Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy

Improvement to the article - items to be cut down and summarized, does prior Consensus need to be revisited, non-NPOV items that may need revisiting

First, there has been an ongoing discussion that has waxed and waned as to whether this article needs to simply be merged to Rush Limbaugh. At the recent (4th?) discussion of WP:N of Sandra Fluke (delete again), some complaints about failure to include recent events, not taking into account the larger issues, and the uninformative listing of names Limbaugh has been called were all brought up. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Thus far, merge discussions have focused on impact on Limbaugh, and impact on society in general. I think as far as impact on Limbaugh, that ship has sailed, there was some, but it's over. As to impact on society, there was too much political theater to let substantive issues come to the fore, so there was little, except to delay discussion of the First Amendment. On the AfD, several editors expressed the opinion that the Incident was going to have some effect on the upcoming election; I think it is crystal balling, but there are some minor, very recent, and very short-term indications. Perhaps it is becoming more important to elevate the article's standards above that of an attack entry, however justified some of the criticism was. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, absolutely justified to say that as of August 15, importance of the RL-SFc to the Democratic campaign was WP:CRYSTAL, and based on a social media campaign that might have traction among a small group of party activists, but hadn't had any impact on the overall Democratic strategy. As of the beginning of September, is clear that the Party is adopting reference to the RL-SF controversy as a strategy, and since there is not much time left, for good or bad, they are going to be stuck with it. Clear that the prior consensus, that RL-SFc was limited to the participants, and excluded side issues, needs to be revisited. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections needing summaries, not quotelists

The quotes from Fluke and Limbaugh are too long, the Response sections need to be summarized, and the boycott (we can now objectively describe it as a summary because it is over) section needs to be cut WAY down as well. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. THis is the heart of the controvery. Rush and Fluke's comments need to be accurtaly shown without added POV.Casprings (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As has been brought up several times over the last few months, and especially more recently, we haven't included the rationale for arguments that eventually degenerated into "slut" comments. Also, the need for SUMMARIES of Democrat responses and Republican responses remains.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify; the whole thrust of Limbaugh's initial criticism (eventually half) of Fluke's speech to Democrats was the $3000 contraception bill. This was panned and disputed by many health care professionals and political pundits. It takes away from an understanding both of the impact of RL-SF and the genesis of RL-SF that this started out as a substantive commentary. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Boycott section

OK, have done the boycott section; more than happy to get input here. Probably needs some kind of note that THIS Controversy produced more effect on Limbaugh than any previous one, grappling to figure out how to get that to NPOV, and not use WP:OR--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Added a section, although trimming the Boycott section has been up on Talk elsewhere for a month. A few items may have seemed notable at the time or were put forth as things that WOULD be notable, but in hindsight, weren't. The Media Matters paid campaign probably got more attention on Wikipedia than in the real world. It was at the end of the boycott, was interesting at the time, as editors argued either that it was going to take the boycott to a new level, or that it was a sure sign the unpaid social media campaigns had run their course. In retrospect, it's pretty clear the latter, and therefore not notable, since it had no effect, and the rebuttal that it was "astroturf" is also therefore no longer needed. Blow-by-blow of how many and when; this DESPERATELY needs summary, as the individual daily updates no longer matter (actually, they didn't at the time, but we have hindsight). Needed in summary, how many (problem still with a hard number, since almost all primary sources were parties to the boycott in some way), how and by whom boycott organized (social media sources, mostly), and objective assessment of overall impact in contrast to other attempt (right now, none; very BAD reference about one radio network that carries Limbaugh on only a few stations, and is promoting a competitor show). --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, Cumulus OWNS programs that it makes lots of money on, and LICENSES several programs, like Limbaugh, which it makes modest money on. Comments by Cumulus blaming its losses on Limbaugh are interesting, but don't amount to a verified, global effect; Premiere is his major distributor, and they are fine. Putting in a reference that just quotes Cumulus financials without independent analysis is WP:OR. Simple reference indicating that Premiere is doing fine, and has made up all its losses needs to be stripped of WP-editor-generated conspiracy language not found in reference.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

They are quoting politico as a source. That is WP:RS. Whatever the company does with the program, it doesn't matter. There is no reason to not include the statements(which need to be worded in a WP:NOV. Right now it favors Limbaugh) way and Rush's response. What the CEO of Cumulus said and Limbaugh said in return belongs in the story. Casprings (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comments and edit summaries are unintelligible. The Politico article entitled "Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing 'very well'" says basically what the title says it says. The WP:POV that you, Casprings, are reinserting into it is not the POV of the article, pure and simple. No-one has removed "Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing 'very well'" from the article. You, Casprings, have inserted a naked NASDAQ stock quote as if it supports Lew Dickey's position, which it does not (beyond confirming that losses occured), and is a WP:PRIMARY source, not useable. You, Casprings, keep REMOVING the WP:RS, also from Politico, that confirms that Limbaugh intends to drop Cumulus, essentially the required rebuttal NPOV standards demand. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, the $3000 contraceptive bill was widely mocked by health care economists and pundits across the board; if this article is JUST about RL, and a very isolated incident, we don't need to know that or any extraneous details about Fluke; if it has larger ramifications which are now more predominant, that is one of the first things that should be put in.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

SOme pointed out that some birth control was cheaper. That still doesn't change that some isn't.Casprings (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Democratic responses

A Summary would have to include the "War on Women" catch-phrase; this was arguably a big roll-out for the Democratic Party. Also, subject for discussion; do we need to include that they (less successfully) tried to label the non-appearance a "War on Women", or not? Also probably have to include that a common theme of Democrats was the attempt to link Limbaugh to Republican electoral efforts. Some variety, such as "leader of the Republican party", etc. How many citations, and what variety do we need under each of the Summaries of the themes?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Section still reads like a thesaurus, not an encyclopedia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect (always easier), THE most important aspect of the Democrat response was the virtually complete uniformity; the robotic repetition of the phrase "war on women" seemed stupid and uninformative at the time, turns out this was the rollout of a focus-tested catch phrase that was adopted through the 2012 elections.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Republican responses

In generalities, easy. Every Republican candidate and leader was asked to comment, and condemned the use of sexist language, but took pains to NOT condemn the underlying issue, that the administration mandates and/or compelling religious organizations were a bad idea. Some variation in specifics were there, but the lead is easy. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-Evaluation of established consensus - do the substantive issues need more weight

We do not have much of a discussion of substantive issues, such as the First Amendment violations that the staged Congressional Fluke drama sought to drown out. There was much criticism of the ugly tactics used, but we have (by consensus, which btw, I agreed with at the time) excluded these as the focus is on the RL-SF Controversy. If the RL-SF C is being used as a campaign touchstone (too early to tell), this needs to change.209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also excluded were the mostly substantive criticisms of the very bad speech Fluke gave, by many, including Limbaugh (before he went off on the infamous "blue" tangent). I have in the past said I didn't care how bad Fluke's speech was nor how good the criticisms were, their inclusion takes away from the main thrust, the "slut" comments. As the significance of those clearly wanes, this Article only survives if the ISSUES become of some importance in reference to the whole RL-SF Controversy. We should perhaps reconsider the deletion of the "Criticisms of Fluke" that I previously agreed could be deleted. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruption of a hearing on Religious Liberty and First Amendment Rights was the purpose of the presentation of Fluke to begin with. It is not in retrospect unreasonable to say that RL-SF is what made the tactic work, or that trotting out Fluke for campaign stops to change the subject from the economy to allegedly "mean Republicans" was the true overall impact of the incident.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-NPOV sections allowed so as not to take focus away from "slut" comments

I especially refer to the Issa hearing. Democrats did not in fact claim the half-truth that the FIRST PANEL of the Hearing had no women, they claimed the factually FALSE, that the HEARING had no women. They similarly tried to interject Fluke at a point where theology was being discussed, and claimed that the subject was Contraception, again factually FALSE. We have allowed a background section that is trying not to take too much emphasis away from the "slut" comments, and in doing so, allow partial truths which are too favorable to the Congressional Democrats. If this is becoming an election issue (again, too soon to tell), then that probably needs to be revisited.209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

1. The Issa Hearing was strictly about 1st Amendment issues of religious liberty
2. The Democrats failed to nominate anyone (at least properly)
3. The first of two panels was leaders of religions about their religious tenets
4. Fluke wanted to speak, "now", at a point when nothing she was going to say would have had anything to do with the Hearing agenda, though she MIGHT have had a case to speak in the afternoon.
5. Democrats declared that the Hearing had no women, when it in fact, did.
6. The protest was widely criticized, but with almost all criticism being directed against House Democrats, and was limited to the attempt to deny the subject of religious liberty.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Use and reference to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy in 2012 campaigns

After a lull, due to lack of traction, several attempts have been made in the 2012 Presidential campaign to remind voters of the RL-SF controversy. Fluke has also been hired by the campaign staff to "speak", but what involvement there is, is a little difficult to discern. These include an introduction in Denver, which was publicized as a rollout of important new issues, but ended up just being "remember RL-SF?", and now, the invitation of Fluke to speak at the Democratic Convention. It remains to be seen whether this will again be "remember RL-SF?", but, as discussed on the AfD, we perhaps need to expand the prior consensus that this was just a "slut" comment, and that it only relates to Limbaugh. Particularly need analysis of what the RL-SF controversy is being used as; a surrogate for saying Republicans are mean, or for changing subjects, or to to allege a "war on women"? There are several commentaries on what the inclusions say about Democratic strategy; should these now be included?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Democratic Convention is over, it is clear that there was a certain commitment, at least for the week, to rallying the base, and Fluke and the large numbers of other abortion-rights speakers was much remarked on as signalling an overall change in electoral strategy. Fluke's speech recalled the Limbaugh remarks, and tried to tie them to Republicans, implying that Obama's phone call signaled his concern for women's issues. Definitely needs a section.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there enough sourced material for a separate section on this topic as it relates to the controversy with Limbaugh? If not, and the convention linkage to Obama's call is sourced, I'd suggest possible mention in the Democratic "Reaction to Limbaugh's remarks" section. —ADavidB 17:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Another possible way to approach this. The RL-SF controversy was definitely used in late campaign stops (Denver) as a surrogate for what Dems wish to project on Republicans, also was the entree of Fluke's speech to the DNC. Would have to re-do some structure issues; Fluke commentaries are presently separated from Dem , though she is now a campaign operative, so that may deserve revisiting. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Objections to beginning Improvements suggested

You don't have concenus for any of these changes. I suggest we try Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.Casprings (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that wholesale edits that add POV throughout the article be left for later. Lets concentrate on the background section and get a clear consensus on that, first. Casprings (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your objections to working out edits and improving the article through productive discussion on Talk are duly noted. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have always been willing to work out disputes. That is difficult when another user misrepresents the facts to the degree that you do. Casprings (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with Casprings on this one; I think that it may be most productive if you two take this to Requests for Mediation or the like. Getting outside voices on an article for changes as contentious as these would be a good idea. Good luck improving the article, and Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikilink of War on Women

Are we really getting to the point we are fighting over rather to wikilink something. This is just silly. Casprings (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, there are limits on wikilinks. Wikipedia has a written guideline on the issue: WP:LINK#General points on linking style which includes, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the 'See also' section of the article." —ADavidB 19:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The WP:MOS issues are simple, straightforward, and addressed on the edit descriptions. The revert war and WP:PA on other editors is not similarly justified. The sentence as presently composed clearly refers to the exact phrase that was commonly used by Democrats to describe Limbaugh's comments, and is thus clearly a quote (and therefore cannot as per WP:MOS be wikilinked). If INSTEAD, the reference was to Democrats rolling out a campaign strategy, the War on Women, a wikilink would be appropriate. Please address the WP:MOS issues and stop WP:PA--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an actual quote. It is absolutely fine to link this to a page that also discusses the subject. Casprings (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is a quote, per an accompanying source which quotes its use many times. WP's link guidance suggests that instead of linking within the quote, the link can be included in the 'See also' section, which you recently did. —ADavidB 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, as stated above, the sentence clearly refers to a quote, and a wikilink makes no sense. It might make perfect sense to leave the sentence as is, and just above the sentence, right under the "Democrat" title, have the "see also War on Women. Won't object if you revert, but it takes it from hidden at the bottom of the page to within the text.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the fuss, gentlemen (and women)? If it's in a quote, don't like it. If not, link your heart out. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

what do you think of the compromise proposed?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In my view, the link would have more context within a local "see also" reference. —ADavidB 19:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm

Is it worth mentioning that Limbaugh's characterization of Fluke is completely counter to how oral contraceptives actually work? DS (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless the realities of contraception are directly tied to the Limbaugh–Fluke controversy, their mention may not be from the neutral perspective required. The worthiness would depend on how it's mentioned and why. —ADavidB 07:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cumulus drops Limbaugh

Cumulus is dropping Limbaugh today. Several of the news sources list this controversy as a possible reason for dropping the show. Should this be included? 68.153.29.9 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutly. Lets gather sources that link it to the controvorsy and add it.Casprings (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fluke's millionaire boyfriend refuses to pay for their birth control

I added the following to the article:

Conservative commentator Jim Hoft wondered why Fluke's millionaire boyfriend, Adam Mutterperl, wasn't willing to pay for their birth control.

Chucky Cheerio (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)