Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Untitled thread

First off, sorry for not editing this page in the correct way. I am very unfamiliar with editing here.

I am writing to note this on the Rush Limbaugh page: "During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program, Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then stated, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" and held up to the camera a picture of the then-teenaged Chelsea Clinton. Responding to the ensuing criticism, Limbaugh claimed he had been handed the photo by mistake.[84]"

This is a false version of events. I recall that here on wikipedia, that version of events was attributed to the year 1993, then to november of 1992. Now I see its been changed to a vague "during the clinton administration".

I watched the Rush Limbaugh tv show every day when it was still on the air, and that's a phony description of events. Rush never asked that question "Did you know there's a White House dog?", nor was he handed ANY photos, much less made and claim that he was handed a wrong photo.

Here is what really happened:

http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

This wiki article uses Al Franken's book as a source for the false version of events, but that link debunks Franken's claims with a partial transcript of rush's show. Rush's detractors, including Franken, have in all these years has yet to produce an official transcript, or better yet, a video of this event they claimed happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.43.249 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this as poorly sourced and non notable. --Tom (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess this was added back, I haven't looked yet. I would still leave it out per undue weight unless it was widely covered and was some big deal, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the pain-killer addiction?

Not even a statement that it occurred. This was pretty big news back then seems like it should merit a mention in his personal life section. I don't think sources will be too hard to find.Ukvilly (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• (Reinserting my comment below --Brendan19 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. This page is constantly being whitewashed by dittoheads (this time tjmcdj) to make Rush into a saint. I prefer just showing him to be the person he is- accomplishments, flaws, and all. I have restored the page to include all the relevant info. I also included info about a prop Rush used back in the Clinton administration- it was a photo of Chelsea. User threeafterthree seemed to think that a photo (i.e. prop) isn't relevant in the props section and also thought it was poorly sourced (the source was a book written by a current US Senator). I disagree to both of those contentions and, therefore, undid that whitewashing attempt also. --Brendan19 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• (End of reinserted comment)
  • I just removed a comment that wasn't really helpful. Can we try to stick to discussing improving the article rather than attacking othjer editors? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a list of dittoheads who constantly whitewash this page. Seems you are assuming bad faith edits. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page and I made no attacks to "othjer" [sic] editors. These are examples of personal attacks. I disagreed with you and this, the talk page, is the place to do that. Read this to understand why you shouldn't refactor MY words on a talk page. Do not remove my comments again.

All of that said, do you have any ideas to improve the article or did you just want to remove my words and tell people that you didn't really find them helpful?--Brendan19 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the poorly sourced "material" again. Was this "event" widely covered and was really that big a deal that it warrants inclusion in this bio. Maybe include it in the sub article about his show if at all? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can now see that this was, and is still, widely covered and I hope you are satisfied w/ the amount of sources. --Brendan19 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of sources is not as important as their quality. I still don't know enough about this event to tell if inclusion in the bio is warranted, by I hope others will chime in. I did remove some material which was not covered in the citations. Maybe the last sentence can be tweeked to reflect what the sources say? --Tom (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't chime in often around here, but yes, the pain killer addiction was big news. There was a period of time where there were questions about whether or not his addiction would lead to his incaceration and thus ending his broadcasting career.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it would be easier to support inclusion if we could get the section trimed. I think the overall situation is newsworthy. I'm not sure that (although i'm sure they were reported) that every arguement made by lawyers on both sides needs to be there. Do we need 800 words to say there was an investigation, he admitted a pain killer adiction, charges were dropped after he agreed to pay investigation costs and recieve 18 months of treatment.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the incident should be mentioned, but that it also needs to be pruned back to a more reasonable size. As a point of comparison, the article currnetly contains 35Kbyts of readable prose (according to User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js). The section dealing with his prescription drug addiction contains 3923 B (~11% of the total article) while his four year long nationally syndicated television show only receives 264 B (~0.75% of total article). Does anyone who supports in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight truly believe the addiction issue is 10 to 20x more important (a comparison implied by the roughly 15x size differential) to Limbaugh's public life than his television show? --Allen3 ^talk 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it can be trimmed quite a bit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking a really stupid question, but if there is nothing about his pain killer addiction, what's Rush_Limbaugh#Prescription_drug_addiction? NickCT (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That section at one point had been removed, and the removal was reverted by one of the people commenting in the thread. Here I believe. [1].--Cube lurker (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. Ok.. I'm with you. For the record, I think this section qualifies as notable and should remain. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clinton's have a dog material

Sorry for any confusion, I caused above. I wasn't talking about the pain-killer addiction, but about the story of Limbaugh busting on Chelsea. --Tom (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm still trying to figure out which are pending changes. They say nothing has really changed, but how do you tell which changes are the pending ones? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have the Reviewer privilege, then they are very hard to miss when you look at the history of a page under "Pending Changes" status. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Phony soldiers section.

The section on phony soldiers currently contains the following:

"and their article received substantial press coverage after it was discussed in speeches by Presidential candidates John Edwards and Chris Dodd."

which appears to be cited using:

Dems Criticize Limbaugh's Comments

This reference is no longer verifiable. Does anyone know of another source to substantiate this content? I am particularly concerned with the phrase "substantial press coverage" and whether the source supports the claim. --Rush's Algore (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this but did find the AP article being hosted at Breitbart.com. Hope that helps. †TE†Talk 05:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "substantial press coverage" since it was not supported by the reference in question. I don't have any objection to it being reinstated as long as a supporting reference can be provided. --Rush's Algore (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Public perceptions

Why is there a "public perceptions" section? I don't think he is running for office. He continues to enjoy unprecedented radio dominance. I'd say he is popular with the market segment he is interested in being popular with - what does the opinion of people who don't listen to his show matter? What other radio hosts have a "Public perceptions" section that seems to exist solely as a delivery mechanism for negative polling data? Howard Stern? No. Al Franken? No, and popularity would be directly applicable to him as he is now an elected official. A Google search shows that "Public Perceptions" as a section is exceedingly rare on wikipedia. If I were to find and source similar polling data that showed a negative light on former President Clinton's legacy (who now occupies a part-time activist role in leftist politics) and I added such a section on his page - how long do you think that would stay assuming it was all done correctly? A few seconds? And would that removal (which would be justified 14 ways to Sunday) have any bearing on this section continuing to exist on this article?

Looking at the polls themselves, the citation links are broken. The link on the Rassmussin poll just lists the result, but not any of the breakdown or who commisioned it. On the puplic policy poll, it jumps out right off that the poll was commissioned by Dean Debnam, who is a well-known booster for the Democrat party. I'm guessing that a poll conducted by your direct public enemy would normally be considered less than reliable? It would be interesting to look at the history pages for other polarizing figures and see how many similar polling sources were immediately (and properly) discounted as heavily politically biased. Zilla1126 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)