Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Conservative?

I think its misleading to call rush a conservative perhaps a ultra conservative or a neo conservative are better titles

Neoconservative is not accurate and ultra conservative is hard to define. Conservative encompasses both of these anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What does it tell you when the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) chooses Rush Limbaugh as their keynote speaker? [1] . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• comment removed per WP:TPOC - Overjive (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)*

86.158.101.94 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would work real well in offending half of the Wikipedia audience! And where is your proof? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) . . . PS: Did you mean "I", or did you mean "It" ? . . . . . . . PS2: Use your energy and time in a more productive manner.

Praising Ugandan killers - L. and the Lord's Resistance Army

"Radio gasbag praises Lord's Resistance Army, which specializes in abusing Christian children" Limbaugh embraces Ugandan killers salon.com Oct 26, 2011.91.39.97.221 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Add it in. It was addressed by multiple mainstream news sources. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll need coverage in independent reliable sources that say he "praised" them. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Edit request

I think the older image which was used before was a lot clearer, I would like to propose to change it to this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rush_Limbaugh.jpg

The picture you mention is more appealing photographically, but it is a mugshot, and thus violates Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) which is particularly important in Biographies of Living Persons (see WP:BOLP and WP:MUG). The photo choice is discussed in the thread above. Cheers. Overjive (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Other languages red links

Does anyone know why the links to other versions of the article are red links? I checked the Japanese Wikipedia, and the title is correct, without redirection. Also, I can see the language links in other articles (e.g., Template:Cite web and Victoria Azarenka), so it is unlikely to be my browser.—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny: even if the links were to pages that didn't exist, they shouldn't appear in a different color. I mean, if there were a link [[ja:Bogus title]] to a nonexistent Japanese-language article, this should be presented in the same color (and with the same wording, "日本語") as a link to an article in ja:WP that did exist. Anyway, all looks good to me now. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Claims" of Inaccuracy?

How are blatant factual distortions from Limbaugh "claims" of inaccuracy? The section should be relabeled "Inaccuracy", to account for his inaccurate depictions of the Lord's Resistance Army, among other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.138.72 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment removed per WP:BLPTALK which says, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." " When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page..." I've asked for input on the BLP Noticeboard. I request that we err on the side of BLP until they reply. Overjive (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Saw this on BLPN. Comment restored per WP:TPO -- and the fact that there's no BLP violation here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Overjive, please don't abuse WP:BLP to stiffle valid discussion on a talk page. IP-contributor: currently the content of that paragraph talks about "alleged" inaccuracies. If there is enough reason to change the text, then there would be reason to change the title. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 14:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Feedback from the BLP Noticeboard indicates I over-reacted. My apologies to the editor. I have restored the original section title. Please assume good faith. Cheers. Overjive (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rush limbaugh.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rush limbaugh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rush limbaugh.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

His 2012 attacks on this law student, on three consecutive daily broadcasts, calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" for advocating health insurance coverage for contraception, and his demand for a "sex tape" from her, and the critical response to it from across the political spectrum, and cancelling of advertisements by some of his sponsors, should be included in the article. See NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, SFGate, Washington Post, Fox News, and Forbes. Rush's response should be included for balance. Edison (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Added under "controversies". Please feel free to improve. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

so you removed the whole thing? you didn't tag it, nor did you elaborate or attempt to discuss exactly on what you objected to. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If we added every controversial thing Rush said over his decades long career we would quickly run out of diskspace. This is Friday. It's a slow news cycle. This incident will be forgotten by Monday. This is an encyclopedia-not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). – Lionel ^(talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Rush Limbaugh says this flap will be bigger than the "Phony Soldier" where he was misquoted and maligned by Senator Harry Reid but turned it around. Limbaugh has a lot of points to make that editors here should note before jumping on to attack. [2] Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

this thing isn't going to end soon. also, just so it's stated, i have a lot more sources describing his comments as an attack as well as many other synonyms, but have been told that there's enough.Paintedxbird (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

can someone have a word with this guy? this is getting significant coverage internationally from a variety of quality sources and is absolutely notable. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If this section is to be included it is too long for something so recent with the story still developing. We don't follow the story--we're not a newspaper. We document established facts. This is per WP:BLP. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No WP:BLP concerns here because all the sources provided so far are some of the finest sources out there. The length is appropriate considering the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. As this is seen by Dems and the media as the newest installation of "the Republican war on women" media interest is unlikely to wane. I wish you luck keeping this information out of the article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

this is just as important as the other controversies. in fact it probably has more international attention than many. i don't know if he was mentioned by so many senior politicians previously, but there was nothing non-factual about what i wrote. did you even check my sources before you went deleting? everything is attributed and verifiable. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Painted, Sonic, WP is not a newspaper. Recent events, no matter how important you may think they are, should not dominate any article or section relative the entire article. Sonic, just because you have RS' does not mean that there cannot be BLP concerns. Painted, NPOV and Weight are overriding policies for Verifiability. If the only current reasoning for such an excessive section is "It is getting a lot of attention in the news right now" then Lionel's point is made and WP:RECENT applies. Also, don't use what you think is going to be the future outcome as rational for current events. Unless some good rational can be given the section needs to be removed as undue weight and non news for the immediate time being. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

if you call someone a slut and a prostitute would you call that a comment or an insult? how many references equating it to an attack do you need? i had about 8, i could go higher. there's nothing ambiguous about his comments. non-news? you've got senior politicians discussing this. did they discuss his NFL club ownership bid? Paintedxbird (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, WP is indeed not a newspaper -- or anyway it says it isn't, though in places (notably the top right of the top page) it conspicuously is. The question is less of how important this event seems to either of the two editors you address, or to you, or to me, than of how important it seems to reliable sources. "Recentism" elsewhere is often rightly cited to explain a bias toward 2012 events (or non-events) at the expense of 1982 events (or ditto), but reliable sources were just as able to report on Limbaugh's utterances in, say, 2009 as they are now, and the fact is that these very recent utterances have got a lot of RS coverage. (Very possibly more than they merit, but if you or I think this, it's beside the point.) And there's more besides: "Presentador calificó de “prostituta” a estudiante defensora del control de la natalidad" takes it outside the anglosphere. ¶ Unless some good rational can be given the section needs to be removed as undue weight and non news for the immediate time being. Like it or not, it is news. That it happens to be news now ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper!") as opposed to news a few months ago seems beside the point: the RS don't merely exist, they're abundant. (Compare WP's coverage of the similarly recent death of Breitbart: No editor has yet suggested "His death is in the news; Wikipedia is not a newspaper; therefore we should just sit on the matter for a couple of weeks before writing it up.") Of course it's imaginable that much of this Limbaugh/Fluke/etc brouhaha will be largely forgotten a couple of years from now, but this too is an irrelevance: most of what most people do is largely forgotten a couple of years thereafter; Wikipedia records it (in a way that meets certain standards) for anybody who may be interested. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in my $0.02...I can understand the concerns of recentism and undue weight, but I think removing the section entirely is a bit ridiculous. It's a notable event that's been in the headlines for several days and has received attention from not only most major press outlets but many notable and high-ranking politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. It's no "dominating the article or section"...it's roughly comparable in length to any of the other items in that section. Sure, it's not something that should be the main focus of this BLP, but I think omitting it entirely would be a disservice to this encyclopedia as it's clearly a notable event in Mr. Limbaugh's life. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What a jackass! It is difficult to believe that he considers himself "credible" when he misreported the facts about what she testified and the facts about how birth control works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.184.231 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh's utterances do seem to elicit strong reactions. Probably everybody who has either contributed to the article or commented on this page has his or her own opinion. But if we express them anywhere, it's not on this website. As pointed out at the top, this page is for discussion of improvement of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)