Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

Article split

Please read the article on Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Summary style. This is not a "second article". It's meant to be the only article on the Sandra Fluke controversy. In fact, I think it's a good idea to move it there.

I'd prefer to have only short summaries of the media incident at Sandra Fluke or Rush Limbaugh, with the long version here.

But I won't edit war, even though I spent a lot of time discussing this beforehand and actually doing it. If the consensus is against me, I'll go with the flow. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes Since to Me

I think the Sandra Fluke article should be integrated into this one. There is no reason to have a topic on Sandra Fluke except for this topic. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Some more Thought is needed on the name

I don't think the name is really great. Suggest we put some thought in renaming the subject. I know this was thought out on the Sandra Fluke page, but I suggest we continue it here.Casprings (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps Limbaugh-Fluke controversy? The word "flap" doesn't appeal to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like that. Controversy is more appealing to me also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How about not having a separate article? This is absurd. "Limbaugh–Fluke flap"? Is this some kind of joke? Maybe mention this in the Rush Limbaugh article, but anything more is absurd. Where's the sense of perspective and proportionality? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush just lost six sponsors over this and this is also national news..... This is not out of perspective or proportion. You know how many one hit wonder bands have wikipedia sites? Casprings (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see MZMcBride's point that a separate article may not be justified. If you feel so strongly, MZMcBride, feel free to nominate the article for deletion. But what Casprings points out, and I believe the count is now seven sponsors lost, makes this more than a routine controversy. The notability of bands, though, is not relevant to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I started a merge discussion here: Talk:Rush Limbaugh#Merge discussion. I'd like to see a serious debate about the merits of redirecting this article into the main article (in this case, Rush Limbaugh). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now there are too many articles. Ideally, there should be one; Rush Limbaugh. If there are to be two, then I guess Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy are best. Having a Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke article and this one is highly duplicative and, frankly, an embarrassment. Speciate (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (see Wikipedia:Splitting). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

All right, you guys talk about it while I get some sleep and go to work tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've moved this page to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy because no one likes the term "flap" as part of the article name.

Goodnight, all! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What she said

Shouldn´t the first section be something like "Background", or "Sandra Fluke´s statement"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of when statements were made

As the article currently stands (1:44 US-Eastern, March 5th) it seems as though Rush used identical phrasing on two consecutive days when speaking about Ms. Fluke. It could also be that the last editor did not read the previous pages and wrote up the the information in a slightly different fashion. I know the article is changing rapidly but it would be good to have a clear reference as to when statements were made and if they were repeated. Something like 'The following afternoon Mr Limbaugh repeated his claim of...' 209.51.184.10 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke needs too keep her own page

To merge her with Rush Limbaugh is an insult to this young woman. Merge the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy to her page on Wikipedia.

She is an important and newsworthy person in her own right and I am betting we hear more from her.

Instead of merging everything towards Limbaugh as if he is the important one here is a negative to all women who are outraged by his conduct and who seeks to learn more about this woman. I just Google her today and her bio page is where I went, not his and not the controversy page.

Keep her page and merge the dispute to her page. This is not the end of this I feel and she certainly is news worthy for her advocacy.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The testimony added little to the overall debate, and was full of factual errors, couched in alleged heresay. Ms. Fluke's accomplishments are very modest thus far, and the story, while newsworthy BECAUSE of the controversy, is only newsworthy with it. The hearing was a minor staged event. She may become more significant, as she has political allies now, but that is speculation.216.236.252.234 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with everything this lady says, but to be fair, if "Joe the Plumber" gets his own page this person should too.

The move to from "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy" to " Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy"

What is the point behind that? I think it should be "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy" Casprings (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The use of the uppercase is resevered for what are termed "proper names". You see, this article has what we call a "made-up name only found on Wikipedia" and on this Wikipedia, we only reflect what is to be found in the sources. Speciate (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Insincere apology

Many WP:RSs have said that his apology was an insincere non-apology. I think this is one of the best of those statements:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2012/03/rush_limbaugh_s_apology_to_sandra_fluke_was_awful_here_s_what_he_should_have_said_.html How Not To Apologize Rush Limbaugh’s statement on Sandra Fluke was a textbook example of what not to say. By Emily Yoffe|Posted Monday, March 5, 2012, at 11:16 AM ET

--Nbauman (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)