Talk:Rush Limbaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Rush Limbaugh was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 5, 2004 Peer review Reviewed
September 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
January 22, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rush Limbaugh:
Priority 1 (top)

Rush Limbaugh Fan Website[edit]

Rush Limbaugh has a lot of fans. We need to include his fan website. It's — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Please note that it is not acceptable to delete comments in the TALK page. Discussion is OK; deletion is not. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE:Actually it is ok when editors turn the Talk page into a forum (please see WP:NOTAFORUM). Because of this, I reverted a "forum" discussion about the wonders of the Rush website, about getting a "Rush" e-mail address, how "its the place to go" for Rush fans, etc, etc since the dicussion between you and the anon editor (after the first two sentences) had nothing to do with improving the page (which is what the Talk page is for). You then restored only 20% of what I reverted.
Although the initial request from the anon editor is a legitimate one, there should probably be something here on the Rush website, I think you'll agree there is clearly a difference. Ckruschke (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Yes, we can eliminate fanboy chatter per TPO. I pared it down further. We don't need to extol the virtues of it. Just make the request and stop. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • After visiting [1] I think it is very interesting, but mainly an ad for subscription to eMail, etc. I would not call it a 'fan page'. The circulating globe of Earth (at the bottom of the site) will put a point on from where you log in (your GPS position) plus the others logged on at the time. VERY interesting, but still an ad site. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

With social media, an appropriate fan page: Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Given Mr Limbaugh's tendency to alienate part of society - some rabidly so - by way of his utterances, nobody should be surprised that another part of society is similarly enchanted. Surely it is enough to acknowledge that the "fan page" exists by way of a mention in the "External Links" section of the article and not to provoke further discussion on the talk page, whether favorable or otherwise to the person. I trust that this discussion will now cease.

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC) -- Yes, enough said.

But to carry on, when has being divisive ever limited Wikipedia editing? Especially on TALK pages? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think an online encyclopedic article is an appropriate place to include a link to someone's fan page. Otherwise, every celebrity's entry would be riddled with fan page links. Shabeki (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is now age 64[edit]

Happy 64th Birthday to Rush Limbaugh, still young. I have some notes on staff presenting their traditional "White trash" cake and singing to him, if any editor is interest (in improving the article.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) -- It's probably not notable enough for inclusion.

If he died now that would be worth including but a fake corporate simulation of a birthday party would be mainly sad.

Unreliable Source[edit]

"Talkers Magazine" is a conservative publication and therefore is not a reliable source. They specifically state "Ratings for talk shows are based upon "the opinion of the TALKERS editorial board" and are "non-scientific projections... and do not represent exact Nielsen Audio or any other ratings service totals." which means they are lies and that is the only source given to claim Limbaugh has any listeners. This article is soaked in paid astroturfers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015[edit]

Spelling error...Under personal life, "taking horse" should be "talking horse". (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Kharkiv07Talk 00:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)