Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Conservative?

It is an insult to old-style Conservatives such as Barry Goldwater to describe Rush Limbaugh as one of them. I understand that he is what US Conservatism has turned into recently, but I believe that we need to be much more specific.--75.25.130.215 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is worrisome to think what conservatism would be without Rush Limbaugh. Time and time again, he has pointed out the dangers of pandering to the ideas of the Democrats and Liberals. Congressmen and Senators appeared to not listen and now those that based the ideals of the conservative party on pandering to the ideals of others are suffering politically for general lack of ideology. Real conservatism is based on personal responsibility - something long forgotten by the liberal left. Rush uses puffed up words like "excellence" and "right" to convey his all too correct insight on today's political events and people are glad (as shown by his ratings) to hear someone who isn't ashamed to be right "99.1% of the time". 72.54.93.138 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

^LOL74.140.210.223 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how reliable a broadcast's ratings are as a determinant of correctness (or even relevance). So You Think You Can Dance is watched by an incredible amount of people. It got an Emmy. And it's about dance crews. The number of people who think he's correct is completely irrelevant- A massive swath of the population thinks this planet was created in six days by a magical man several millenia ago, who took care to make sure the planet looked much, much older for some reason. Wait, that's a good part of Limbaugh's audience, actually. --King Öomie 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Painting with a broad brush, there. Either way, you're welcome to disprove what's said. Most people can't because it's true. Just because someone has different views than you, that does not make them incorrect (or more inclined to be incorrect). That's a huge problem, because most people write him off as being 100% wrong, simply because they don't like him. Do they make the effort to actually listen to what's said and consider that "Hm, this could be true..." rather than jumping to "Hm, well he used to be fat and had a drug problem... so obviously what he says carries no validity. My argument is done, I win." Gpia7r (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

^LOL again199.76.188.51 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Limbaugh says a lot of things that are factually in error. For example, "It's that there is no man-made global warming." (11-30-09 and plenty of other times). Statements like this contradict science, but he builds upon such errors with more errors. PashaNatanovich (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In error according to whom? Have you not been following the news for the past two weeks? The claim that man-made global warming exists has long rested on flimsy evidence, and some of the best of that evidence just went kaboom. Anything emanating from CRU, or relying on their data or research, must now be discarded, and the record re-examined without it. Are you still so sure of your position that you feel comfortable calling Limbaugh a liar for taking the opposite view? -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about his substance abuse or his weight. His views on science (and scientists) disgust me. Directly from the article- [1]. He doesn't think too highly of scientific consensus, either. --King Öomie 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your connecting religious people to his viewership, and in turn to the correctness of him. I'm not religious, you're not religious, and religion is irrelevant to the discussion. The "massive swath" of people have to go somewhere to get truth (even if it's 99.3% accurate). The biggest disappointment is the media's lack of reporting, and blaitant lies. So, the passive-aggresive comparison of the type of person that listens to his show to the type of person that believes in a magical man (which only implies you believing they are complete dolts) isn't all that neutral and isn't really needed in a discussion you aren't required to take part in if you can't do it in a neutral way. The last lines in my previous comment were referring to the typical actions of media, not you personally. Gpia7r (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That percentage keeps going up... =P Lies according to who? I mean, who has the facts? According to who? I feel like that second part is FAR more important. And I never said I regarded the fundamentally religious as 'dolts'. If that's what comes from being demonstrably incorrect (and unapologetic about it), though, then I suppose it goes beyond my opinion. But according to who? =D --King Öomie 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...Or should that be 'whom'? --King Öomie 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Science specifically does not allow for consensus. reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Next I thought this was to discuss whether Mr. Limbaugh is a conservative. To that end: 1. Conservative - (Definition) a member of a British political party promoting free enterprise and private ownership. (Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, Copyright 1996, Oxford University Press, Pg 298-299). 2. By the definition provided on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism, The opinions expressed by Mr. Limbaugh seem to fall into the category of "Classical conservatism and economic liberalism".

   Sethklinefelter (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in prior discussions on articles like this one, the consensus has seemed to be to identify the subject as they label themselves. For example, Sean Hannity is labeled a conservative, even though some people feel he's a neo-con. Political definition is quite a grey area in some cases, so many editors allow the category to be self-defined. Otherwise, we're doing original research in analyzing the subject's views.

Please note I'm not saying consensus can't change here, I'm just clarifying for other editors how this discussion has wound up before. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta Rush has apparently had some sort of heart event and is hospitalized in serious condition. But even though Google news lists 30 articles they all use a local TV station KITV as the source - its would be good if we could get another primary source before people descend on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfromatlanta (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No Rams or quote controversy?

Is there really no mention of the St. Louis Rams bid or the false quote controversy? All politics aside, these are pretty substantial news stories. If people want to make the argument that they aren't significant enough to warrant mention, fine, but the article currently mentions that Rush once appeared on Letterman (as has every celebrity on the planet), appeared for about 10 seconds on Family Guy, was on the cover of Cigar Aficionado, etc. How are those more significant? There is also a very long section on painkiller addiction, and a whole separate article on Barack the Magic Negro (which I realize is about more than just his show, but is still pretty Rush-centered). Doesn't a national, widely discussed news story like this get at least a few sentences? -R. fiend (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of inclusion, however, since Wikipedia/Wikiquote is kind of up to its neck in this thing, we have to be extremely careful. No self-sourcing of WMF, extremely neutral treatment, the most solid sources only, no original research. Basically, by the BLP book in the extreme. It's also a still-unfolding saga, so it wouldn't hurt to let the dust settle a few more days. - Crockspot (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think much of that goes without saying, or should, at least. I see no reason why we can't have a brief paragraph covering the basic facts neutrally. I think the main problem is once we start people often wiki it up and turn a concise paragraph into a rambling, long-winded treatise attempting to cover every single aspect of the incident. I think we can probably prevent that, if we try. -R. fiend (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, if only to make a point of debunking the false quotes that were attributed to Rush. People are going to look this up after hearing about the story, and our article should present a brief but clear and neutral summary. Now... who wants to be the one to try to write it? :) Robofish (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a story I've really been following, so I may not be the ideal person to write it, but I can give it a shot when I have a little more time. As I said, I'm just looking for a short paragraph of the basic facts, so it really shouldn't take too much expertise. The trickiest part I guess will be covering the false quotes, as where they originated will be pretty important to the section, and from my brief examination of the issue it seems that matter is still somewhat up in the air. -R. fiend (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this page which is about the book from which the quotes in question apparently originated. It seems to cover the situation decently and fairly, though perhaps a bit more in depth than this article warrants, although much of it seems to me to be out of the scope of that article as well. I don't want to do a cut/paste, but perhaps a summary of that here, using the same sources (assuming they're good; I haven't really looked) would be a quick and easy way to cover the incident without doing a bunch of research. -R. fiend (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Missouri State University should be changed to Southeast Missouri State College, which is what it was called when Rush attended there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Missouri_State_University —Preceding unsigned comment added by PashaNatanovich (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Leader of the Republican Party

Why is this under "Controversial incidents". He did nothing. Rahm Emanuel made this statement. And what does the sentence "On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Emanuel" have to do with anything?Rlbarton (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who knows anymore? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that the dust has settled we can place it in the proper location. Soxwon (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that we've moved past them a little...

I think that the "Barack the Magic Negro" section, the "Operation Chaos" section, and the "Fail" section should all be re-evaluated for relevance. They're all really one shot incidents that generated little buzz afterwords. Perhaps the Barack the magic negro and Op chaos could be subheaded under "2008 election" and the Fail section could be combined with leader of Republican party? Soxwon (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

as a person who isn't really involved with this page, that makes sense.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the current division is fine. They're all noteworthy occurances that are well sourced. The "Barack the Magic Negro" and "I hope he fails" controversies are well sourced and occurred before the 2008 election and "Leader of the Republican Party" repsectively. -- User:Chelydramat ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Soxwon and Balloonman. Both sections need to be shortened and merged into a larger section. UnitAnode 06:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Content

In the paragraph: "Barack the Magic Negro" parody, is that really have anything to do with Limbaugh? I was just wondering because its in the Controversial Incidents. And quite frankly, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Mr. Limbaugh.Prettyflowers1 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes, of course it has to do with him! He plays it all the time. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but there's no question that it's his. -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion is a clear case of WP:Undue weight. Barack the Magic Negro is a Paul Shanklin song inspired by a March 19, 2007 Los Angeles Times column by David Ehrenstein. Limbaugh's association with the song is as a disc jockey and there are two other people and one newspaper that are more directly linked to this song. The argument that this needs to be included in Limbaugh's biography is comparable to an argument that every pop song from 1970 to 1988 needs to be documented in Casey Kasem's biography. --Allen3 ^talk 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that Shanklin is closely associated with Limbaugh. "Shanklin writes most of, and voices the characters for, the songs and satirical comedy segments used by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh." That doesn't make it clear exactly what their relationship is: does he work under contract for Limbaugh, does he write for the purpose of selling to Limbaugh, does Limbaugh give him the ideas he wants developed, or does he work entirely for himself and Limbaugh is merely a really big fan? -- Zsero (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the Paul Shanklin article, the idea for the parody was Shanklin's. If you have a source that says he works for RL, then it might be relevant. Otherwise, I would have to agree with Allen3. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heart Attack Today?

Just saw on cnn.com he was in a hospital in hawaii with chest pains, listed in serious condition. someone want to add this?98.117.145.168 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Rushed To Hospital

http://www.khon2.com/content/news/developingstories/story/Rush-Limbaugh-in-Serious-Condition-at-Honolulu/sBGSbb4mO0q1VdQdEe4goA.cspx

Let's all pray, remember, like Rush did for Obama. Pray for what is YOUR choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.25.211 (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta I've added the heart even but we still only have one primary source - KITV a local station. The CNN report even sound a little skeptical saying that its a coincidence that it would happen while he is vacationing at the same time in Hawaii as "his nemesis"(CNN's words) We could still really use a second primary source as everything I can find right now leads back to KITV - specifically to http://www.kitv.com/politics/22094469/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfromatlanta (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta Reuters, The NY Times and CNN allreport trying unsuccessfully trying to get a statement the hospital and from Rush's people with no success. I'm watching the DirecTV news mix and none of the news channels are covering it as more than a heart event and serious condition. I don't see how we can conclude he has died with current data. God rest his soul if he has passed. But this is an encyclopedia and we don't have a primary source. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

Paulfromatlanta CNN just went live to a reporter at the hospital who had an unidentified source saying Rush would be staying the night but that there would be nothing official tonight. So it looks like things are stable for the night unless something unexpected happens. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

From RushLimbaugh.com, apparently an official "release""

ALERT: Rush was admitted to a Honolulu hospital today and is resting comfortably after suffering chest pains. Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes. He will keep you updated via RushLimbaugh.com and on Thursday's radio program.

Looks like he's going to be okay, so that's good. UnitAnode 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Shiny Example of How Wikipedia is a Joke

This is over. And this talkpage is not a forum for the airing of grievances about Wikipedia. If people keep posting things like this, they'll most likely be blocked from further editing. UnitAnode 03:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article was edited by Kk8punk3d288 with the flat out lie that Rush Limbaugh died. It is a perfect example of how Wikipedia is packed full of lies. You can review the BS edit here: [2] You can review how others are laughing at Wikipedia's moronic dubious achievements here: [3]. Once again, Wikipedia is a joke.--InaMaka (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously? It's called "vandalism". You don't need to get your panties in a knot. Vandals come here and report people "dead" every day. I don't know how someone racks up 2,000 edits and still sees vandalism as a sign that Wikipedia is "a joke". --King Öomie 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Limbaugh was "declared" dead by Wikipedia for a total of 6 minutes from 5:04 UTC till 5:10, and again for 11 minutes from 10:24 till 10:35. Big whoop. All it shows how quickly such errors (usually) get corrected. -- Zsero (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) The REAL joke is how sites like RadarOnline think this non-event is actually news-worthy. "BREAKING NEWS: MAN STUMBLES SLIGHTY, BUT CATCHES HIMSELF!" "HOW WILL HE LIVE WITH THE SHAME? WHY DOES ANYONE STILL LOVE HIM?" --King Öomie 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Not so easily dismissed Rightly or wrongly, many people take what they read in Wikipedia as "gospel," or at least as factually accurate as other online sources, or indeed even traditional encyclopedias. Dismissing this false report, even if it was up for only a few minutes, as "vandalism," will not assuage those who turn to Wikipedia for factually accurate information and find they were given misinformation. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Do you have anything else to suggest instead? Oscroft (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC) User talk:paulfromatlanta The real story here is one that isn't interesting to the media - I'm very junior here and I did check the trail to the primary source before I wrote the heart event paragraph. But I wasn't prepared to defend the article. Senior people stepped in immediately and kept the article limited to verifiable Encyclopedic content. Its a thankless job y'all do but this IS a Shiny Example of Wikipedia. It must suck to wake up to a Drudge story of how Wikipedia reported Rush dead. But every time I read an article about the "Wikipedia elite" or how "occasional editors are not welcome," I'll think about this article and how problems were fixed in minutes and the verifiable content by this "occasional editor" was left standing - but was moved to the correct section and hyper-linked. Don't let the bastards get you down - the "Wikipedia elite" provide one of the greatest services of the Internet era and make it possible for us occasional editors to participate without getting our little contributions destroyed. Sadly, the real story doesn't make for a good headline. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement, but since certain articles, like this one, are more liable to vandals than others, how about blocking all edits to an article by anonymous users as well all users with less than say 2000 or 3000 edits? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) It would be infeasible to prevent edits based on edit count (who decides, based on what, etc etc), but articles facing large amounts of vandalism are routinely protected from IP edits in a process known as "Semi-protection" ("Full-protection" being no one can edit the page). This is usually only done when the article faces a high volume of vandalism, which this one doesn't. See WP:RFPP for more. --King Öomie 20:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Of course user Kk8punk3d288 was banned right? His page here at Wiki is still active so I'm guessing he was not banned. Therefore we can conclude that it was not vandalism as this user has done many other edits that remain. Unless Wiki takes action, it seems to me that this edit, while wrong, was allowed or he'd be gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.238.67 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC) No, he has not been banned, or even blocked. But keep this up and you will be. Honestly, I have now spent more time dealing with people complaining about the vandalism than I did with the vandalism itself. The people who added false information to the article made a serious error of judgment, and they have been warned for it. They have not repeated it, so the matter is at an end. Further complaining is unproductive and will be dealt with accordingly. -- Zsero (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC) So you're going to ban people for criticism now? Gee, let me dig deep and send some money to Wikipedia's online panhandling link above and help finance your fine fascist work here!173.65.221.85 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC) The primary reason I wound up creating an account on this travesty of a site was to deal with blatant errors that certain article campers, considering various subjects "their own" refused to fix. It took being accused of sock puppetry, being banned, being harassed in email and more to get a single item changed in a meaningless write up for an old TV show, for example. But in the end I won...and some people are still crying about it. Wiki is indeed a laughingstock for that sort of thing, among many other reasons, including, now, this one. The begging for money at the top of every page doesn't help. The complete refusal of reputable colleges (and even high schools) to accept data straight from the place is evidence of just how bad it has become(yes, I have high school age children, am pursuing a higher degree currently and have family who both teach and are pursuing degrees at various institutions at various ages). No place accepts Wiki as credible, but someone go ahead and bleat how I'm wrong and their internet school does... The fact the "editors" of this place act as pompous as they do, as if they were actually contributing to something viable or valuable, is at least entertaining. The fact that people get banned for pointing out the incompetence, and the hypocrisy(and that it's stupidly done in public on these pages and linked around the 'net) makes for truly high humor. I'm certain Limbaugh will appreciate the joke, unlike some of the denizens of this place. FMChimera (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Current event template

just added it, Article might need few "Reliably Sourced" statements Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• We're not a news website, so there's no need for that template, unless the situation either turns very grave, or (God forbid!) he dies. UnitAnode 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a for quick reporters glance source i have readded a reliably sourced neutral sourced non crystal ball statement Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ok dont want edit war here i am dropping it Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These post are almost incoherent. UnitAnode 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

i know i need to slow down when writing Weaponbb7 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in the wrong section, anyway. "Recent events" is under the "Other media appearances section." Look for "Hospitalization for chest pains" in the "Personal life" section. Eegorr (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mutual

Rush worked on the Mutual radio network as the news reader on the Larry King radio program around 1981, beginning I don't know when and lasting I'm not sure how long. If someone has the correct dates it would be good material for Rush's work history. Rainbow-five (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed copy edit

This article is pretty rough in places, would anyone be opposed to me giving it a fair copy edit. I know alot of editors watch the article, but no one seems particularly dedicated to raising its quality. I am going to go ahead and start. It won't hurt my feelings if anyone wants to revert it all once I am done. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Facts

Unless you truly know what happened, DO NOT write facts about the hospitalization. Thanks, Old Al (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Radar online and Fark.com all just picked up WP's false announcement of Limbaugh's death.... C'mon you guys we have policies about verification of facts and increased level of scrutiny for biographical articles of living people for a reason...Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the false information was reverted within 6 minutes the first time, and within 11 minutes the second time. Compare that to how long it takes a newspaper to correct its errors, if it ever bothers to do so. Frankly I do not believe that the proprietors of either of those web sites actually saw the article during the two brief windows in which it was vandalised, unless they were behind the vandalism. If they went trawling through the history, then you can do the same on any article and find even worse things. Big whoop. -- Zsero (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked CNN or the New York Times didn't have a reputation for regularly declaring premature deaths of public figures. The whole point is one of verifiability. There should never have been a mistake to begin with vandalism aside. The "Big Whoop" is Wikipedia losing credibility as a source of information which in my opinion is a pretty damn big deal.Nefariousski (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not have been intentional vandalism. They cited this blog http://www.blancadebree.com/index.php/2009/12/rush-limbaugh-dead-at-age-58/comment-page-2/#comment-1038 - instead of punishment or limits on editors, it may require more education about what constitutes a valid encyclopedic source. Now its true there was an explanation as to why this was not a good source in Talk but lots of editors ignore Talk, unfortunately. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

Anybody with the intelligence to know how to edit WP is intelligent enough to realise that that blog is not even on the same planet as a reliable source. -- Zsero (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh died - according to Wikipedia?

Internet tabloid RadarOnline ran a story saying that Limbaugh was prounounced dead on his Wikipedia entry shortly after midnight (EST) Jan 1 /2010:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/12/exclusive-oops-wikipedia-pronounced-rush-limbaugh-dead

Specifically, the following is quoted:

---

Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (pronounced /ˈlɪmbɔː/;born January 12, 1951, died December 30, 2009) is an American radio host and conservative political commentator. He is the host of The Rush Limbaugh Show, the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. It airs throughout the U.S. on Premiere Radio Networks.

---

I'm not able to find that in the historical versions of the main article. Anyone else?