Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Added POV tag to show description

I realize that this is an article under development, but the description of Rush's show is pretty blatantly biased, and requires some editing. Specifically the language about Rush's listeners being more aware of current events than non-listeners and the various explanations for the Michael J. Fox episode (which take up about 3 times as much type as the event itself.) Heavy editing needed IMO. SJennings (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. Primarily, I think the Limbaugh Show section needs to be split up and refocused somehow. Presently, it seems devoted to covering scandal after scandal, which is largely media sensationalism to begin with. This information should be pruned down and probably given its own subsection. As it stands, I feel that the section gives undue weight to recent events in relation to the Limbaugh Show as a whole. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to re-do the article, which spends waaay too much time singing Rush's praises and doesn't evaluate his career objectively. I'm fine about presenting his successes, but what he has achieved needs to be put in context, which this article often fails to do. It's obvious that a few people have inserted items to try to balance it, but that has made the article very cumbersome and awkwardly written. I admit, I had to do some of that too-- not having time to re-write it, I settled for just refuting some of the more blatantly biased segments and trying to provide some context. Since I am in radio professionally and am also a media historian, I thought I could help by adding some links and comments that provided more factual information. I added new polls that contradict the "Rush's listeners are smarter than anyone" polls-- I don't wanna debate whose listeners are smarter; my point is that in radio, polls are constantly changing, and one poll may indicate that Rush is on top, but another may show he's #2 or #3. In other words, it's not useful for whoever wrote the original to cherry-pick poll data. Trends repeatedly show that NPR's audience has the most college grads, and contrary to the myth of the "liberal media", in the most recent poll data I could find (done by Arbitron, not NPR!) 30% of the NPR audience self-identifies as Republicans, with another 20% as independents. But I digress. I provided both pro- and con- Michael J. Fox and VoteVets.org material, as well as more recent poll data that shows which demographics currently listen to Rush. Frankly, the article really needs a re-do so that it's not so much of a cheerleader "isn't Rush the best?" article and more an objective discussion of a very influential talk host who still has over 13 million weekly listeners and is on over 600 stations. I'll help in any way I can-- I do have access to plenty of objective research, as well as partisan articles from both his fans and his detractors. DevorahLeah (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)DevorahLeah

I'm a relative "newbie" to Wikipedia as a volunteer editor, and am particularly interested in the NPOV and POV issues. The Rush Limbaugh article is one of several that add the adjectives "conservative" or "progressive" to the description of the subject as a "talk-show host", or something similar. It seems to me (from an "appropriate" encyclopedic-language perspective) that if NPOV and POV are to be followed as stringently as is indicated in the Wiki instructions, these adjective labels should be eliminated AS PART OF THE SUBJECT'S DESCRIPTIVE "TITLE", and a discussion of the subject's political views should be relegated to later in the article. There are many reasons for this, but one argument is that the term "progressive", for example, when applied as an adjective description of a talk-show host, is less problematic than the term "liberal", because "progressive" implies a favorable judgment. "Conservative", it could be argued in this view, would deserve to be changed to "responsible", for example, or perhaps "reasonable". It doesn't seem to me that Wikipedia needs to be in that argument, and the situation could just be avoided by describing ALL "Radio talk-show hosts" as just that.--RogerR00 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, people are described as such if they self-identify as such. Limbaugh states he's a conservative, so it's on the page. Hannity says he's a conservative so that's what's on his page, even though people try and label him a neo-con. Olbermann does not identify himself as a liberal, so he's not identified as such. Redrocket (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can sorta buy that, although Ed Schultz isn't identified either way, and he's certainly got a political identity. What about my "conservative" vs. "progressive" descriptive adjective point? I see the term "progressive" as implying approval, which isn't NPOV to me, wheras the term "liberal" would seem to be the correct counter-view to "conservative", from an encyclopedic-language perspective. Or am I just being picky? Don't worry about my feelings. Be Bold, as they say.--RogerR00 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Military Service?

The two-sentence section on Rush's "military service" does not make sense to me. If anything, shouldn't the title be "Lack of Military Service"? If NOT being selected for the draft constitutes military service, then I don't know what Wikipedia is coming to. Denis Diderot II (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll fiddle with it, but it might be best to delete? Bad title for sure. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Draft Status" would seem to be an appropriate title. -HeatGeek

Environmentalist Wacko

I think that statement needs to be modified because it's too broad. Rush certainly does not mean that ALL environmental/climate scientists are 'environmentalist wackos'. The reference cited could also be improved since it does not directly support the article statement. The reference does not give Rush's own definition of an environmentalist wacko, but must be inferred from the reference text. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know where you're comming from, but it's Rush's term. If you do a little research, you'd find he's meaning those who don't practice sesible nature preservation, they basicly see us, mankind, as a threat to the world and want their ideas imposed onto all

Elliott (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Elliott7Elliott (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Draft Status" would seem to be an appropriate title. -HeatGeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.234.216 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Link

The term "school choice" down under The Rush Limbaugh Show links to "charter schools", not the Wikipedia article on school choice. I believe that Limbaugh was referring to actual school choice (as in choosing what schools one's children attend) rather than charter schools. 12.13.176.152 (talk)Lissa 17:37 23 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It points to the school choice article now. --Onorem♠Dil 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 Campaign

Should there be a mention of a statement Rush made saying that he may not support the Republican presidential nominee...assuming it was either John McCain or Mike Huckabee? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention the last time he went to the bathroom? Is this article suppose to record every word and action the man takes? Hahahah. Let's not go overboard, I say. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense intended to anyone, but IMHO for some reason this article about Limbaugh is starting to look a lot more like a newspaper Sunday Section story or an underground biography than an encyclopedia article. Sorry, just trying to keep it real.--RogerR00 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In a lot of ways it does. Seems there are many editors who wish to fill this article with every form of insignificance.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

Is there some reason that every section is negative? Why "Failed Relationships"? Do we do this for every celebrity? Somehow there seems to be a pattern here....portraying only the negative aspects of is personal life. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deafness

OxyContin cannot cause deafness because it doesn't have APAP. I believe that police records indicate that he only had received 90 days' worth of Oxy anyway. Vicodin & Percocet have APAP & police reports indicate that he had received thousands of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.12.143 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, footnote 97 links to an article that contains this quote: "Harris, the San Diego doctor, says he has treated two patients whose hearing loss seems to be connected to Vicodin addiction. There's good news for patients who use the drug as prescribed, however. "I've only seen it in people who are really addicted and abusing Vicodin, taking way too many doses per day," Harris says." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.12.143 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that his father (who never took vicodin) started going def later in life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.191.77 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg

Why isn't this article in Category:Cyborgs? Rush Limbaugh has a Cochlear implant.

63.245.164.227 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Armed Forces Radio

There are lots of stories about attempts to get RL taken off the Armed Forces Radio. How did he get on in the first place? Soldier votes? Congress deciding content? Director of AFR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.192.2 (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Salon:

Eleven years ago it was Republican members of Congress whose pressure put Limbaugh on American Forces Radio in the first place. In 1993, then Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., along with 69 other Republican House members, sent a letter to President Clinton's first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, demanding that both Limbaugh's radio show and his syndicated television show (on which Limbaugh compared preteen Chelsea Clinton to a dog) be broadcast to the military. "Limbaugh has been called by his liberal critics 'the most dangerous man in America.' It appears the liberal leadership at the Pentagon agrees with that ridiculous assertion," Dornan wrote. "The bottom line is that the troops want Rush Limbaugh, and you should see to it that they at least have that opportunity."

The Pentagon responded by pointing to an internal survey of 50,000 military listeners that found that only 4 percent requested more long-format talk radio. Most respondents overwhelmingly requested continuous music. The Pentagon also said that Limbaugh's daily three-hour radio program would monopolize too much of the network's limited airtime.

Notably, on Nov. 29, 1993, American Forces Radio and Television Services issued this statement: "The Rush Limbaugh Show makes no pretense that his show is balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point of view."

Yet just three days later, as the controversy was stoked in conservative media and Republicans cried censorship, Aspin called Limbaugh to assure him that the Pentagon would find a way to get his program on the then-named Armed Forces Radio.

---

Any other sources back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.192.2 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And you point is?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) First, citation for the article about right-wing congressmembers putting him on Armed Forces Radio is here: [1] May I add this on his web page? The reporter, Eric Boehlert, while a liberal, is a very credible journalist and media critic, in my experience, and while some may disagree with his assessments, he tends to have very accurate facts. Second, it IS a fact that the right wing in congress have actively prevented opposing views to the Bush administration from being heard. Howard Stern was kept off of AFRS,and liberal talker Ed Schultz was as well. (See for example, "Armed Forces Radio Tunes Out Liberal Show Host" By Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, 18 October 2005; Page C1. [2]

First paragraph below:

Liberal radio talker Ed Schultz was eagerly anticipating his debut yesterday on Armed Forces Radio, which agreed last month to carry his program to nearly a million soldiers around the world. But at 7 a.m., Schultz's producer got a call from Allison Barber, the Pentagon's deputy assistant secretary for internal communications, who said without explanation that the deal was off..."

Kurtz, btw, by most accounts, leans right (his wife works for the RNC, I believe) but he's pretty accurate with the facts as well. There was ultimately a compromise reached that one hour of Ed's show would be carried, and to my knowledge, that has happened.

What does *any* of this have to do with Rush Limbaugh the *man?* Absolutely nothing. This sort of banter belongs on the Armed Forces Radio Network page, take it there. Payneos (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Romney and Rush wars

Should some mention be made of the fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, and other radio types came out strongly against McCain before the Feb 5th primaries, but yet their efforts didn't work and perhaps caused a backlash? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is zero evidence it incited a backlash, but I do agree that his recent anti-McCainism could be notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No evidence of a backlash, but given the press, and the fact it is such a topic of discussion, makes mentioning anti-McCain statements notable enough.--Bedford 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our" Troops?

"...maintains a page where our troops can register for a free 24/7 membership"

I can't access the referred article (registration required). But does this really mean to say any country's armed forces, anywhere in the world? Or should it perhaps read "...American troops..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find info specifically stating it's just US troops, but it's probably reasonable to assume it doesn't apply to all troops from all countries around the world. Changed to US troops. --Onorem♠Dil 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

♠ It is for US troops. My apologies for forgetting to make the distinction when I wrote the section.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of RUSH's Nobel Peace Prize nomination

I don't have the details, but Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It was eventually co-awarded to Al Gore and some other group. Rush talked about the nomination proudly on his show frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.162.182 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed. His nomination was basically bogus. It was submitted as a publicity stunt by a group that has no authority to make such nominations. It's hardly any different than if I had sent a nomination to the Nobel committee naming Fudgey the Whale. -R. fiend (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He was nominated by Mark Levin, but I don't think it was official.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems remarkably more significant than if a random person had submitted a fictional entity as a nominee. His nomination should be mentioned, I believe it was more than just Mark Levin who nominated him. Also, even if it was a publicity stunt, a nomination is a nomination. If a person like the user above me were to nominate a fictional character, then campaign for said fictitious character in order to prove a point, then such a thing would be worth mentioning. To not include this in the article shows bias. POV is not just about what is IN an article, but what you choose to leave out as well. Rocdahut (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, a "nomination is" NOT "a nomination." There are specific people entitled to nominate people for Nobel prizes, and not one of them ever has nominated Rush. It would be comparable to someone sending a letter to the President suggesting that you be nominated at Attorney General when you're not even a college graduate, much less a lawyer. It would be disingenuous to then claim that you were one of the people that the President considered for the Attorney General post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.139 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are aware, aren't you, that there is no requirement for the Attorney General to be a lawyer? Ditto for the Supreme Court justices. Here's who can nominate for the Nobel Peace Prize:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states; 2. Members of international courts; 3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes; 4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and 7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

According to the official Nobel website http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html item #3 says Directors of foreign policy institutes. Mark Levinn is the director of an (admittedly partisan) foreign policy institute. However, it would still be an official, legal nomination. 69.54.33.33 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the Landmark Legal Foundation is not a foreign policy institute. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

According to you.

can't edit page

I tried to correct his job description to "comedian" and add how me called Senator Obama "Curious George" but couldn't do it for some reason, as if the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.81 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big argument here -- if you don't like Rush, fine -- but I'm just listening to the segment you're referring to right now, and for the record, Rush never called Obama Curious George. A caller did, and Rush chuckled: are we that sensitive these days that a mere chuckle at a joke that might be construed as offensive, is offensive? Lighten up!

Leroyinc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, but the best part is Rush then pretended that he had no idea Curious George was a monkey, proving he'd rather be thought culturally illiterate than a bigoted oaf. - Nunh-huh 06:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My Mom, who's six years older than Rush, said she hadn't heard of Curious George until my brother and I read their books, so it is credible that Rush didn't know who Curious George was.--Bedford 06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your mom presumably doesn't "chuckle" at jokes that depend on allusions to Curious George, then. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was listening to Rush at the time of the chuckle. Truth be told, I chuckled more than Rush did. He laughed like a half of second; I did for about three seconds. And I know who Curious George is.--Bedford 08:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly anyone who laughs at a joke who's humor derives from an allusion to Curious George knows who Curious George is! - Nunh-huh 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly is the encyclopedic value of mentioning any of this in the article? Wikipedia isn't a forum for political debate. I wish some people would understand that.----Asher196 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It becomes encyclopedic if it is used as, say, part of a litany of Limbaugh's racially insensitive comments in a reliable secondary source. It's the source that's lacking, at least at present, and not the encyclopedic value. - Nunh-huh 13:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By your tone, I can see you have a specific POV on this subject, which I believe would be carried to the article. I still reject chuckling at a joke as encyclopedic, and think you should read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information on what and how information should be presented.----Asher196 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your clairvoyance has failed you badly. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

There was no discussion on the talk page regarding the dubious tag. Absent any objection, I will remove the tag again. In the cited source, Limbaugh refers to the UN panel on climate change as Environmentalist wackos. There is nothing dubious about it. Please explain the need for the tag. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it and have no opinion on the source itself right now, but the Environmentalist Wacko section above was started by the editor after tagging the comment. There wasn't much discussion, but it wasn't just a drive by tagging. --Onorem♠Dil 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for pointing it out. The dubious tag referred to an earlier version of the statement (I had since rewritten it to respond to The Founder's Intent's objection). I probably should have solicited some response here, rather than with my trailing "Better?" edit summary. Anyway, I think the dubious tag should be removed since the objection given above refers to an out-of-date version. If there are new objections, then an editor can restore the tag and object here. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see the term (Enviro Wacko) in the article, was it removed?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much POV Causes too long of an article

As I glance through the reference catalog, there are just too many POV sources to be credible. Why are so many refernces from Media matters? Are they not themselves a biased source? I would not seek out Hillary Clinton for a non-devisive comment on Barack Obama. Why should this be the case for Rush Limbaugh. As of now, I see the best thing for this article is either severe editing so that there is little too the article, or better sourcing. It shows gross POV violation for people to troll about and post up something from media matters everytime that Limbaugh says something that could offend. This article has grown out of control due to inclusion of these things. This article needs severe work, but there is too much bickering about it to see an end in sight. Rocdahut (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My biggest problem is the bibliography. 90% of them are obviously biased against Rush.--Bedford 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just recently started looking at this article and I can't agree with Rocdahut more. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for political debate, and I strongly urge contributors to this article read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons----Asher196 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Sourced Comment is Hearsay

I've mentioned this before in an earlier thread, but I will mention it again. The portion of the article that suppossedly includes Limbaugh's personal point of view is terribly flawed in the section regarding immigration. The source that alleges that Limbaugh once said "let the stupid unskilled Mexicans do the work..." comes third hand via an editorial article on the man. The only comment I have gotten in regards to pointing this out was one user saying something to the effect of "Gee, you may have something there." Before some one attempts to say that I am trying to "sanitize" the article, consider for a moment how sloppy this looks to have a source like this. If this article were in a newspaper, Limbaugh could sue for defimation of character or libel, if you will. Please, would some one who is not going to make a knee-jerk reaction based on their personal dislike of Limbaugh tell me why the article has this as a source? Furthermore, if there are rules governing this type of action, would an Admin remove this from the article. I've attempted to remove it, but it keeps getting put back by people who fail to read the comments page or just don't give a darn about the facts and just want to misrepresent the guy. Furthermore, if there are rules against such inclusion, would some one let me know what they are so that when I remove this type of POV, I don't get an overzealous person accusing me of vadalism. Thanks for your time.Rocdahut (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Are we going to write a section on every controversy that Limbaugh is involved in? We better start a whole new article if that's the case. How are some of these important and defining with regard to the Rush Limbaugh? Is this done for every radio or news personality? I looked at the article on Walter Cronkite, and I just don't see the similarity. Cronkite had a much longer career span in his article and it isn't as long as Limbaugh's is now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

LImbaugh is controversial (intentionally); Cronkite was not. There's no reason at all that they should be treated identically in this regard. - Nunh-huh 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't maybe they just seem a bit disorganized. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing tip: to avoid the appearance of bias, remove embedded editorial comments. To wit: "The possibility of a reasoned and civil discussion of stem cell research was quickly overshadowed by dueling website and blog attacks." and "The incident, rather than inspiring discussion of current war policy, became another referendum on whether people liked or disliked Limbaugh." These statements are judgmental, and make the writer seem not objective, as if s/he believes that there is a universally accepted "apporpriate" reaction. Report, do not comment on people's missed opportunities to be better human beings. - No One Important 08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.20.93 (talk)

bo snerdly

i was hoping their would be info on the people who help rush out. its hard to find anything on bo snerdly (james golden ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

I updated the entry on the Texas primary to reflect its extension to include Ohio and the question of prosecution against Limbaugh or his listeners. I tried to be as unbiased as a rainstorm. :) Eventually Pennsylvania may be included, or the fact that Limbaugh sells Operation Chaos-themed merchandise on his website. But I figured too much would give the section undue weight (WP:DUE) and on a controversial page like this I figure small steps are better. Wellspring (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This section could easily grow. After Pennsylvania, Indiana also has an open primary, in North Carolina it may be on hold due to issue down ballot, and in Kentucky they are suddenly enforcing an old rule about party switches. If we need to add those, we can definitely add a mention on the merchandise.--Bedford 22:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen to Rush. It's all just posturing.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors, we don't know and couldn't care less (though of course when we're not editing wikipedia we have all kinds of views. That said, the section on Texas will probably shrink as mention of other states grows-- but overall we should keep this section fairly small. Once the immediate issue leaves the headlines, we don't want too much extraneous detail. If the situation becomes important enough, it will become its own article. Wellspring (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com article about Rush Limbaugh's refined tastes - Is it too trivial ?

This Salon.com article talks about Rush Limbaugh's refined tastes (I wouldn't say it that way in the article) - http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/08/19/conason_two/index1.html - Would the info in it be too trivial for Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even sure what they mean by refined tastes. Yeah, too trivial. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Too trivial, the article appears to be an opinion column (such columns typically don't have strong editorial oversight as a main article would have, and it mostly references a Cigar Aficionado article already covered in this article. Wellspring (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Content removal

I removed a great deal of content over several edits that was reverted based on lack of consensus. Bad form I know, but I unreverted (or rereverted) the restoration because I didn't know how to restore the edits I felt met the policy for WP:BLP. The cigar and charity sections could remain, but marked for better sourcing, but the sections on hearing and surveys should be removed until they can be sourced strictly per WP:RS. The section that discusses Limbaugh's hearing problems included unsourced content/opinion, information/conclusions sourced to forum posts and unrelated articles about drug use. As to the Rasmussen study, it's still a primary source; I could find no mainstream article that quoted or used it in an article, so no matter how notable the source or study, we're still drawing conclusions when we're the only ones discussing and sourcing it. Again, my intent is not to get into an edit war (especially with someone who's got 10x my edits), but I didn't know how to pick and choose among the edits without having to completely redo the ones I thought were important. Flowanda | Talk 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Best thing is to either post here the statements that are questionable, or post the references and we can discuss which ones are questionable. That way, we'll all be on the same page, because though it is unreferenced, I don't see anything insulting or otherwise that would require immediate removal.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

hearing problems section discussion

I moved the hearing problems section to the talk page for discussion and sourcing. "Okay" sourcing is not good enough when dealing with real, living, breathing people, no matter how cartoonish anyone thinks they are. WP:BLP is policy, getting it right first is policy, so there's no need for consensus, discussion, wiggle room, 3RR or whatever when removing content that is poorly sourced.

Since my edits around poorly sourced were reverted, I'm moving content here until it can be either properly sourced or removed. Here's one section:

Hearing problems

"By August 2001, Limbaugh's listeners had noted changes in his voice and diction."

Forum posts do not meet WP:RS.

"On October 8, 2001, Limbaugh acknowledged that the changes were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. He revealed that his radio staff was helping him receive calls on his show by setting up a system where he could appear to hear his callers. The system worked well but did not convince all listeners, some of whom noted a long delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding or Limbaugh occasionally speaking over a caller. At times Limbaugh asked callers to hold on while the caller's comments were typed and shown on Limbaugh's computer monitor."

Specific details need to be sourced per WP:RS before they can be added to the article. These are details are about how someone, a real-life person, does his job, and these are *specific* details about public, on-air, probably documented, examples, that, if notable, have been included in a mainstream, third-party, objective news article in a publication meeting WP:RS.

In December 2001, Limbaugh underwent cochlear implant surgery, which restored a measure of hearing in his left ear. His voice and enunciation returned to normal after the implant. According to his doctors, the deafness was caused by an autoimmune disease."

Personal health details quoting personal doctors describing personal conditions. Not a single source in sight, even an "okay" one.

"Some medical experts have speculated that his use of opioids, such as OxyContin and hydrocodone , could have caused or contributed to his hearing problem. "

These sources have absolutely nothing to do with Hello Kitty, open-pit diamond mines or Crank Dat Batman, much less the content and associations they are sourcing.

"Limbaugh's doctors stated that they did not know the exact cause of Limbaugh's hearing loss, but ruled out "overuse of medication" as a factor."

The one source meeting WP:RS, the single attributed sentence and the only verified fact. Think anybody sees it now?

"On February 27, 2007, in the BBC Radio 4 program, No Triumph, No Tragedy, Limbaugh explained that his deafness had been caused by a malfunction of his immune system which started attacking and destroying his inner ear. He also explained that he employed a full time stenographer, to make notes of everything that was said around him so that he did not miss a word."

Another source meeting WP:RS, but I couldn't find the article or the content attributed to Limbaugh. The link is to a generic page.

Flowanda | Talk 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity and donations section

After going back and forth with an editor about edits to this section, I have moved the entire section related to charity activities and donations for discussion about sourcing per WP:RS content that is claimed as fact and likely to be disputed.

Extraordinary claims, such as those included in this section, need sources meeting Wikipedia guidelines; the burden of attribution is on the editor adding the content, not the editors disputing and removing it.

Sourcing per WP:R does not include transcripts of radio shows or press releases.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowanda (talk • contribs) 04:21, April 20, 2008

Unless this info can sourced independently, then it should be removed or content greatly reduced. I see no reason why content written as facts and sourced only to Limbaugh's website or minor mentions on a nn charity golf tournaments should be included and protected. I could find no independent confirmation per news articles of these claims, and I'm kinda tired of people who think it's someone else's job to justify removal of poorly sourced edits. Flowanda | Talk 04:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Leukemia telethon section is adequately sourced by the society and Limbaugh's announcement himself. Raising $19+ million over 18+ years and contributing more than a million dollars himself is certainly worth noting in his biography. There is no BLP issue here and the press releases and annual reports are adequate since there is no indication that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has made any of this up. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect citation pages, sources that don't back up the statements made (see below and the Kathie Gifford site for examples), using subsections for one-sentence statements and non-notable participation in charity events and not participating in any kind of discussion about sourcing until forced and even then, again restoring the edits with little discussion and no consensus as soon as the 3RR danger had passed.

With the exception of the $400,000 donation, I'm not questioning the content, but how the lack of independent sourcing and external coverage makes it difficult to assess the notability of some of the content or why it should be included -- and constant reverting edits without discussion doesn't help either. Flowanda | Talk 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't force website owners to keep links available / free for multiple years. Link rot is a major problem and there is no requirement to have a working web link anyway. Simply citing the transcript date and time is adequate for a radio program and verification can be made via transcripts which are available via Lexis or similar services. The LLS cure-a-thon items have probably been in this article for at least two years, unquestioned, until you decided you didn't like it for whatever reason. After I made the change to "claimed" and "pledged" (you could have easily done that yourself BTW) to satisfy your concerns that Limbaugh might be lying on a nationally syndicated radio program that is thoroughly sifted over by his critics and after I further cited the charity's annual reports, you unilaterally removed a section that has basically every sentence cited and poses no BLP problem despite your repeated misapplication of WP:BLP in your edit summaries. BLP allows self-published statements to back up claims and his website is cited a number of other times on this page. You never had a consensus to remove the section this time or the times you removed it in the last weeks. If someone claims they made donations to a charity on a national program and the charity's documents confirm that, I don't see how this is a WP:BLP issue. As for notability, I don't know what the minimum notable donation amount is for wikipedia, but I'd say over a million personally and nearly $20 million for the cur-a-thons is above that bar of notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What outdated links am I referring to? I provided corrected links to existing pages, but now that your edits have been restored and the threat of 3RR is gone, there seems to be no urgency to edit this section beyond what you're forced to do.

Self-sourced does not include self-serving, and you are not "backing up claims", but using them as main sources. Read WP:SP before sourcing anything other than pledges or claims to a radio show transcript...oh, but you made that change already.

You mean two-year-old "stable" content like these corrections you made when the content was questioned: [3], [4] and [5]

Or do you mean discussions you refused to have until the content was removed to this page...but still was restored as quickly as possible by another editor without consensus or discussion despite knowing, I'm sure, that defending content and its sources is the burden of the editor adding the content, not the editor removing it.

It would help that if you're going to make claims associated to specific years, that you link to something beyond generic links to an annual reports page; after opening all the reports from you years you listed, if I could not easily verify what you said [6], [7], or [8], and had to look through 44 pages to find the info on page 27 here [9], how are editors and readers expected to easily verify the facts you are sourcing?

Nobody is saying that Limbaugh or any of the charities he supports is lying because the content included in this article is questioned. It's the editor's job to verify notable content, cite it correctly and weed out non-notable information.

Again, my points were either to source content to reliable sources that support reasons for including it in the article, or justify why each needed its own subsection heading...or rewrite the section relative to the quality of sources, which I did, and which was immediately reverted. The section clearly should be a few paragraphs detailing the more notable contributions/activities...most of which have only been identified through these forced discussions and not by any initiative of your own to provide valid and accurate sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:RS allow for self-published sources. In this case he is talking about what he is doing. Limbaugh is a reliable source for what he said or about himself. We're talking about a charity, not his theory on nuclear fusion, there need not be a peer reviewed doctoral thesis to verify that he said he pledged $400k to a charity, or various amounts in the past, especially when the charity in question verifies that he donated money in that amount range. As for the links to each annual report, I think it is adequate to link to the single annual report page for all of them, linking each year with it's respective report has no added value and serves only to make the section harder to edit. In truth, we need not provide a link at all, a citation merely needs to say where the information came from. If there is some verification problem, that information is easily found, as you have noticed. As for the entire section, I have no problem combing the four headings into one heading "Charitable work" rather than 4 sub-headings. I don't really see the point of having a section header for one sentence. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Face it, Flowanda just hates Rush Limbaugh. You want to dispute the fact that he gives his own money in addition to other contributors while conducting a charity drive on his show, go right ahead. This goes for the rest of your diatribe on charity work. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Charity contribution -- Marine Corp

Primary sources do not support donation figures or support...limbaugh page requires subscription to see information and association page -- and website -- provides no information or reference at all to Limbaugh. I can't find any related news articles to use as references. Flowanda | Talk 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that he is is listed as a director on the foundation's Board of Directors page. He also received their 2003 Johnny Michael Spann memorial award and is mentioned in a number of their newsletters. "provides no information or reference at all to Limbaugh" is not correct. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the citations do not go to the correct pages -- http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eib15th/leuk_award.guest.html and your sources don't support the statement that he runs a charity drive or your comments that this is a significant deal. Has there not been any coverage in national Marine association publications in the last five years? Flowanda | Talk 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The mc-lef section is a bit stubby and should be expanded. Notably it is missing the millions Limbaugh raised for it last year alone by actioning the US Senate letter, the 2003 award he received from them and the fact that he is listed as a director by the mc-lef. Their 2003 newsletter credits Limbaugh for $300k donated by his listeners. As for transcript links, there is no wikipedia requirement for a reference to have a working web link for eternity. Transcripts are available via Lexis and other databases most likely for free at a local library. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

24/7 Adopt a Soldier

As I noted before, there is little reliable news coverage of soldier discounts for Limbaugh subscriptions or "Adopt A Soldier" programs specifically associated with Limbaugh. Flowanda | Talk 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I paid for one myself and have exchanged emails with the soldier. His charitable work is avaialbe publicly since he does it on his radio show. Lean to discuss things before making these kinds of edits. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but using a subsection is excessive for something that's a minor contribution on his part with no coverage in the media and sourced to a subscription-only page. Non-subscribers can only see pages with ".guest." in the url: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/rush_24_7_adopt_a_soldier.guest.html . Flowanda | Talk 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And in response to your edit summary using my "bias" as justification for restoring the content without discussion or consensus, I moved the content to this page because all edits I have made to the section have been instantly reverted with no discussion or attempt to determine the validity or value of any of the edits, so I wasn't going to waste my time again by correcting mistakes listed above or adding fact tags. Flowanda | Talk 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Adopt A Soldier" program is a grotesque, exploitative marketing gimmick that Limbaugh uses to cynically make money. If Limbaugh gave away free memberships to troops (without requiring anyone else to buy the memberships), I guess it could be referred to as a "charitable" act. (God knows that this mega-millionaire could easily afford to do this). But to sell memberships, even at a discount rate, using the gimmick of "supporting our troops" is truly sick and immoral. For Wikipedia to dignify this scam as a "charity" severely weakens the credibility of Wiki as an impartial reference resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So I suppose that when Jerry Lewis had his telethons, he was exploiting the public to fund his charity. I purchased a subscription and actually traded emails with a soldier who was stationed in Iraq. He was quite happy for the free subscription. For Wiki to dignify many things weakens its credibility, but this isn't one of them. You need to chill. Maybe we should start an "Adopt A Liberal" program. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions aren't the issue here. My opinions don't matter. Your opinions are no more notable than the criticisms you're responding to. Limbaugh's site does not meet WP:RS. YouTube does not meet WP:RS; RealClearPolitics, DailyKos etc are perhaps more debatable.

But your single personal experience does not give you any special insight into other editors' intents or interpretation of Wikipedia policies, much less define anything remotely related to "censorship".

And you should source any more comparisons to the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon with news articles meeting WP:RS and not just your personal recollection or outrage. Flowanda | Talk 07:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do the soldiers get the subscriptions for free? If I purchase a subscription for someone else, it's an act of good will. Can an act of good will be charity? According to Webster's it can. I also give money to Wikimedia, that's also an act of good will. Nuff said.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the subscriptions still paid in full with just a minor discount that costs the show nothing to provide? Do you get to claim your gift as a charity donation on your taxes? This is an act of good will on *your* part, not Limbaugh's. And yes, way more than "'nuff said", but since you'll just revert any changes made to this incorrect, POV, unsourced, non-notable sub-section, why bother? Flowanda | Talk 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The point is that the marginal cost to the Rush site is ZERO. He isn't donating anything to anyone. So, in fact, it is a slick way to get people to buy a bunch of extra subscriptions. If he were matching donations made to send goods to soldiers or to buy a subscription to a site he doesn't own, it would be charity. Raising money for lymphoma is charity. Adopt-a-soldier is not. It should not be described as such. 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuneke (talk • contribs)

Questions about accuracy

The section "Questions about accuracy" seems only to be a gimmick to sneak in some liberal critique of Rush Limbaugh. All of the "questions of his accuracy" have not come from liberal/progressive sources (FAIR, Al Franken, Media Matters) which are themselves biased. Unless a non-biased source for questioning his factual accuracy can be found, I would suggest removing or rewording this section.

He has been attacked and criticized from a lot of liberal sources, maybe a section called "links to people who don't like Rush Limbaugh" would be more appropriate. Biccat (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of syndication stats?

Why no mention of how many stations Rush is syndicated at? (Wikipedia mentions them for Paul Harvey.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.224.194 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Effects on democracy removal

The following was copied from the Sean Hannity talk page in which the same content was proposed.Asher196 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman concluded that Hannity's various outputs presented a "troubling situation". Friedman argued that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. Friedman accordingly argued that Hannity fostered in people the "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" rather than "the ability to make informed policy judgments."[4]

^ The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read ^ Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007), p. 112. Also see cover of Hannity's book and supra notes 80-86 and accompanying text. ^ Carter, Jason, "Toward a Genuine Debate about Morals, Religion, Politics, and Law: Why America Needs a Christian Response to the Christian Right." Georgia Law Review. Rev. 69 (2006-2007), p. 112. Also see in Hannity's book supra note 172, at 1, and notes 103-06 and accompanying text. ^ Jeffrey Friedman (2006). "Democratic competence in normative and positive theory: Neglected implications of “the nature of belief systems in mass publics". Critical Review 18:1 (1-43). Emphasis in original.

The Friedman article paragraph reads: Consider the most reviled pundit on the other side of the political spectrum from yourself. To liberal ears, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, while well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals, will seem appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. The same goes in reverse for a Frank Rich or a Paul Krugman, whose knowledge of the “basics” of liberalism and conservatism will seem, in the eyes of a conservative, to be matched by grave misunderstandings of the rationales for conservative policies. If Limbaugh, Rich, et al., turn out to exemplify the “cognitive elite,” we are in serious trouble.

Perhaps there is another article? --PTR (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now read and understand the whole article and you'll find the text to be added fair. CyberAnth (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read and understand the article and he's talking about a collective group and not Hannity in particular. There are also some critical proponents of quotes left out. The paragraph says "to liberal ears ... he will seem appallingly ignorant" which is not the same as "he seems "appallingly ignorant of the...". The second version puts it as Friedman saying it which is a misstatement. The phrase "possession of willful but uninformed political 'attitudes'" is in the abstract but not in the actual paper. It might be better to rewrite as: In Critical Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, Jeffrey Friedman, Senior fellow of the Institute for the Advancement of the Social Sciences at Boston University, published an analysis of the cognitive structures whereby people organize their political perceptions. In his discussion of "the problem of ideologues" in American democracy, Friedman included Hannity as one of the "cognitive elite." Friedman says that, while Hannity is "well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals," to liberals he seems "appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. [1] --PTR (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity"

My addition is a completely fair summary of the article. CyberAnth (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it weren't for this, I would think that this violates some rule in wikipedia concerning point of view. The only reason to include this seems for the sake of criticism. Just because some one throws in their thoughts about a person or subject does not mean that it has ramifications that are pertinent to include in a supposedly encyclopedic article. If I were to include a similar quote and sub-heading in John Stewart or Al Franken's page, would it seem fair and perinant, or would I told that I vandalized the article with POV content? Just a thoughtRocdahut (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The section comes with the implied position that it is Limbaugh's job to fairly represent all views on the political spectrum. This is not so. Limbaugh is openly partisan and has no obligation to present "arguments and evidence" of viewpoints he does not hold. In Limbaugh's own words, "I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates."[10] He goes on to add, "Getting along is not the objective. When it comes to the war on terror, when it comes to tax policy, to me, defeating, politically, people I disagree with is the order of the day, and I don't think I defeat them by compromising with them."[11] --Allen3 ^talk 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of deafness?

Perhaps it got edited out because of some controversy, but as of right now, there is no mention that Limbaugh lost his hearing. Could this fact be added back into the article? (The 'what' and the 'when' at least if people don't agree on the 'how'). DavidRF (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It did have an impact on his life and show, requiring a text transcript of phone calls and he has commented on his ability to hear music. As long as it can be presented in a NPOV manner (which might be a problem). Biccat (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tag removed

I have removed the POV tag, along with the disputed section. I am not in principle opposed to having the section in the article, but it had clear POV issues. Any other addition of a tag should be accompanied by a discussion, on the talk page, of specific issues with the article which violate WP:NPOV, and some indication of how these issues can be resolved. Please make clear the conditions under which the POV tag can be removed as well. "I dispute the article" is not a valid reason for tagging. silly rabbit (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chaos

FAIL! Now how do we show this in the entry? Can we just say that operation Chaos failed to affect Obama's campaign? Or can we quote his radio show when he said he now wants Obama to win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.200 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No you can't just say it failed, because it didn't. It was intended to affect Hillary's campaign, which it did. It drew her campaign out longer than otherwise would have happened. Consequently the Hillary's attacks and the Rev. Wright contraversy brought doubt upon Obama. He was likeable and squeeky clean up till then, but not anymore. It did affect Obama's campaign, but probably not as you expected. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But you can prove it has any impact on the election either. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Final Sentence

The last sentence of the article:

However, public polls have shown that a strong majority of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, such as a Rasmussen Reports poll illustrating a 2-1 margin of unfavorable ratings, with 62% of those surveyed reporting an unfavorable opinion of Limbaugh, the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen.[117]

Looking at the source linked here, this sentence is quite misleading -- particularly the phrase "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen." What that really means is "the highest for any of the public figures mentioned in this particular article based on a particular Rasmussen poll." But the way it is written implies that Limbaugh's unfavorable opinion rating is "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen" -- presumably any figure in any poll or at least presuming that this particular poll included a wide selection of public figures. But the quoted article doesn't even include current public opinion ratings for President Bush, who has had higher unfavorable ratings in many polls over the past couple years compared to this number for Limbaugh.

This particular article is specifically dealing with comparisons between the approval ratings of candidates for President in 2008 (Clinton, Obama, McCain, etc.) versus media figures (mostly news media). It's not a particularly wide selection of "public figures" and is certainly not representative of the standard Rasmussen polling data for a given week, which tracks approval ratings of people like Bush and Cheney on a regular basis... and both of them vie with Limbaugh on a regular basis for unpopularity.

I'm going ahead and simply deleting the phrase "the highest for any public figure polled by Rasmussen," since that qualifier makes no sense without giving an explanation of this specific poll and which public figures were included. If someone wants to put something back in about this, I won't object -- but it should mention the context of the poll before claiming that Limbaugh has the "highest" or "lowest" or whatever of anything. 24.62.5.186 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that it is semi-protected, so I encourage someone else to rewrite this. 24.62.5.186 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New York Times Magazine Profile

I don't really have time to muck with it right now but the NYT Magazine did a very long profile of Limbaugh. There is most definitely stuff in it that would be worth incorporating. If anyone has time they should take a crack at it. If not I will get to it when I get to it. --Rtrev (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)