use one should stand. Rtrev 04:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification Has been posted here, for a final policy based opinion from the community. · XP · 07:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Basic answer is that the image for which 'fair use' is claimed needs to be replaced. As regards the comment about it being a group photo, I'd agree - but free images can be edited, and to slice Image:Rushfromgovsource.gif down the middle and use the appropriate section should be the work of a moment or two. It is an absolute that where a free image is available it must be used. --AlisonW 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm surprised by the removal of fair use Image:031002 RushLimbaugh.jpg. There have been several attempts (by various users) to delete it in the past couple of weeks, so I should have seen that coming. The replacement is from 1994, and is not an adequate replacement. I suspect the Newsweek drug cover and mug shots will mysteriously re-appear here, because they fit the fat, drug addicted, liar template that some might want to portray. As a counter example, where fair use and free images are intermixed, there are dozens of free images of former president Clinton and first lady Hillary, but fair use images are used there as well.(Image:Living_History.jpg and Image:Was564328.rp600x350.jpg are two examples) Al Franken has several images, two free and 3 fair use, one of the fair use images happens to be Image:Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.jpg, I seriously doubt that image will be removed. My summary is that this policy is selectively applied to this article as well as Michelle Malkin's article, and that the substitute images are of inferior quality and actually reduce the quality of the encyclopedia we are all trying to create. --Dual Freq 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I answered you on the policy talk and remind you to follow WP:AGF. I could are less for American media people. I simply did this on two articles I read (limbaugh yesterday; I did Malkin a week or two ago) based on policy. I searched for more free Limbaugh images but found none. Perhaps you can help by searching as well, as AGF violating accusations do not help anything. · XP · 14:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I know how to contribute free images as I have contributed over 300 free images to the commons project for use in this encyclopedia.[8] As for AGF, I don't believe I am in violation of this policy. I'm simply trying to understand the rationale for removal of images that have no acceptable replacement, in attempting to understand, the above remark was the only rational explanation for the image removal on this page. Fair use images are very common in this project, and I don't believe that inclusion of a single free image automatically forces the removal of all other fair use images. The only reason I'm not removing the other images above is WP:POINT. The extent of my edits to this page and Malkin's has been to revert vandalism that occurs on the pages. I saw the image removal in my watchlist and still feel it is unjustified. --Dual Freq 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thankyou for uploading free images! That is what we need on the Wikimedia projects ;-) So far as a rationale for removing images goes, it is a policy matter so that we can seek to provide free and open content. *All* non-free copyrighted images will - eventually - probably disappear from WP but it will be a slow job to work through them all. The fact that currently "Fair use images are very common" is a great pity as it makes more work to create a re-usable encyclopedia. btw, i have no idea who Limbaugh et al are (I'm in the UK) other than noting we have an article about them (which, as yet, I've not read). --AlisonW#

An 'F' in Speech Class? Is this a Joke?

article states:

He attended Southeast Missouri State University for one year where he dropped out after achieving an F in a speech class.

Sounds like either vandalism or a cosmic giggle

Well, if it can't be sourced, feel free to remove it or throw a cite onto it. Rsm99833 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While he did flunk his speech class, it was with a D, not an F. He later retook the class and got a C. WillyWonty 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs a cite if you want to include it. Rtrev 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a fairly well known story. You can find it in sources like the article "Limbaugh's speech professor speaks fondly of student" from February 25, 1996 Orange County Register which reads "Newt Gingrich introduced Rush Limbaugh at a November political dinner by noting that the famed radio and TV talk show host had failed a college speech class. ... The man who "flunked" Rush - actually gave him a gentleman's "D" - is alive and well and president of California State University, San Marcos, in north San Diego County." WillyWonty 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Now you just have to cite it and add it in an appropriate place. Citation template info can be found at WP:Cite. Rtrev 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if people would stop deleting my comments. -- WillyWonty 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

divorced?

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

Potential replacement Image

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

After reviewing the license I've cropped the image and uploaded to commons. I think it's a better, more recent head shot than the mid-1990s one from the gov source. --Dual Freq 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Opinion on the Michael J. Fox / Parkinson's Disease Incident

I see that references to the Michael J. Fox/Parkinson's Disease incident have been removed on more than occasion from Limbaugh's article.

In my opinion, the incident has reached a "critical mass" in the media and among the public, and does indeed now deserve to be mentioned.

However, I suggest a waiting period of two weeks before a reference is inserted into the article; this waiting period will allow the "dust to settle," and for the reference to be made in more objective manner, with greater benefit of hindsite. --Skb8721 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds sensible. My guess is that this will not be that notable after a while and will probably be dropped per WP:BLP. IMHO it seems like a lot of stuff is added here that is the "gripe du jour" about some crass Limbaugh comment that never really has lasting importance. If we put in every controverstial comment Limbaugh makes then we would have quite the lengthy and non-notable article. Rtrev 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The incident has wide press coverage and can be included now. — goethean ॐ 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree, not that the press coverage hasn't been wide, but that it isn't particularly notable. Limbaugh says a lot of shocking things and the media covers a lot of them but a lot of things don't end up being that important. As I said above if we throw every a-hole thing he says in this article it will be overly long and not particularly notable. I agree with the wait a week or two and see. Rtrev 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• WP:DUST. While there is wide coverage, it is still not clear if the coverage is based importance of the events or because two well known people were involved. A search of the news articles shows that the event occurred on Monday with newspapers picking up the story on Tuesday. At this point there has only been a single 24-hour news cycle. Waiting till the weekend to see what overall reactions occur or if there are any further actions involved in this dispute would seem wise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should be striving toward getting things right instead of getting them first. --Allen3 ^talk 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a biographical article about Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is extremely popular, influential, even admired. These comments are revealing of Limbaugh's mentality and sense of ethics. They should be included in the article. — goethean ॐ 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is once incident amoungst thousands. Is it any more relevant that something he said last week, last month, or ten years ago? Time will tell. Is there a Wikipedia policy for not seeing the forest for the trees? WP:FFT? 66.151.81.244 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DUST clearly applies here. Also I forgot to move the content back here sorry but here it is Rtrev 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a notable incident and one that should be in the article. It has been widely reported in the mainstream press. That means it is notable. What's the problem here? It seems like some people who like Limbaugh don't want this disgraceful incident reported. --Lee Vonce 03:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:DUST and if you read the section you just posted in you would see what the plan is. After letting things settle for a week or so we can decide whether this is notable in the sense that it is a significant event in the biography of Limbaugh. Skb8721 contends that it is and should be inncluded after letting the dust settle (IMHO a prudent approach). My thought is that Limbaugh has said so many inflammatory things that this is not especially notable and it should not be included after letting the dust settle. This prevents a lot of "gripe du jour" type edits from happening. However, we shall see after a few more days. It could end up being quite the scandal which is why the edits were moved to the talk page and not simply deleted. Also per your "It seems like some people who like Limbaugh don't want this disgraceful incident reported" statement... remember WP:AGF is an important Wikipedia principle. Rtrev 03:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The press is about sensationalism. Rush is an ass and he said something sensational. However, as we've said here time and time again Rush says a lot of things. Rush calling Chelsea Clinton a dog is notable. This latest flap just doesn't stand out. It deserves mention on Fox's article, but that's about it. Pyroponce 05:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read the DUST thing and it doesn't really apply. Limbaugh's statements are notable because they are widely reported in the press. His statements have to do with a notable person (Fox) and his notable disease. They also have to do with a notable event (the 2006 elections) and a notable politician running in that election. Time won't change either the notability of the people or issues involved. It would be different if Fox was just another person with that disease who only became notable because of the commercial and subsquent controversy over LImbaugh's comments. --Lee Vonce 11:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Comments on Michael J. Fox

Commenting on a TV commercial supporting stem cell research by actor and Parkinson's disease sufferer Michael J. Fox, Limbaugh said that Fox was "exaggerating the effects of the disease... He's moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act." and that Fox was "allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician."

OR

Michael J. Fox comments

On October 23, 2006, Limbaugh accused Michael J. Fox of exaggerating symptoms of Parkinson's Disease in a series of political ads supporting Democratic candidates for public office, asserting that he "exploited" his illness and was "either off his medication or acting" while filming: "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act." Parkinson's expert and author Elaine Richman, among others, observed that "anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease."

Limbaugh offered an apology later in the broadcast, saying that "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," but also that Fox was "allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician"

---

I just looked in the RL article for a mention of this and found none. I signed up to complain. This is all over the news. Please add it to the article ASAP. What about Jeff Christie? Dr.of Truth T.D. 04:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Complaint noted. Please read above comments and see WP:DUST for the reasoning to wait on posting this. So far this is well covered on blogs and in the media but it has yet to prove an encyclopedic nature (see above). Rtrev 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed your comment because of WP:BLP and your unsourced claims. I see you are new to editing the WP so welcome, but please read WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:ATT. Rtrev 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030103Letters.html

Dr.of Truth T.D. 04:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I had typed it in notepad so I still had it. Please don't erase what I write again. Everybody is titled to speak their truth.

• Per the WP:BLP removed potentially defamatory and unsourced material from Dr.of Truth T.D. 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC). --Rtrev 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't erase what I write again. Everybody is titled to speak their truth.

Looking... looking... nope, I'm not finding "Everybody is entitled to speak their truth" in the Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe you can give me a pointer?

If you post unsourced, arguably defamatory material, you can expect to see it deleted. If that bothers you, you're just going to find Wikipedia to be one upsetting place. — Narsil 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If the material is posted in the article, you'd be right. But this is the discussion page any different standards apply. Editing/removing other people's comments here is pretty rude. --Lee Vonce 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be wrong. It is clearly stated in WP:BLP.

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

The emphasis is mine. You are absolutely right that it is generally rude to edit/remove people's comments on talk pages. However, the policy is pretty clear on it and it is no more rude than calling someone gay in a public forum with nothing to back it up.

Now as per the Fox comments you will notice they are in the article now. They did become notable and I specifically liked your argument for notability above. Thanks. Rtrev 19:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As regards the other thing, I don't agree that saying someone is gay could be considered "derogatory". If someone accused Limbaugh of being a child molester without proper foundation, then I would agree that it should be made clear that the allegation lacked proper foundation. I still don't agree that the references to the cliam should be deleted by a third party though. You could ask the person to either support the claim or remove it on their own. If they refuse then you could note their refusal and advise readers to consider that when reading the claim, but I still don't think it should be deleted. Sorry but I don't like censorship. --Lee Vonce 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki article states Michael J. Fox has done political ads for Democrats, but it should be noted he has done political ads for at least one Republican - Arlen Specter. http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=196&sec=2 (Fox comments on his Arlen Specter ad in that article), http://www.campaignsolutions.com/contents/news/pollies2004/07.html (that's a screenshot of Arlen Specter's 2004 campaign website, where you can clearly see Michael J. Fox's picture in the link to an ad on the left side). That's important to this piece, because it shows that Michael J. Fox is advocating a position, not just a party. He supports whichever candidate supports research that could possibly lead to a cure for his disease.

That may well be true but does not relate to the Limbaugh/Fox controversy directly. In this case it was an ad done for several Democratic candidates. That info should probably go on Fox's page to show that he supports the issue regardless of party lines. --Rtrev 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

He lambasted Michael J. Fox, a counter commercial. AFter that he was mocking his condition in an interview, a tapped interview. ( my source is FOX NEWS) 71.236.225.50 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) there is no reason why this should not be put in, it's been talked about all day today.

See the above section and WP:DUST. The idea is add it in another week or less if consensus still thinks its worthy. Rtrev 05:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DUST is not an official policy of Wikipedia, but a guideline. Limbaugh's supporters are spinning wildly to keep his attack on MJ Fox off the page, just as they do whenever the Oxycontin-addicted gasbag embarrasses himself and the GOP, which is now a diurnal occurrence. The MJ Fox info will be reinserted. Should Limbaugh's actions throw the Missouri Senate election to McCaskill, Limbaugh's comments will be included prominently in the opening paragraphs. Eleemosynary 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I realize its a guideline not a policy. WP:AGF however, is a policy. I don't know who is a Rush supporter and who is spinning wildly. If you look above you can read the discussion. Myself and Skb8721 thought we should wait and see. I was initially opposed to addition he was for it. Other wrote in in favor. I moved/removed a couple "drive by edits" by first time anonymous users. You will notice that the statements originally written (two different forms) are preserved here on the talk page. I have also come around on the issue specifically because of Lee Vonce's argument on notability. I have no problem with it because it has become notable. However, if you have watched this page (or scroll through the history) you will see a lot of "Rush said this... its sooo controversial" edits that often never become notable, hence the caution. So stop the name calling and accusations, its not fitting for the Wikipedia. --Rtrev 21:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

DUST is a good guideline in this case. Otherwise, we will just have an edit war back and forth. Let it sit for a week or so and see how much of an impact this will really have and whether anyone cares about it. It is just the flavour of the week currently. In any case, the version that is there is not written in a neutral voice and is attacking Limbaugh rather than simply recounting an event that happened (is still happening) dispassionately. I looked back through the history and this has not been a consistent part of the article and keeps being reinserted by drive by edits. Wikipedia isnt the place for name calling or partisanship. If you are only here to damn or praise Rush, go to DU or FreeRepublic.Caper13 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The incident is on the MJ Fox page. Apparently, there are no concerns about "dust settling" on that page. Someone has replaced the event here, with an appropriate "current event" tag. Letting the "dust" settle is inappropriate and smacks of whitewashing. The Mark Foley business went up on Wikipedia minutes after Drudge posted it. Limbaugh's attack belongs on this page, albeit with the "current event" tag. "Let the dust settle" cannot exclusively apply to right-wing radio hosts who mock the infirm.Eleemosynary 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

1) A Representative having to resign from office is automatically encyclopedic

2)Who says that they should have added it to the Fox entry. Then again, seeing as how he is finally being talked about for the first time since Spin City, one could see where it is relevant for Fox. As this is just another attempt by the left to smear Rush, it is hardly notable, as it falls in the "dog bits mailman" category.--Bedford 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion. And entirely unsupported by facts. NO CONSENSUS for censoring the page. Eleemosynary 02:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, maybe it's because I'm new at this, but who deleted my quote and why delete the "he did something differently to appear in this ad than when he appears on Boston Legal" that rush said? The refernece is the same as FOX's quote before it, and I wasn't sure how to link them to the same source - I had assumed that anyone actually checking the link would have seen both.

Bedford, you are the biggest moron I have ever seen in my life, for one you brainwashed, narrow minded, right-winged nut. Hardly notable? Yeah ****sucker, making fun of a celeb who has a diseae IS notable. Infact when that happened it was a day or two later it was ALL OVER THE NEWS. Oh and the reason why he has not been in the spotlight since Spin City was BECAUSE of the diseas you dumbass. Zabrak 00:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

M J FOX taunting

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4291199.html

A prominent republican commentator taunts a man with a terminal disease for expressing an opinion and this fact isn’t allowed on Wikipedia until after the midterms? That’s just wonderful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.188.51 (talk • contribs)

More like a has-been actor misuses the sympathy he would have for his disability by lying about politicians of the political party he hates, and when the commentator gives his opinion on the has-been actor's actions, the commentator gets unfairly trashed upon.--Bedford 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are we not allowed to add the MJF incident into the article? Wikichange 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed. A few editors desperately spinning for Limbaugh are trying to game the system to keep Limbaugh's actions out of the article. This same cabal shows up whenever Limbaugh embarrasses himself. It's fine to place it in the article. Go right ahead. Eleemosynary 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To start with, it's not fit for an encyclopedia, it has no long term value, in two years no one will care about it, assuming anyone cares about it now. Limbaugh speaks for 2+ hours per day, is this representative of him in a long term perspective? Is this article a biography or a list of things he said that his opponents have been offended by? If so, someone may want to tell Jimbo to order another hard disk, this article will be quite long. --Dual Freq 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Spinning won't make it so. The attack on MJ Fox is relevant, and will be put in shortly. After it is removed, it will be reverted. Eleemosynary 00:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And whenever the cabal of DU nuts has talking points to post, they always show up to dump them here. This is an encyclopedia, not a left wing blog. --Dual Freq 00:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh attacked MJ Fox, and even mocked his condition by twitching and shaking like (what he supposes) is a Parkinson's victim. That is undisputed, and backed up by reporting by news organizations right, left, and center, as well as Limbaugh's own webcam. That Limbaugh's supporters want to scrub this info from Wikipedia is not surprising. But it will not stand. Eleemosynary 00:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Save the rhetoric. This is not a forum for partisan opinions. If you want to post on this issue, go to WikiNews or a current events area. You are obviously trying to push your own opinions. While you may feel your own opinions are valid, they are not necessary objective and that is what is required here. And just for the record...I am a MJ Fox fan. Please do not threaten to keep reverting articles. It is not constructive and is very unWiki. Caper13 01:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your threats and bullying will be ignored. As will your attempts to censor the page. There is NO CONSENSUS that the MJ Fox matter should not be on the page. You're fooling no one. Eleemosynary 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a fairly major happening. I certainly think the mocking of a Parkinson's patient is more encyclopedia-worthy than a blurb about viagra.

Correct. Eleemosynary 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, Viagra note is equally non-notable, feel free to delete it. --Dual Freq 02:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the deliberate obtuseness of some users, the point that the MJ Fox incident is completely encyclopedic is taken. Eleemosynary 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? Not by a longshot. You would have more credibility if you were trying to insert a factual account of what happened instead of a smear. Go away. Take your political battles somewhere else.

I am fascinated here. 20 million people a week listen to Rush, he makes transscripts available on subjects like these to all from his website, and yet the people who write on the main page this drivel pretend you need a secret decoder ring to listen to the show and cite the Washington Post for what he said? Doesn't anyone else find this silly? And why isn't it mentioned that 1) Rush says he was shocked about the sysmptoms he has never witnessed on Fox before and was showing his Ditto-cam audience what the ad looked like. 2) That Micheal J. Fox admitted that he took TOO MUCH medication and that was the reason for his symptoms [I still don't understand why they didn't do a re-take on the ad if the motive behind it was not to pull at heartstrings], 3) That by tellinng people that voting Republican will be detrimental to curing people suffering like him and endorsing Democrats, he entered the political arena and thus is NOT immune from questions about his motives, and 4) the final little point on that he's mis-representing the ammendment that he is forwarding in the ad. Stem cell research is not illegal, no effort is underway to make it so, the only issue is tax-payer money to fund it - and in the process of doing that the bill could possibly legalize human cloning! I almost think we should ad a "media/lib-blog hysteria about Rush" section to the main page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 October 2006

1. If Rush had never witnessed the symptoms before, he should have done his research before opening his yap. Fox had been interviewed several times on TV prior to this ad. Determining that such dyskinesia was not at all unusual for Fox would have been very easy. Apparently in his Rush to judgment of Fox and his motives, Rush didn't do even a minimal amount of homework. That's unfortunate, but not necessarily unusual.

I said he never witnessed those symptoms ON M.J. FOX before, not that he never witnessed the symptoms. Whenever Rush saw him on TV before Fox apparently took the correct amount of medication to mask his symptoms. As for homework, commenting on breaking news is something Rush - and every other journalist - does often. He corrected the record as facts became known to him (unlike every other journalist).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 October 2006

He had ample opportunity to know that Michael J. Fox had shown such symptoms in numerous TV appearances in the past. He can comment on breaking news as much as he wants—but he'd have better credibility if he knew what he was talking about. He sort of corrected the record, but as he gave with one hand, he took away with the other. He said that he would apologize if wrong, but of course he has not apologized. Shame on him.--RattBoy 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you actually went to Rush's site and see what he said - it's not difficult. Rush did appologize for being wrong when he said the "either off his meds or faking" comment.[9]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2006

That is not an apology. See below. (By the way, is there some reason why you don't sign your posts? It's easy: just type four tildes.)--RattBoy 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2. In his interview with Katie Couric on Oct. 26[10], Fox addressed this question. Essentially, the medication's effects are unpredictable. He said that he couldn't have known when, or whether, the symptoms would have disappeared.

Oh spare me. You make it sound like those drugs are so unpredicatable that they should never have been FDA approved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 October 2006

I did nothing of the sort. I simply linked to a source of information which you could have consulted prior to posting your opinion on the subject. Your apparent willingness to express an opinion without doing even minimal research on the topic is eerily similar to Rush's modus operandi.--RattBoy 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Of course Fox's motives are fair game for questioning. However, the questioning should have some grounding in fact. Especially when confronting someone who's suffering from a terrible disease, one should make sure that one has his facts in line. To do otherwise is disrespectful and in extremely poor taste.

And Fox claiming that electing Republicans will continue his suffering while showing symptoms, is not in poor taste? And as 'not taking medications' and 'taking medications' have very similar symptoms, it turns out that Rush was not far off when he said "either off his medications or acting". Whether Fox overdosed intentionally or not is of course something we'll ever know though, but continuing to make the ad when he was not acting normal (for him anyways) was in very poor taste (IMHO).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 October 2006

Ummmm…I don't believe that Fox claimed any such thing. Please provide the quote.

The ad in question says: "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." which is a lie. It goes on to say "What you do in Missoura(sic) matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me." The implication is obvious and offensive - Republicans want people with Parkinson's to suffer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2006

He did not say what you say he said.--RattBoy 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Rush may not have been "far off," but he was wrong. I invite you to educate yourself on this topic if you intend to continue expressing your opinion. And despite the attention given to the subject by him and by the Mainstream Media, he has not apologized for his slur(s).--RattBoy 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing he was wrong about he appologized for. There was no other 'slur' to speak of - time for you to give some sources (and as I've heard every hour of every show this week, I warn you that you'll probably be wasting your time).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2006

No, he did not apologize. He said that he was going to apologize, but he did not apologize. He admitted that he had been in error, and then he immediately blamed Mr. Fox for taking too much medication—implying that he had done so deliberately.--RattBoy 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Not really. In a short TV ad, there's no time for addressing every nuance about an issue; shortcuts are inevitable. The term, "Stem Cell Research," is often used as shorthand for "Embryonic Stem Cell Research," especially since it's a far more promising avenue for research than Adult Stem Cell Research. Most observers understand this from the context. In addition, the ban on using US Governmental support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research renders it effectively illegal, as research organizations would have to set up separate facilities—the research equivalent of "keeping kosher."

From what I've gathered, research seems to claim the opposite - the adult stem cells seem more promising the embryonic ones. Regardless though, the ammendment seeks to ammend the constitution of Missouri to prevent any laws against stem cell research being passed (effectively gauranteeing tax-payer research funding) - that doesn't mean that any such laws(that I am aware of at least) have even been proposed in Missouri.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 October 2006

You got any links to back up your optimism about adult stem cells' being more promising than embryonics?--RattBoy 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We are getting way off topic here so this is the last I'll say on this, but http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ has one such list - I don't know the credibility of the site, and I can't really be bothered to find out as I don't really care - so Caveat Emptor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.131.225 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 October 2006

The site is clearly agenda-driven, as shown in its "Coalition Objectives" list. You'd be well advised not to use it as a reference for anything.--RattBoy 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Rush Limbaugh article is of course not the appropriate venue to discuss all aspects of the controversial Stem Cell Research issue. It is, however, the appropriate place to note yet another controversial statement made by Limbaugh himself.--RattBoy 14:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS for removing Limbaugh's attack on MJ Fox

The incident has been tagged with the "current event" tag. That should suffice for now. Attempts to censor the page without building consensus will be reverted. Eleemosynary 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong? Things slow on the Cindy Sheehan page today? No censorship here. Just editing. Go find a blog if you want to push your own agenda. Anyone can feel free to revert this persons graffiti on this article if they insist on dragging trivial partisan matters into this page. Your threats show your true agenda.

And your anonymity shows your cowardice. Cheers! Eleemosynary 03:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit you hate Rush's guts, eleeomosynary? 7:00, Nov 5, 2006

Ahh, the consensus of one. There is no consensus to include the material either. It is non-notable, and has no historical or long term biographical value. If you keep adding it, you only force someone to delete it later since this non-notable event has no bearing on Limbaugh. This is not a blog or a news site, it is an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the above comments again. No "consensus of one." Plenty of other users think Limbaugh's attack on Fox justifies inclusion. More deliberate obtuseness, I suppose. Your threats will be ignored. I agree that this is indeed an encyclopedia; it's time you started treating it like one. Eleemosynary 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of being obtuse numerous times, I consider that to be a personal attack. I've been called worse, by better. Thanks for your opinion, but I'll wait for someone a bit more neutral than you to weigh in on inclusion of this material. --Dual Freq 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty new here but I am starting to see a pattern. Eleemosynary appears to accuse others of threats and bullying, and then proceeds to threaten and bully. I hope this doesnt seem like a personal attack. It is just what I see happening here. Perhaps others can comment on this. The focus here shouldnt be on you though, but you keep attacking other editors and you are trying to push an agenda here. That much is obvious. This is a biography of a living person. Not a complaint's page. You are the one trying to push negative points for the sole reason that you dont like the guy. Its not a competition you know. This is an encyclopedia article. This should be written as if the guy died. I really dont think his obituary is going to mention Michael J Fox, and if you think it is notable to mention every person Rush Limbaugh has criticised and do a write up on it, then WP better order more storage. The truth is, this is a minor event and noneventful in the big picture. Caper13 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: nowhere in the BoLP article does it say that a WP article "should be written as if the guy died." This is an article about a living person, not an obituary.--RattBoy 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say that policy was specified in BoLP, however it isnt a bad method for determining if something is notable or not. Specific instances of Rush Limbaugh offending someone with a liberal point of view by itself is not notable. What is notable are the things that would be remebered when that person is no longer making news. Even in the Michael J Fox case, this incident is certainly timely to MJF, but when people remember him in 20 years will his tussle with Rush be remembered. I think not. Hell, it wont be remembered 30 days from now by anyone except hyper partisans on both sides. Caper13 18:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but remember: his insults directed at Chelsea Clinton in 1993 are still remembered, 13 years later, as emblematic of his cheap-shot mentality. This current incident similarly exemplifies his habit of shooting from the lip, with little regard for facts and propriety—and thus it might be long remembered. Wikipedia users want to know who Rush Limbaugh is. This incident is a fresh new example of exactly what standards and practices he employs as a broadcaster.--RattBoy 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow... so someone that runs a talk radio attacks someone who doesn't support his views has to have those attacks in an autobiography? The lets put in every attack that Rush made on every person he talked about then... Drew1369 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove link to Claire McCaskill - this is not relevant to Rush Limbaugh

Claire McCaskill's name should be removed from the Michael J Fox Commercial section. This article is not about Clair McCaskill and she has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Wikipedia is not an advertising space to create links to political candidates from every conceivable angle. Agreed? This sort of link spamming is sophmoric and only encourages partisans to disrupt articles to try to get "their people" a mention. Caper13 13:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam? Are you serious? Readers will want to know not only about the opinion-monger and the actor, but also about the politician(s) that they're talking about. A link to the Wikipedia Claire McCaskill site isn't linkspamming, because (for one thing) it doesn't link to her campaign site. Instead, it links to the Wikipedia entry about her (which, as you must know, is editable by anybody—her supporters and detractors). Since the ad in question supports McCaskill against Jim Talent, perhaps it would be appropriate to note his name (and wiki site) in the description, as well. Would that unruffle your feathers?--RattBoy 13:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, Claire McCaskill isnt part of what this "story" is supposedly about. We could include a link to Jim Talent, but how about Ben Cardin and Michael Steel who were also part of the attack ad campaign that Michael J Fox was part of, but that will just bloat this thing even more. Since the story that has evolved is either "How dare Limbaugh criticise someone with a disease" or "Michael J Fox was purposefully using his Parkinsons as a political weapon", neither of which have anything to do with the candidates it was made "For" or "against", I say again, that a link to Clair McCaskill has no place in this story. If any ONE candidate should be linked to, it should be Jim Talent, who was the target of this ad, but I wouldnt even support that. Caper13 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Added the Controversy section

You can thank me later. Zabrak 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Neutrality

I saw that the neutrality tag was added and it pushed me to add one more. I have been meaning to add the NPOV check tag for a while but have been holding off to see where things were going. I am not the only one to notice that this article really reads like a litany of Limbaughs foibles and it seems that it is a constant attempt by editors in holding back pure vitriol towards the man (although I can certainly see why he is disliked). I think that the neutrality and NPOV tags are good for now and discussion -- EVEN MINDED AND LOGICAL DISCUSSION... PLEASE-- should follow. I hope this to be a serious and critical look on whether this article is giving a truly fair and neutral biography. Before any claims of "this is a conspiracy by Limbaugh supporters" arise I would like to state where I am coming from. The pages I edit tend to be people that are living and elicit a strong reaction and/or are very controvertial. This includes Matt Drudge, Nancy Pelosi, Rush Limbaugh, and Barack Obama to name a few. I really don't have a strong opinion on Limbaugh and don't listen to his shows or read his books. I just like to keep things on an even keel. That being said I would like some critical and logical responses and hopefully edits. --Rtrev 02:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think anyone who sees this article as their canvas to take a swipe at Limbaugh should step back and really ask themselves if this is the purpose of Wikipedia. In the discussions above I see examples of 'so and sos page is vandalized by right wingers on a daily basis'. Yeah, and? Does that then entitle you to go out and throw purely negative comments into another page for the purpose of getting even. Wikipedia is either going to end up like a blog monopolized by its loudest and most persistent users, or it will enforce a standard of professionalism in its presentations. I made the example of an obituary style above. This should be written focused on the main points of someone's life. Many people's lives do have embarassing or negative elements to them. Limbaugh's drug addiction problem would certainly qualify as being notable as it had a major impact on his life and career. Is it the main focus of his life? No, its a paragraph and a relatively short one, but it is there and I wouldnt support removing reference to the episode. Questioning whether Michael J Fox was exaggerating his symptoms because the change in his image from what we all were used to was so jarring (and politically convienient)? No. That wouldnt even warrant a footnote. Limbaugh has pissed off plenty of people through the years, Fox can get in line. But I get the impression that those most eager to push this story (and others like it) into the article are motivated by a desire to take a swipe at someone they don't like and to pile on. People may be going and vandalizing Barack Obama's page too, and that isnt right, and if you need help to help hold it back, I will. But for those who consider themselves "against" Limbaugh to do the same thing is just as wrong. As another example, Franken's book is trash IMHO, but that being said it's probably fair game to put it in the list of books since it did get a fair amount of press. But do we really need a book like Kimble, Crawford W., Sr. (2004). Rush Limbaugh, Apostle of Hate? How Long Will He Last?. ISBN 0-967-93782-5. which is so well known it has been out for two years (I suspect it is self published) and hasnt yet garnered a review on Amazon, even from the rabid Rush haters? This is another example of the NPOV on this article being tilted needlessly towards the negative, just for the sake of taking a swipe. Caper13 02:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Hello everybody, I am the user who has added the NPOV tag. See this page is so bitterly devided with haters and fans that putting this tag on was a task you people should have done a WHILE ago. Zabrak 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While reading through this page, i found myself becoming increasing ill. Ive referenced wikipedia many times and have always considered it a very good source of information. Now i'm not quite sure. There are very partisan opinions being displayed as opposed to a nonbiased biography of a man. I am neither a Limbaugh supporter or hater, but only an individual seeking useful information. Since this page was available to the public, i felt the need to read it. Knowing that expressing ones personal opinion is human nature and wanting to be viewed as correct is human need, i expected controversy. What i did not expect to find were the degrading statements made of the man of which the article was written. The name calling of this man (pill popping gas bag among other things) is beyond my comprehension and the personal attacks on each other for having an opinion is shameful. My personal opinion is that a website of this caliber should strive to hold itself to a higher set of standards and to limit disagreements to agreeing on a conscensus as opposed to personal attacks. As for the name calling and degrading of the subject of the article on a page that can be readily viewed, i guess shameful is the best word i can use to describe my feelings. It truly degrades your site.Jmsseal 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This article represents the worst of wikipedia and should be deleted completely

The desire of the GOP to rewrite history in their favor is best illustrated by this article. Wikipedia should NOT be trusted to provide useful or truthful information. The fact that anyone can defend someone who openly mocks a man with a terminal disease for expressing an opinion is disgusting, but what is more disgusting is that this fact can be actively hidden by his supporters. But hey, if the GOP can support and cover for a pedophile such as Mark Foley, I guess they can support anyone who agrees with them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.188.51 (talk • contribs) .

There's no way this article will ever be neutral with people like you adding 'mockingly flailing arms' [11] accusations, unsupported by the reference you cite. --Dual Freq 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is generally not the policy of Wikipedia to delete articles representing hundreds of edits by scores of editors over the course of years because an unregistered user with 7 edits to their IP who doesn't sign their posts or cite their sources well has the idea that there is a GOP conspiracy to rewrite history. I don't know a lot about internal GOP politics but they are probably too busy rewriting the 9/11 page to seem like it wasn't a government sponsered massacre to be worried about Rush Limbaugh's page. --Rtrev 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A case for semi-protection

Maybe I'm off base here, but I thought I'd add the idea of semi-protection for this article. Repeated name calling and addition of POV terms and this is just a few since 22:48, October 27, 2006 (UTC): [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] This article is a lightning rod and probably should be permanently semi-protected since a lot of time is wasted reverting cranks. --Dual Freq 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you are off base at all. It is obvious that a certain amount of vandalism is taking place by participants who are afraid of 3R. Semi protecting the page for a while would stop this, as well as discouraging drive by vandalism while he is in the news. As to permanent semi protection. We can discuss that as well, but I would unhesitatingly agree to at least a temporary SP. Caper13 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody know the protocol / procedure for reporting vandalism only accounts such as the few that have vandalized this article since semi-protection? --Dual Freq 12:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) 3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism, like the most recent example. It is somewhat of a pain to deal with. --Dual Freq 20:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The article as written seems fairly neutral with only a few statements such as "In reference to Ted Kennedy, he often cites the alcohol use that led to the death of Kennedy's campaign worker/girlfriend, Mary Jo Kopechne, at Chappaquiddick, while noticably ignoring his own past drug problems, by calling Kennedy "the swimmer" and referring to him as the Senator from Chappaquiddick," the while noticably ignoring his own past drug problems part which is an obvious swipe,imho. Protecting it now would seem to eliminate a lot of needless work. I wish that i could see articles written leaving politics aside because there are some incredibly intelligent people here. Jmsseal 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I'm suggesting semi-protection which applies to anonymous users such as the ones listed above. Those are pretty much all obvious vandalism, and have little to do with NPOV. Of course semi-protection might not have stopped this edit [25], but I think it could be done. --Dual Freq 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anything that would even slow down the abuse this page has taken would be an improvement. Like i have stated before, i really enjoy this site. Im just disheartened to find this going on.Jmsseal 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Looks like its done... so nevermind. --Rtrev 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Anybody know the protocol / procedure for reporting vandalism only accounts such as the few that have vandalized this article since semi-protection? --Dual Freq 12:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Allen3 ^talk 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)