Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Editing of Controversial Remarks

I found the following in Archive2, apparently put there (post-archive) by mistake. Gregmg 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On American Indians:

"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?"


I'm party Native-American and I found these remarks extremely offensive. I wrote this to elaborate on it while trying to be neutral.


I am Lakota, I've authored or extensively revised a number of AI/NA articles, and I could care less. It's his job to be provocative, and one really has to work at it to be "extremely oiffended." --Buckboard 08:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"This remark is particularly inflammatory, as it is not only factually incorrect but propagandistic in that it suggests Native Americans are better off today. America was originally populated only by "Native Americans," it was European settlers who took it over from them by force. There are actually less Native Americans today than there were pre-Columbus. Native Americans are also the poorest and smallest ethnic group in America, and the least likely to intermingle outside theirselves. In particular, the giving away of smallpox blankets to Native Americans and Trail of Tears are incidents in history which show the insensitivity and factual innaccuracy of Limbaugh's remarks regarding whether or not America engaged in racial genocide against its first inhabitants."


This remark was repeatedly deleted, finally commented on as "Removed non-neutral POV remarks, vandalism"


For the person who edited, my problem with the page is that it's -not- neutral, it's mainly written by listeners/fans of his show who pretty much agree with what he writes and want to portray a positive image of him. Like this-

"Not at all a stranger to controversy, Limbaugh has drawn fierce criticism over the years for remarks that he has made, though most are humorous or sarcastic in nature."


Are they? That's just a biased opinion of them, some feel that he is racist and insensitive to others, and often dishonest. I don't see how him telling a black caller in the 70's to take that bone out of his nose can't be considered to have been in a racist context. If someone's deleting my remarks for being "non-neutral" they should consider that the entire page was basically written by Limbaugh's fans who are in favor of him. The controversial remarks is a section for things Limbaugh's said that have offended people, some of which that need elaborating on.

The fact that it's actually been debated that, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." (to a black caller) does NOT belong in this section clearly illustrates that Limbaugh's page is edited primarily by those with a positive bias non-neutral point of view of him if there are people arguing that that remark doesn't belong there.


On the subject of Native Americans (that many people don't know about) I have now added in,

""This remark is considered controversial as it is not only factually incorrect but suggests Native Americans are better off today. There are actually less Native Americans today than there were pre-Columbus. Native Americans are also the poorest and smallest ethnic group in America, and the least likely to intermingle outside theirselves."


I've changed it to be completely neutral and only explain why the remarks is offensive, which it originally wasn't since 1. I'm new at wikipedia and 2. since Limbaugh was being dishonest or wrong about the genocide of some of my ancestors I guess that effected my neutrality at te time when I was angry. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted now, because it EXPLAINS facts most American DON'T KNOW about Native Americans and is needed to understand the context in which the remark is considered offensive. That's what wikipedia is here for, to give informaiton.

A. I am Lakota, by bloodline. I am a Native American by birth. B. You deeming to explain facts "most Americans don't know" in an unoccnected topic is arrogant at minimum. Your idea about what is "completely neutral" is there only to serve your own opinions...which is POV.--Buckboard 08:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." belongs in there as controversial because it is controversial. The fact that he said he later felt guilty about it and that it happened a long time ago doesn't change the fact that it's still a controversial remark he's made.

Your edit about the Native Americans was out of place, POV, and inappropriate. Your correction to Limbaugh's factual error might have a place, the other expository material does not. Bjsiders 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Ref. the increase or decline in numbers of American Indians: We're missing something here--documentation. Whatever the precolumbian population might have been (and how would we know?) it seems logical that in today's industrialized environment, health care is far better and infant mortality much less. In any case, bland assertions pro or con are merely opinions without documentation. If RL didn't provide sources, then IMO his supporters AND detractors are obliged to do so. That seems fully in keeping with Wiki's NPOV, however erratically it's applied by partisans on any subject.


This article on Rush Limbaugh is ridiculously biased. I mean, c'mon. Look at the list of "negative remarks." This is definitely not an "encyclopedia" entry.

I agree to an extent. I have encouraged the major editor of the controversial remarks section to follow his own suggestion of adding a "criticism/defense" point-counterpoint style section like that in the Michael Moore article, but he has so far declined to do so. I find no need for any section like this, not in this article, not in Moore's, or any other article that should be purely biographical, so I won't do it. I advocate the removal of the controversial remarks section entirely. If anybody wants to keep it, I'd move it to its own article. Again, there's been no general interest in doing any of this so I've let it go. Maybe you'll have more luck than I will, my opinion seems to be in the minority, and I'm regularly accused of being part of some cabal of Limbaugh apologists who routinely sanitize this article so that it's not negative. Once you've got that label, it's tough to accomplish much. Bjsiders 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More on the controversial remarks

I have gone through and removed the half dozen links to Media Matters, and all of the exposition clarifying why the remarks are controversial. I also added a general blanket explanation that some of what Limbaugh claims is factually inaccurate, and thus the source of the controversy. We don't need extensive argumentation and quotes and references for why the statements are wrong, I don't think. Most of the claims speak for themselves. I'd be open to including a link to an explanation of why the comment is factually inaccurate, but I don't think anything at Media Matters qualifies as a fair source. Bjsiders 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Who put you in charge of deciding what can and can't be in the controversial remarks section? Someone added in comments about the numbers of Native Americans before Columbus and today (something like at least 5 million then, to about 2 million today) and noted that citation was needed or something, and someone else noted that the government took the risk for student loans, (note- I didn't make those entries, I just saw them) but those very brief explanations of factual innacuracy got deleted. Heaven forbid El Rushbo is depicted negatively. God help us all if people find out that he was wrong about the numbers of Native Americans today.

More on Early Indian Numbers

In the body of the article, "Something like 5 million" precolumbians still would need attribution, regardless of the accuracy or objectivity of the source. That works both ways! In aboriginal societies that never invented an alphabet or higher numbers, obviously there is no contemporary information and therefore any number is speculative and readers are entitled to know about the methodology. The greater point that needs to be made here has less to do with RL than with Wikipedia philosophy--i.e., NPOV. No doubt there are people willing to invent a convenient number or "fact" to advance their particular agenda, but this is not the place for it. Heaven knows, there's plenty of left and right-wing blogs out there which serve precisely that purpose. It's remarkable how objectivity is becoming so rare a commodity.

- - - -

The problem with the Limbaugh page is that too many of his fans operate here and let their biases control stuff. (not that they operate here, just that they operate here AND give in to their biases) Because Wikipedia is basically unmoderated, if a gang of pro-people lurk on an entry then they can gang together and ensure that most anything negative-portraying is deleted and keep making up increasingly quibbling excuses to keep any negative information out.

I myself thought about including a section for sites critical of Limbaugh, but I'm sure ten people would explain to me why it's not allowed. Then why I'd trying saying they can just add pro-Limbaugh, Limbaugh/fan sites to balance it, they'd probably just come up with some other excuse. "Well it's unfair and opinionated, therefore only pro and neutral Limbaugh sites are allowed here," or something to that effect.

"Some of the furor is due to factual errors, which some critics find especially egregious in Limbaugh's broadcasting because his claims of being "almost always right" are a regular part of his braggadocio."

It's nice there's a disclaimer, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to deny anyone the right to explain exactly -what- the inacccuracies are in some of his quotes. People aren't going to be able to just look at a quote and immediately know what's wrong ("ah, an obvious mistake, everybody knows that the government pays for student loans, I see where the controversy here is now") and that's why some explanations are needed. Also...

"because his claims of being "almost always right" are a regular part of his braggadocio."

It's not why it offends me, I think Rush Limbaugh IS a habitual liar and propagandist and many others do to. By flatout stating that every critic mad when he lies/is wrong is mad only "because his claims of being 'almost always right' are a regular part of his braggadocio", demonstrates your clear bias in favor of the subject making it's way into the composition of the article while trying to drown out negative information. - GS777

To answer your points.
1. Nobody put me or anybody else in charge.
2. I made the change adding the factual corrections about banks issuing student loans.
3. I replaced the point-by-point rebuttal of the statements with a blanket statement indicating that he's factually wrong on many of those. So your melodramatic "god help us all if anybody finds out he was wrong" is unnecessary.
4. Maybe "the problem with the Limbaugh page is that too many of his" detractors "operate here and let their biases control stuff." It depends on your POV.
5. Your assertion that Limbaugh's fans "keep making up increasingly quibbling excuses to keep any negative information out." I think the article is pretty chock-full of negative information, including his myriad failed divorces, controversies, drug problems, legal problems, and anything else. The section in dispute very clearly states that Limbaugh is FACTUALLY INCORRECT on these statements, despite his bragging to the contrary.
6. Regarding a list of sites critical of Limbaugh - yes, I would oppose that on the grounds that the fanbois are going to want to rebut it with a list of sites praising Limbaugh, and we'll start an arms race of digging up more and more damning/glorying links. It's stupid. Let the article contain facts, not a bunch of sources designed to bolster one's biases.
7. RE: "the right to explain exactly -what- the inacccuracies are in some of his quotes" Is this really necessary? If I say, "There are 7 apples in this basket" and somebody says, "that's factually incorrect," is it really necessary to add "There are NOT 7 apples in this basket"? Perhaps if we broke the controversy section out into "factual errors" versus "controversies" it'd be more clear? I don't like that idea just because then EVERY TIME the man makes a mistake it's going to get added to the list (like the Sherod Brown error), but I think it's a reasonable compromise.
8. RE: Student loans - Again, I added a bunch of corrections. The original rebuttal to this point was itself an error, the government does not insure all student loans, so Limbaugh wasn't entirely wrong. Again, I don't think we need to clarify that when somebody is wrong about something, the statement they made is false.
9. RE: Why it offends you. It doesn't matter what offends you, doesn't offend you, or why. This article isn't about what offends you, neither is this section. Your personal motivations aren't relevent, and neither are mine. Further, I resent your insuation that I have a "clear bias" in this because I "flatout stat[ed] that every critic mad when he lies/is wrong is mad only 'because his claims of being 'almost always right' are a regular part of his braggadocio"'. I did not state any such thing. I never said "every critic," I said "some critics." I never said they got "mad", I said they found his factual errors "egregious", and I never said it was the "only" reason they got made. You even quoted me and then completley twisted and warped what I said into something I did not say, all while accusing me of letting my personal bias creep into the article. Has it never occured to you that maybe your personal bias is creeping into it, too? If you can honestly look at this article and claim that "negative information" has been prevented from making its way into the article, I can't take this discussion that seriously. You've failed to assume good faith and started off with the statement that YOU THINK Limbaugh is a propogandist and habitual liar so more negative information is necessary (because it's the truth), but I'm the one with a bias problem. Ten-four, chief.

Bjsiders 21:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)



To answer your points.

"1. Nobody put me or anybody else in charge."

Alright.

"2. I made the change adding the factual corrections about banks issuing student loans."

That's good, and that remark should remain there and/or have whatever other factual corrections are needed for it.

"3. I replaced the point-by-point rebuttal of the statements with a blanket statement indicating that he's factually wrong on many of those. So your melodramatic "god help us all if anybody finds out he was wrong" is unnecessary."

That's fine but I don't think it should be used as an excuse to keep anyone from elaborating on why certain remarks are incorrect.


"4. Maybe "the problem with the Limbaugh page is that too many of his" detractors "operate here and let their biases control stuff." It depends on your POV.

5. Your assertion that Limbaugh's fans "keep making up increasingly quibbling excuses to keep any negative information out." I think the article is pretty chock-full of negative information, including his myriad failed divorces, controversies, drug problems, legal problems, and anything else. The section in dispute very clearly states that Limbaugh is FACTUALLY INCORRECT on these statements, despite his bragging to the contrary."

All that negative information belongs there, because it's true and it pertains to Rush Limbaugh. And again, a statement that some of his remarks are incorrect shouldn't be used as an excuse to censor all attempts to elaborate (or let others do so, like someone did to your response on student loans) on the reasons why certain remarks are incorrect.


"6. Regarding a list of sites critical of Limbaugh - yes, I would oppose that on the grounds that the fanbois are going to want to rebut it with a list of sites praising Limbaugh, and we'll start an arms race of digging up more and more damning/glorying links. It's stupid. Let the article contain facts, not a bunch of sources designed to bolster one's biases."

People should have a right to judge for themselves the good and bad to his character. He's a controversial person and controversy follows him and should be up for debate. Wikipedia's here to provide more information and points of views, not limit them.

Speaking of which, Michael Moore has General Defense and Criticisms sections for links and nobody there's fussing about "fanbois" having an arms race. Funny that liberal commentator Michael Moore can have two sections but people here will go to arms for any attempts to do that for Limbaugh.

Since you're opposed to the same treatment for Limbaugh's section that Michael's gets, please explain to me the reasons why you're not going to go over to Michael Moore's section and deleting those two sections since perhaps you've got it right about Wikipedia and the people over there don't? And, if you're not going to delete them and after you're done explaining why you won't even though you say you'd immediately delete and oppose any attempts to create links areas like that for Limbaugh's section, then why are you opposed to the same fair treatment for Rush Limbaugh's section that Micahel Moore's gets? Or, do you agree that both subjects deserve the same treatment?

In any case Michael Moore's defense/criticism sections shows and their existence shows that it wouldn't be as big a deal for Limbaugh as you're making it out to be.


"7. RE: "the right to explain exactly -what- the inacccuracies are in some of his quotes" Is this really necessary? If I say, "There are 7 apples in this basket" and somebody says, "that's factually incorrect," is it really necessary to add "There are NOT 7 apples in this basket"? Perhaps if we broke the controversy section out into "factual errors" versus "controversies" it'd be more clear? I don't like that idea just because then EVERY TIME the man makes a mistake it's going to get added to the list (like the Sherod Brown error), but I think it's a reasonable compromise."

The problem with your analogy is that 7 apples in a basket is a simple one that everyone can immediately understand, and you're assuming people immediately know precisely why certain statements are lies just as simply and completely. Most Americans wouldn't know the figures on Native Americans, or about the government financing some student loans, therefore when they look at these remarks they'd fail to understand why they're incorrect. That's why an explanation is necessary.


"8. RE: Student loans - Again, I added a bunch of corrections. The original rebuttal to this point was itself an error, the government does not insure all student loans, so Limbaugh wasn't entirely wrong. Again, I don't think we need to clarify that when somebody is wrong about something, the statement they made is false."

You don't need to clarify that it's false, you need to explain the facts as to -why- it is false so people will understand why. If people have no idea why a comment is false/incorrect or what the circumstances are behind it, then they're not able to understand what makes a factually incorrect remark controversial.


"9. RE: Why it offends you. It doesn't matter what offends you, doesn't offend you, or why. This article isn't about what offends you, neither is this section. Your personal motivations aren't relevent, and neither are mine. Further, I resent your insuation that I have a "clear bias" in this because I "flatout stat[ed] that every critic mad when he lies/is wrong is mad only 'because his claims of being 'almost always right' are a regular part of his braggadocio"'. I did not state any such thing. I never said "every critic," I said "some critics." I never said they got "mad", I said they found his factual errors "egregious", and I never said it was the "only" reason they got made. You even quoted me and then completley twisted and warped what I said into something I did not say, all while accusing me of letting my personal bias creep into the article. Has it never occured to you that maybe your personal bias is creeping into it, too? If you can honestly look at this article and claim that "negative information" has been prevented from making its way into the article, I can't take this discussion that seriously. You've failed to assume good faith and started off with the statement that YOU THINK Limbaugh is a propogandist and habitual liar so more negative information is necessary (because it's the truth), but I'm the one with a bias problem. Ten-four, chief. "


I'm sorry about the misquoting of your article, you said some and not all. What I'm mad about was the genocide of my ancestors and Limbaugh's whitewashing over it and lying about it, and that's originally why I came here. Just picture if I was Jewish and Limbaugh had claimed that the Holocaust was no big deal, and you'll understand how I feel.

I got mad at the continued attempts from people to censor an explanation about -why- Limbaugh's remarks are incorrect. "It's too biased, POV, doesn't belong." The explanation given has been increasingly neutralized, and despite that now it's been deleted yet again. And you're claiming that the fact that there's now a brief disclaimer stating that some of what he says is incorrect means that nobody should be allowed to elaborate on why any of his remarks are incorrect, and that's like exerting and putting yourself in charge of this section. I think pointing to one brief blanket statement is less bad-looking on Limbaugh then permitting an explanation on why certain things are inaccurate, and that's why it's being done and argued as a compromise.

The purpose of Wikipedia is information, whether it be good or bad. I like some work from people like Al Franken and Michael Moore (and even Limbaugh) but if people want to add in negative links and controversy regarding them, that's fine with me. I'm all for the same standards too that I think are fair, so I'm not going to go over there and delete their defense/criticism links section just because the editors for this section seem unwilling to let Limbaugh have the same kind of treatment.

Thank you for taking the time to go through my reasoning here, I really appreciate it.
"That's fine but I don't think it should be used as an excuse to keep anyone from elaborating on why certain remarks are incorrect." -- Well that's exactly the point. I think the point-by-point rebuttal of each statement is unnecessary and uselessly clutters up an article with trivia and minutiae about topics that have nothing to do with the article. I could write a 6-page essay analyzing whether or not the statement, "Banks take risks with loans are entitled to profits" is fair and accurate. I submit that this page isn't the place for such arguments.
"All that negative information belongs there, because it's true and it pertains to Rush Limbaugh. " -- I disagree, that information has nothing to do with Limbaugh, it has to do with topics that Limbaugh has made assertions about it. "And again, a statement that some of his remarks are incorrect shouldn't be used as an excuse to censor all attempts to elaborate on the reasons why certain remarks are incorrect." -- You need to stop resorting to this hyperbole and overstatement. Nobody is trying to "censor all attempts to elaborate." Links to Media Matters do not help the article's quality or veracity in any way, shape or form, so I removed them. The additional argumentation for the point-by-point rebuttal then required additional citations and quotations and it was getting ugly. I feel that a general statement explaining that the remarks are factually incorrect is sufficient. Basically, I think saying, "that statement is demonstrably false" is sufficient for the purposes of this article. You think it needs more. That's the major point we're disagreeing on.
"People should have a right to judge for themselves the good and bad to his character. He's a controversial person and controversy follows him and should be up for debate. Wikipedia's here to provide more information and points of views, not limit them." -- An encyclopedia is not the place for a debate between points of view, it's a place to document people, places, things, and events. A list of links to web sites that diss or prop up Limbaugh is not appropriate, and you haven't addressed the likelihood of collectively managing the inevitable arms race of links that will crop up, and the endless bickering of whose links are appropriate and inappropriate. I think it's a reasonable concern.
"Speaking of which, Michael Moore has General Defense and Criticisms sections for links and nobody there's fussing about "fanbois" having an arms race. Funny that liberal commentator Michael Moore can have two sections but people here will go to arms for any attempts to do that for Limbaugh." -- I'd argue for the removal in the Michael Moore article, too, for the same reasons. It's not appropriate.
"Since you're opposed to the same treatment for Limbaugh's section that Michael's gets, please explain to me the reasons why you're not going to go over to Michael Moore's section and deleting those two sections" -- Because I only have time to participate in so many articles, and this is one that I've chosen to get involved in. I have no interest in Michael Moore or articles about Michael Moore.
"since perhaps you've got it right about Wikipedia and the people over there don't?" -- I agree, they don't. My opinion may be, however, in the minority, in which case I'll acquiesce to popular demand.
"And, if you're not going to delete them and after you're done explaining why you won't even though you say you'd immediately delete and oppose any attempts" -- Again with the hyperbole and putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I'd "immediate delete and oppose any attempt" to do that. I said I would object to it. You've got this lamentable tendancy to take a statement somebody makes and turn it into something sinister that they did NOT say.
"why are you opposed to the same fair treatment for Rush Limbaugh's section that Micahel Moore's gets? Or, do you agree that both subjects deserve the same treatment?" -- I agree, they should handle the same. Both are controversial and polarizing media figures.
"In any case Michael Moore's defense/criticism sections shows and their existence shows that it wouldn't be as big a deal for Limbaugh as you're making it out to be." -- I disagree that it wouldn't be a problem with this article, but the double standard is more objectionable than the debate. I'll shelve my objections to that particular proposal.
"Most Americans wouldn't know the figures on Native Americans, or about the government financing some student loans, therefore when they look at these remarks they'd fail to understand why they're incorrect. That's why an explanation is necessary." -- You don't need to know the figures. If I say, "There are more Native Americans now than there were 400 years ago," and you say, "that's not true," then any sensible person knows that there are NOT more Native Americans now. The exact figures aren't necessary for understanding. That's all I'm saying. The bank one is a little dicier. As I said, I expanded on it at one point, because somebody said "all student loans are federally insured" which ALSO isn't true, but it was removed and I let it go.
"You don't need to clarify that it's false, you need to explain the facts as to -why- it is false so people will understand why." That's where I disagree. At, least for some of these. The falsity should be obvious enough that exposition isn't necessary.
"What I'm mad about was the genocide of my ancestors" -- Yeah, well, me too. My ancestors were treated horribly at every turn for thousands of years. Luckily I haven't had to deal with it myself. It has no bearing on which articles I edit, and how I edit them, and who I accuse of pushing their POV when they make edits I don't care for because I'm hung up on how ancestors were treated.
"Just picture if I was Jewish and Limbaugh had claimed that the Holocaust was no big deal, and you'll understand how I feel." -- An apt analogy. Rest assured, I can understand that. But it has nothing to do with these edits. At least, it shouldn't.
"I got mad at the continued attempts from people to censor an explanation about -why- Limbaugh's remarks are incorrect." -- They're incorrect because he's wrong. "There are more Native Americans now than there were when Columbus arrived." This is factually incorrect. Why is anything else necessary to explain it? It's incorrect, which means, obviously that there's less now than there were before. If you want the numbers included because you're pissed off about Limbaugh "whitewashing" and lying, that's the wrong reason, and it sounds like your attempts to justify it as necessary for the article are a cover for your own POV.
"And you're claiming that the fact that there's now a brief disclaimer stating that some of what he says is incorrect means that nobody should be allowed to elaborate on why any of his remarks are incorrect" -- Again, stop telling me what I said, especially if you can't get it right. I'm arguing that I don't think a point-by-point rebuttal of every statement is necessary or appropriate, and that a general blanket statement is sufficient. NOWHERE have I argued that "nobody should be allowed to elaborate." We're arguing about it RIGHT NOW.
"and that's like exerting and putting yourself in charge of this section." -- Well that's not what I'm doing, but I am arguing that the additional explanations aren't necessary. How is it that it's NOT "putting yourself in charge" when you insist that nobody should have the right to REMOVE those explanations?
"I think pointing to one brief blanket statement is less bad-looking on Limbaugh then permitting an explanation on why certain things are inaccurate, and that's why it's being done and argued as a compromise." -- I disagree, I think that it's equally as damning to say, "you're wrong about all that "as it is to say, "you're wrong about A, B, C, D, and E."
"The purpose of Wikipedia is information, whether it be good or bad." -- The bad information has been left in. You just don't think it makes Limbaugh look as bad you want him to look, so you're arguing for a change, while accusing me of pushing my POV. Do you not see your own bias here? I'm struggling for ideas on how we can meet "in the middle" so to speak.
Probably the best way is to remove this section entirely and replace it with a section like the one you mentioned in the Michael Moore article. If you'd like to do some editing work towards that end, I fully support you. Bjsiders 02:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh is Demagoguery's Poster Boy

How there is no reference to Limbaugh's tactics of Demagoguery in the main article is beyond me, he is the virtual poster boy for it, more so even than any of the Nazi practitioners.

We've been here before... Demagogue is pejorative and has no place in a neutral encyclopedia article. Gregmg 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
pejorative is POV, Demagogue is an objective description of oratorical techniques, such as exaggeration and generalization and straw-man arguments etc that Limbaugh employs on a regular basis, to censor any mention of this technique in the main article is highly POV.
I would put forth, as someone who has had to really watch my own POV, that merely introducing the word Nazi into the discussion, much less attributing Limbaugh's tactics as “more so than any of the Nazi practitioners,” you might want to think about having a nice cup of tea before starting an edit war on this matter. He has a style, you may view it as demagogue - it might be. I think a fair analysis will put it at a rather lesser level than you indicate here. Thank you for discussing it first. Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. --Geneb1955 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Words mean what people think they mean. The term "demagoguery" cannot be considered a neutral and unslanted description of a person's tactics, regardless of its dictionary definition. Look up the definition of "peruse" sometime and tell me how closely it matches with what most people think it means. Bjsiders 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
this is complete bullshit, demagoguery implies a set of well-defined speech tactics, if one employs those tactics on a regular basis as does limbaugh, one is by definition a demagogue. to say otherwise is to take the dogma of NPOV to the level of the absurd and meaningless
I'm afraid it's not. Words do indeed mean what people think they mean. That's how dictionaries are made. The dictionary maker compiles examples of word usage in context and from that context determines what it means. Often popular usage doesn't match the dictionary definition (or vice versa), and over time the dictionary definition will change to match popular usage. Demogoguery implies an empassioned, emotional appeal to racism or other prejudices of people to win support. How on earth you find that be neutral and non-pejoritive is beyond me. If you want it added to the article, find quotes from credible critics accusing Limbaugh of such tactics, and add them to the article. This assertion is a opinion, not a fact, and should be presented as such. Bjsiders 17:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


"Demogoguery implies an empassioned, emotional appeal to racism or other prejudices of people to win support."


Limbaugh- "I mean, why didn't these morons leave New Orleans before the hurricane? I'll tell you why: because they wanted to rape and loot! That's just the way some people are! And if they're black--if the rapists and looters are black--it's not George Bush's fault! We've had these problems ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. Once the whites leave town, all you've got is overwhelming lawlessness. That's not racism, Mr. Snerdley; it's a proven, demonstrable fact. Have you even seen a ghetto in Greenwich, Connecticut? I rest my case."

Yeah, screw Lincoln for freeing the blacks. Why should I have to do chores around the hose, damn you Abe!


www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/bigotshtick.htm

"The American Indians were meaner to themselves than anybody was ever mean to them. The people were savages. It’s true, they damn well were … these people were out there destroying timber, they were out there conquering and killing each other, scalping people."

I just found this quote today... God that fat bastard offended me seriously yet again...


"They oughtta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it."

Let's make fun of blacks all month.


(on Abu Ghraib torture scandal) "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people. You ever Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I'm -- yeah, and get an NEA grant for something like this."

Remember that Britney Spears concert where she raped a guy with a broomstick, then had a dog bite somebody to death? That one was my favorite.



(on Democrats) "They celebrate privately this attack in Spain."

Ah hells yeah, cause we really want Osama to win and put us under an Islamic Theocracy.


"(on Democrats) "I know these people like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body."

That scares me.


"Hugo, Cesar--whatever. A Chavez is a Chavez. We've always had problems with them."

I... think you're getting the idea.


"I don't care if they're Republican liberals or Democrat liberals, they're still liberals. They're not "moderates." Don't hit me with that. There's no such thing as a moderate. A moderate is just a liberal disguise, and they are doing everything they can to derail the conservative agenda, and they've been frustrated, they haven't been able to do anything about it because conservatism has been so strong. This propaganda attack on the president has weakened him"

"Kurt Cobain died of a drug-induced suicide, I just -- he was a worthless shred of human debris."

(on the death of Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia) "Just another dead doper. And a dirt bag."

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."

"I am addicted to prescription pain medication."

"Compassion is no substitute for justice."


But celebrity, wealth, and double standards are. And finally....

www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2005feb28.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/rush_adopt_a_solider_limbaugh.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/Limbaugh_lies_about_Iraq_Al_queda.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/bush_incompetent.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/rush_limbaugh_graphics.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2005jan11.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/halliburton.htm www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/bush_rove_leak_quotes_mcclellan.htm


Ironically for that last one, BUSH WAS BEHIND THE LEAK. Yet Limbaugh is still spinning defenses for him.

Need more links/quotes? Or can we all just agree that he's an asshole bigot demagogue, but due to neutrality wiki rules we can't call him an asshole in his main page but simply report on controversial remarks/things he's said and done. (wiki's rules require neutrality when talking about even the nazis)

Also I agree with you Bjsiders about explaining the quotes. There are so many of them and a lot of them speak for themselves. (though some need explanation like the reference to where vince foster died, which most people wouldn't get)


GS777 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. Well done! Whenever I feel a drop in my blood pressure and tune into limpballs to correct it, I am reminded of Nietzsche's quote: "What must a man have suffered to have such need of being a buffoon?" Unfortunately, calling limpballs a fat pig nazi bigot is not telling him anything he hasnt heard his entire life since grade school.


www.bushflash.com/nazi.html www.iwilltryit.com/rush1.htm (Limbaugh as he really is!) limbaugh.ytmnd.com/

Saying that Limbaugh's detractors and critics accuse him of demogoguery is fine. Saying that he IS a demagogue is not. That's really all the neutrality policy requires. Some people think he's a wonderful, brilliant man, which is why he is not, in an ecyclopedic sense, able to be described as an "asshole bigot". Bjsiders 04:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


If Limbaugh's wonderful then why would he lie about a passage from the bible to create pro-taxcutting propaganda, by claiming Egypt enjoyed 7 years of prosperity due to a 70% tax cut? (when, in reality, Genesis 41 was a 20% tax increase during a time of prosperity to prepare for 7 years of famine- making it literally, much closer to pro-taxincreasing propaganda)

"Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion.... You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn't it amazing?"


And if he's a genius, why did he immediately deny and doubt the authenticity of the Downing Street Memo?

" * I purposely haven't talked about this Downing Street memo much because, frankly, a) it didn't interest me and, you know, if it doesn't interest me, I'm not going to talk about it. And the reason it didn't interest me is because it was just another one of these ginned up things by the libs, and it looks like it's got some similarities to Bill Burkett and the forged documents of CBS and Rathergate. 

   * What is it? The Downing Street memo doesn't say anything, and it may be a fake. It may be a forgery."

(Note- Tony Blair admitted their authenticity when he commented, "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")

And why hasn't he talked about the DS Memo at all after Tony Blair admitted to it's authenticity? To me it seems like he has own worldview on things and that he twists the facts to suit them, and that he's obsessed with hardcore Republicanism and defending it almost completely, while lashing out against other opposing tenets.


I don't know, I'm not interested in becoming a Limbaugh analyst or apologist. I'm talking about grounds for including specific phrases and words in Limbaugh's Wikipedia entry, and the term "demogague" is a loaded POV description. That's all I'm saying. Bjsiders 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This article says that Mary Jo Kopechne was Ted Kennedy's girlfriend. However, the Wikipedia article on article the Cappaquiddick incident does not imply this. 216.39.180.60cneron

nationalinquirer as a source

I don't think this publication is a good source for Wik articles. Shouldn't the most recent entry be cut unless a diiferent source is cited? Kdammers 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the Reliable Sources guide, and I don't believe that the National Enquirer meets the definition of a "Reliable Source". I've reverted the last two edits that cited it as a reference. Gregmg 16:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Before dismissing The National Enquirer in this case (and yes, they are quite unreliable), it should be pointed out that it was they who broke the story, with the interview with his housekeeper, who was the one getting him the drugs in the first place. Rsm99833 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


I think NE can be trusted on this since they broke the story. But.... THIRTY THOUSAND PILLS IN TWO YEARS?! Even if you had 500 days in a year, that'd amount to like 30 pills each day.. more accurately it's prob. more like 42. How on earth did Rush not OD during that time?

Addicts build up tolerance. However, I believe, in the interest of keeping everything as accurate as possible, perhaps that should be edited so that it reflects that the NE reported, but w/o the questionable contents. 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Lol, I wish Limbaugh could build up some REAL tolerance.... for the poor, minorities, gays, victims of war and people suffering under the economy.... too bad there aren't any drugs that could do that for him.

The talk page is for discussion of additions to the article, not political debates, axe-grindings, or snarky comments. Please keep this in mind before posting. Bjsiders 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks Section

I am growing concerned that the Controversial Remarks section has become a whetstone upon which one user grinds an axe. It is being updated sometimes a dozen times a day with new quotes, all of which are selected to paint Limbaugh to be a highly objectionable person. I'm not sure that there's any sensible recourse, however, as the information is all valuable in its way. Regardless, the article is rapidly turning into a long list of quotes, and I see no end in sight. Does it make any sense to create a "list of controversial statements by Rush Limbaugh" article? Or can we at least format that section to be more readable. It really looks awful in the article. It's disorganized and difficult to read. I'm open to ideas. Bjsiders 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had concerns about that from its introduction. It seems out of place in an encyclopedia article, and as a political commentator and entertainer, one would expect Rush to make controversial remarks. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be on the air. This entire section should be removed. Gregmg 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I like the section, I don't like the direction it's going. It's ugly, disorganized, and growing at a rate disproportionate to its importance. Bjsiders 15:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problems I see with the section are as follows:
  1. In the spirit of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, long lists of quotations with little to no accompanying explanation belong on Wikiquote instead of Wikipedia.
  2. The majority of the comments are unsourced and most of the comments with a source reference Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's website, a group with an openly acknowledged political agenda in opposition to Limbaugh's views. This contradicts with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
  3. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words implying a value judgement, the section is labeled "Controversial remarks" yet there is no evidence provided that the listed comments have caused any controversy. Implying that these comments have caused controversies, as opposed to simply ruffling the feathers of Limbaugh's political opponents, thus appears to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
As the section appears to be in conflict with three on Wikipedia's core policies, I am forced to agree that removal on the section is appropriate. If the section can be made compatible with Wikiquote's inclusion policies then transwikifying the section to Wikiquote:Rush Limbaugh may be appropriate. --Allen3 talk 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, before we remove it, I'd like to give it some time and allow the major contributor(s) to that section to offer a counterpoint. So I'm not going to change it just yet. Bjsiders 16:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[Fighting crime is] tough work -- work that can only be successfully accomplished through completely abandoning current standards of ethics, morality, and human decency. That's the problem with quoting satirists and those who mock systems with parody. In and of itself, this would be a "Controversial Quote". Alas, it comes from a satirical article by Colin Cohen. One of Rush Limbaugh's tenets is to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd (a fancy description for satire). This should be a new bullet in your "problem with the conrroversies" section--Quoting Satire. ~ 05:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one you're referring to. You guys seem very offended by the section. Before when it had barely any quotes there was no problem with it but now that there are there seems to be a problem.

First, "In the spirit of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, long lists of quotations with little to no accompanying explanation belong on Wikiquote instead of Wikipedia."

Bjsiders argued earlier that he didn't want very many accompanying explanations (like about Native American populations) because he felt the explanation, "Some of the furor is due to factual errors, which some critics find especially egregious in Limbaugh's broadcasting because his claims of being "almost always right" are a regular part of his braggadocio" should eliminate the need to explain each quote. So which is it? You can't complain about a lack of sourcing and explanations when people were arguing here to lessen the number of them for controversial remarks.

Also it's not an indiscriminate collection of information- it contains quotes that have generated controversy in news.


As for refusing to use FAIR because the site is liberal,

"Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source."

It's like saying, "Well you can't quote Fox News for information regarding anything liberal," to say FAIR isn't allowed to be used with one who is conservative. FAIR is particularly noteable with Limbaugh because Limbaugh himself actually responded to them personally and should stay.


Finally,

"In the spirit of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words implying a value judgement, the section is labeled "Controversial remarks" yet there is no evidence provided that the listed comments have caused any controversy. Implying that these comments have caused controversies, as opposed to simply ruffling the feathers of Limbaugh's political opponents, thus appears to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

"Take that bone out of your news and call me back," is something Limbaugh has stated he regrets ever having said.

And the remarks about Abu Ghraib torture are ones Limbaugh's tried to shy away from a bit and say he was misunderstood on, for a few examples.

Again, it was argued here not to explain the remarks and to simply allow one brief explanation to be used to explain all or most of the quotes without elaboration. (for one instance, some of the "allegedely racist" Limbaugh quotes came from a black sportswriter complaining about Limbaugh being signed up to comment for the NFL to give you one example)

You can't argue against leaving in further explanation, and then use a lack of explanation as an excuse to delete the section when that argument was followed. This section doesn't violate Wikipedia nor sohould be it be removed.

Like it or not, Rush Limbaugh is a very controversial figure and this section is here to help reflect on it. The original 5-10 controversial remarks didn't really reflect on his almost 2-decades on air controversies. Just look at Bill O'Reilly's section Controversies which is far longer-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_controversies#Penalties_on_Child_Sex_Offenders


If you'd like to create a seperate page for Limbaugh's controversies like O'Reilly's because you think the size of this one is too large is fine, but I don't think simply deleting the whole controversies section is a solution. I wouldn't mind a second section like the O'Reilly one. GS777 17:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for responding. I'd like to try to respond to all of your points.
  • "You guys seem very offended by the section. Before when it had barely any quotes there was no problem with it but now that there are there seems to be a problem."
    • To the contrary, this section has been worked and reworked several times, and there have always been editors advocating its removal. The section has recently experienced rapid growth, and has become disorganized and disjointed.
  • "Bjsiders argued earlier that he didn't want very many accompanying explanations because he felt the explanation, "Some of the furor is due to factual errors, which some critics find especially egregious in Limbaugh's broadcasting because his claims of being "almost always right" are a regular part of his braggadocio" should eliminate the need to explain each quote. So which is it? You can't complain about a lack of sourcing and explanations when people were arguing here to lessen the number of them for controversial remarks."
    • Please do not take my words out of context, and please do not mix and match them to create whatever perception you like. I advocated the removal of the explanations because I felt they cluttered up the page and made the section difficult to read. Most of them were unnecessary and could be covered with a general statement explaining that the controversy over them is due, in many cases, to their factual inaccuracy. The statement about Limbaugh's errors being considered "especially egregious" has no bearing whatsoever on why I felt the explanations of the quotes were unnecessary.
    Further, I am not complaining about a lack of sourcing or explanations, so please don't accuse me of it.
  • "Also it's not an indiscriminate collection of information- it contains quotes that have generated controversy in news."
    • That doesn't become a fact simply because you state it as one.
  • "You can't argue against leaving in further explanation, and then use a lack of explanation as an excuse to delete the section when that argument was followed. This section doesn't violate Wikipedia nor sohould be it be removed."
    • I am not doing that, you're confusing positions put forth by different editors while selectively quoting me. I am not advocating its removal. Since you enjoy quoting me so much, here's a few you missed from this very section: "I like the section, I don't like the direction it's going. It's ugly, disorganized, and growing at a rate disproportionate to its importance." "...the information is all valuable in its way." I suggested creating a separate article for the information, or reformating it to increase its readability, which was the same reason I gave for my previous work on this section.
  • "Like it or not, Rush Limbaugh is a very controversial figure and this section is here to help reflect on it."
    • I agree, he is very controversial. When we first talked about this, you pointed out that Michael Moore's article has a supporter/detractor format that explains the nature of his controversies. I told you that if you wanted to craft similar sections for Limbaugh, you had my full support. You have declined to do this so far, however, and simply adding quotes. I feel that this approach, while increasing the total information and (arguably) value of the article, is also lowering the quality of the article.
  • "If you'd like to create a seperate page for Limbaugh's controversies like O'Reilly's because you think the size of this one is too large is fine, but I don't think simply deleting the whole controversies section is a solution."
    • I didn't suggest that, somebody else did. Perhaps this comment was aimed at them, but you quoted me in your response, so I'll respond. I would suggest including a brief paragraph explaining that Limbaugh has a 15-year record of making controversial statements, and linking to a page that contains, instead of a list of quotes, a section that discusses the controversy in a fairly neutral and objective tone. I do not advocate a bullet-point list of quotes and explanations, although it may not scan so poorly in its own article.
    I also said I was open to ideas on how to improve this section on this page. I'll re-state what I've put forth so far as options:
  • Rewrite the section as a general criticism and analysis instead of a list.
  • Move the quotes to their own "list" article (see above)
  • Reformat the list in this article to improve readability and layout.
    • If you like any of those, let's talk about them in detail. You are the primary advocate for this section staying in. I don't really care either way. I wouldn't lament it being removed, but I also see the value in keeping it. It is, however, an ugly, disorganized, amateurish mess, and it needs to be cleaned up. The bulk of the editor (so far) suggest that cleanup should involve removing it. If you want it to stay, I'd suggest taking a bold, proactive step in helping to improve its quality. I'll help with polish and spitshine if you'd like. Bjsiders 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


    Thanks, I have to admit you're professional with this wikipedia stuff. (I myself am still fairly new)

    How about this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh_controversies

    I made a new section for the controversies. I don't think Porge knows about the discussion here yet though, still trying to figure out how to private message him about it.

    {{POV-section}} added to "Controversial remarks" section

    Based upon the comments above by myself and several other editors, I have added a {{POV-section}} template to the "Controversial remarks" section pending resolution of the raised issues. --Allen3 talk 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

    dude they are quotes. the only shady point of view that they represent is rush's own.

    You should consider addeding a 'Out-of-Context' section for quotes that do not have a full description of the context in which they were said. Rush Limbaugh oft proclaims that he is an entertainer (satire, parody, humor, etc.) as much as a political commentator, and that it takes weeks to pick up and follow the various discussions (i.e., the context). ~ 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

    Pronunciation

    The IPA transcription of his name's pronunciation suggests that it is pronounced "LEEM-baw". I find this dubious, as I'ev never heard the first syllable of his name pronounced to rhyme with "beam"; instead, I've always heard it pronounced to rhyme with "Tim". Is this really the way his name is pronounced or a case of erroneous IPA transcription? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.247.100 (talk • contribs) 23:39, April 27, 2006 (UTC)

    I agree that the pronunciation shown does not match the version I am used to hearing. Based on the information located at IPA chart for English, I am updating the pronunciation from the current [ˈlɪm.bɑː] to [ˈlɝm.bɔ]. --Allen3 talk 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm a tad confused: while I'm less certain about the second syllable, the "rhymes with Tim" pronunciation (i.e., as "limb") surely is "lɪm" in IPA. "Leem" would be "i" (or "iː", indeed). I'm not sure if this is a "divided by the same language" issue, or IPA transcription as such. Alai 18:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    The pronunciation has been changed to [ˈlɪm.bɔ]. --Allen3 talk 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

    Drug arrest, settlement, anticipated dismissal

    Talk about burying the lead, in one appearance, Rush was booked, pleaded, and obtained a settlement. The headlines scream "arrested", but the real story is that he's going to have the case "dismissed" subject to conditions he's in control of (i.e., no other arrests and rehab). patsw 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

    Someone that enjoys editing Wikis may want to update or amend the section about drug abuse. On 1 May 2006, the www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/01/D8HB3LC05.html AP reports that there was only a single charge instead of the "doctor shopping" charge for thousands of pills. The single charge only alleges that Limbaugh illegally obtained about 40 pills, said Mike Edmondson, a state attorney's spokesman. He would not elaborate or explain why prosecutors scaled back the case. ~ 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    The statue isn't particular to the number of pills. It was "doctor shopping" as commonly understood.

    As part of a plea agreement is incorrect. There was no plea agreement. A plea agreement is to agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the risk of conviction on a greater charge. As the text uses "settlement", that is the accurate word. I'll give the editor a change to correct it or reply here. patsw 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    How can you plead "not guilty" if you were never brought before a judge? He was cuffed and booked, but that's not where you declare "guilty" or "not guilty," any thoughts?

    Inner City Blues 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

    I plead guilty on all my speeding tickets without ever seeing a courtroom. Bjsiders 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    But you can only plead not guilty in court, I think the whole "not guilty" thing should be clarified or removed, a prearranged settlement and paying bond where you get out of jail in an hour is not standing before a judge and pleading "not guilty."
    Inner City Blues 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Limbaugh ... is facing one charge of doctor shopping and has entered a plea of not guilty in court [www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,18917,00.html?fdnews] The news reporting is pretty clear on this. He plead "not guilty" in court. Bjsiders 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    "In court" may mean that the plea that he signed will be/was submitted to a Florida court. The claim that he personally went to court is not found in most news reports and is apparently contradicted by many reports. HKT 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Then change the article to just say that he plead "not guilty." Or does it already say that? Bjsiders 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    On the 28th, Limbaugh's lawyer said: "...[W]e filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State." They filed the plea with the court, but they apparently didn't appear in court. And the article does already say that he pled "not guilty". HKT 18:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Excellent. Should we perhaps clarify the nature of the plea in the article? If we had to go around on it to figure out the truth, any reader might have to. Bjsiders 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    Done. HKT 00:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    This still has not been clarified. You have a statement from the lawyer, which is all really about PR. If you file a plea of "not guilty" you would have appeared before the judge. If he did not appear before a judge, then he was not arraigned.

    From www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1019964~LDS/FLORIDA+CRIMINAL+PROCESS.html Criminal procces in Florida:

    Arraignment
    Once criminal charges are filed, you'll make a court appearance which is known as an "arraignment." If you are incarcerated, this will usually occur within 72 hours of your arrest.
    During your arraignment, you'll be asked to enter a "plea" to the crime you've been charged with. Florida pleas and corresponding definitions follow:
    • Guilty plea: If you plead "guilty," you're admitting to the facts of the crime and the fact that you were the one who committed that crime.
    • Not guilty plea: A "not guilty" plea asserts that you did not commit the crime with which you were accused. After your plea, a pre-trial or trial date will be set.
    • No contest plea: A "no contest" plea indicates that, while you are not admitting guilt, you do not dispute the charge. This is preferable to a guilty plea because guilty pleas can be used against you in later civil lawsuits.
    • "Mute" plea: In Florida, you may "stand mute" instead of making a plea. The court will then enter a plea of not guilty. By standing mute, you avoid silently admitting to the correctness of the proceedings against you until that point. You are then free to attack all previous proceedings that may have been irregular.
    If you plead "guilty" or "no contest," there will not be a trial. You'll then be sentenced.

    So what is it? For a "not guilty" plea to be filed, he had to make a court appearance. If a deal was struck beforehand, the "not guilty" plea is irrelevant as it wasn't an actual plea for an arraigned charge.

    Inner City Blues 01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    Apparently, he bypassed the standard protocol and arranged an in absentia arraignment. (1.) He was not incarcerated, yet he was able to file a plea on the day that the charges were filed. It seems unlikely that he would have had the opportunity appear before the court on the day that he was charged. (2.) If the State struck a deal with him whereby charges would be dropped after 18 months, it would be a complete waste of time to require the standard formal arraignment. (3.) It is unlikely that Black would be so blatantly misleading about an agreement known to the State without expecting a legal backlash or at least a backlash in the media (which would certainly have been informed of the lapse by those involved in the case). (4.) If Black was misleading, this would be have been made known to and publicized by the media. (5.) If Black would want to cover something up, he probably wouldn't mention anything about having to make a plea. HKT 02:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


    It's a common procedure when dealing with high-profile cases or much-hated public figures. It allows the legal process to take place without the warrant getting into the public record so that people can get the paperwork done without a huge media circus/frenzy that mobs the police station and/or courthouse. Bjsiders 12:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

    Uncited quotes in Drug Abuse

    I added quotes to his "drug abuse" section. I think its really important to note that he has been a supporter of the war on drugs, as well as a vocal critic of drug users. These are quotes and thus the only point of view they reflect is Limbaugh's own. As the quotes are accurate and their inclusion non-POV (as with all inclusions of quotes), keep them up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.94.222 (talk • contribs)

    Anon, whether they stay or not is up to you: cite the source. patsw 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    Actually it turns out theyre already in the quotes section, so no need for them to appear twice. In place of where they were in the "drug abuse" section it now says something along the lines of "see the quotes section"



    == Rush arrested for drugs again today dude4/29/06 ? ...According to your own rules you should be in prison right now not hiding behind your lawyers - Sieg Heil Rush - you dope head hillybilly ! 

    ==

    Folks as far as I'm concerned, you can quote Limbaugh all you want, because that is what Limbaugh does... But...... If you are going to have 500 quotes ON THE PAGE.... about his "controversial" quotes.......

    If Wikipedia is REALLY supposed to be "balanced".....then how about having approsimately the same number of "controversial quotes" by Al Franken..... ON THE PAGE..... instead of just "linking to them"....

    OR..... remove the quotes about Limbaugh and link to them.....

    12.226.174.193 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)james

    This article isn't about Al Franken, why would we put any of this quotes here? If you want dig up 500 controversial things Franken claimed, post them in his article. Bjsiders 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


    The link to this page says: quote The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page. unquote

    I said:

    quote quotes" by Al Franken..... ON THE PAGE. unquote

    I guess I assumed that people would understand I was talking about Al Franken's page which has no such listing of comments:

    I won't go back and edit my post, but merely: [quote] quotes" by Al Franken..... ON THE AL FRANKEN PAGE. [unquote]

    Since........ the previous page noted that there was discussion about "neutrality"....

    And since the discussion had generally devolved to a) remove the quotes b) clean them up because they don't look professional....

    I thought one might offer a third alternative...... since it might be the opinion of some that Al Franken's statements might be somewhat controversial....

    However, conservatives don't hang on every word that Al says on his 30 some stations while I guess..... from the number of unattributed posts..... a LOT of liberals seem to spend a lot of time listening to Limbaugh. on his many hundreds of stations.. ...

    If one is going to expend this much energy on the Wikipedia and if one wants to underpin and underscore the MUCH AGREED UPON concept that Wikipedia has as "close to the truth" as is possible in it's work..... one would think that a similar amount of energy would have been expended on the, many would acknowledge, "middle of the road" and "non-inflammatory" statements of Limbaugh.... but that does not seem to be so... all of the quotes are "inflammatory"....

    So..... to repeat...... if there are not those that want to expend the energy to find such statements.... I am sure that in the many years that the man has been on the radio there are at least and equal number of non-inflammatory statements.....then one might..... in the interests of the click button to get here:

    quote The neutrality of this section is disputed. unquote

    one might post a similar set of quotes by Al Franken.... for "neutrality's" sake....

    Otherwise....it would seem that in this particular case, at least, that Wikipedia failed in it's lofty goal of neutrality.....

    And a lofty goal it is and one that is acknowledged by all and sundry....especially myself who have used Wikipedia as a citation in MANY posts in a varity of places.... Wikipedia is "not the XXX wing blog".... it has as ONE of it's goal.... neutrality...

    12.226.174.193 23:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)james

    Add controversial quotes to Al Franken's page if you can find any. I don't like the quotes section either, but if it's something Limbaugh said, then I don't see any reason to remove it. The truth is not neutral. The entirety of it is. But we can't include everything Limbaugh has ever said here. That's the problem with terms like "controversy." I doubt you can find a single sentence Limbaugh has uttered that somebody wouldn't find to be "controversial." I strongly advocate either moving all these quotes into their own article or writing a summary "criticism" section akin to that in the Michael Moore article. So far nobody has shown any interest in doing that. An article about an individual ought to be largely biographical in nature, and not a collection of quotes. But that's what we've got. Bjsiders 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

    Neckties?

    A secondary consequence of Limbaugh's TV show was that he became known for wearing distinctive neckties. Due to queries from show viewers on were to obtain similar ties, he designed a series of men's ties. The designs, which first became available during the fall of 1995 fashion season, featured bold patterns and bright neon colors.

    Parker, Penny (March 20, 1996). "Ties loud, just like Limbaugh". Denver Post. pp. C-1. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

    How is this relevant enough to be added in 2006? How long did the necktie promotion last anyway? A few months at most. patsw 05:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

    • The information is relevant because it discusses a historical episode in Limbaugh's life that was important enough to receive press coverage. The Denver Post article is not the only reference for the neckties either (If the material is restored I intend to add a New York Times article that mentions the line included women's scarves and children's pre-knoted ties - Vinciguera, Thomas (August 4, 1996). "No Talk Show, But a Loud Tie". New York Times. p. 43. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)). During the first year of sales the line also had estimated sales over $5 million (from the same Times article) and a web search finds on-line retailers that still sell the ties. The phrase "Rush Limbaugh tie" is also used in a small number of op-ed pieces from 1996 in a manner that assumes the American public would understand the term. In short, this section discussed the fact that Limbaugh created a minor fashion sensation in the mid-1990s. While this has nothing to do with the man's political philosophy or his primary claims to fame, it does cover a set of events important enough to be reported by the main stream media and that have a direct connection to Limbaugh. --Allen3 talk 11:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    I was gonna say. We've got a massive list of "controversial" quotes, many of which are nothing more than tasteless jokes. Apparantly those are worth recording here, the necktie thing certainly qualifies. Bjsiders 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    $5 million in sales is significant, even if this story is ten years old, and the press coverage is ten years old. If we loaded up the Wikipedia with ten years worth of celebrity news accounts like this from the Denver Post and New York Times there would need to be yet another Wikipedia donation drive just for them. patsw 04:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

    Drug Abuse

    While the controversial quotes are at the bottom, I really think there should be a few quotes in the section detailing his drug history. Not particularly because the man is a dick, but because he is rather powerful when it comes to public policy and particularly heartless when it comes to other drug users. It would help give a full description of his character to highlight the fact that the man is very hypocritical and hides behind things he hates (ALCU, right to privacy) when it's his balls to grill.--Kugamazog 14:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    There are several quotes already in the article dealing with his Prescription Drug Addiction. If you wish to add additional quotes please make sure that the additions comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Fairness and sympathetic tone. --Allen3 talk 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


    I've followed this discussion with interest.... and I appreciate the attempts to be "neutral".... but the simple fact is that although there are plenty of "controversial" quotes.... noone that is going to "collect quotes" is going to collect the "non-controversial quotes"... or the "mainstream quotes"... or whatever.... the man couldn't have gotten to where he is.... well into thousands of stations... and Franken gotten nowhere.... thirty odd and declining... and paid for by a declared left wing type Sorros..... without doing SOMETHING.... that "middle" america...or RIGHT....they have just as much "right" to a voice as the left.... that was "useful" for the folks who listen....

    Again...I've watched the discussion...I've also watched other discussions and appreciate the amount of thought that goes into them....

    Soooo.... another suggestion..... at least HALF.... of the U.S. voting populace thinks that Limbaugh is NOT controversial..... so.... how about leaving the warning sign AND this page so that folks who do NOT know Limbaugh.... can at least get a "peek" at both sides.... dunno....just a suggestion... 12.226.174.193 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)james

    Much of the problem with the "controversial quotes" is a matter of definition. Many of the quotes that were added are really only quotes about controversial subjects. As Limbaugh is a political commentator with several hundred hours of airtime to fill each year, it should not be surprising that he makes a wide variety of such comments. A more restrictive definition for "controversial remarks" is remarks that have created controversy. The ESPN commentator section of the article provides an excellent example of such a remark along with information supporting a claim that the comment created a controversy. Just because the subject Limbaugh is discussing in any particular remark is controversial does not mean that remark itself is controversial. It is when comments about controversial topics are portrayed as comments that have caused controversy that the article runs into problems with inappropriate bias. --Allen3 talk 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

    Looks like you chose to edit 95% of them away, and declare them wrong, while rearranging the definition of controversial as well as declaring FAIR's remarks unusable, despite Limbaugh responding to them (well 1/2 of the list) personally himself. I don't think this was the right choice but, I haven't been online much with my hand injury. When I'm back I'll try something like that new section.

    The comments were not removed because the were declared wrong, but because they were unverified. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for a description of the core content policy. As for the remarks by FAIR, how many different sections need to go over the exact same press releases? --Allen3 talk 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

    DEAFNESS DUE TO DRUG ABUSE? This article claims that "according to his doctors" Limbaugh's deafness was caused by "autoimmune disease." Is that documented? I know that according to Limbaugh that's what his doctors said, but that is hardly the same thing. It is documented within the medical community that abuse of painkillers like Vicodin can result in hearing loss. 216.39.180.60cneron

    Limbaugh's Latest Foot-in-Mouth

    Limbaugh's comment about 'Hollywood Jewish talking points' deserves a mention in the controversial remarks section of the article.

    mediamatters.org/items/200605180002

    Archive

    I was going to archive this 76kb page until I saw that the last archive is 125kb. Is there any reason to keep the talk page going so long? HKT 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

    There is no magic size that I am aware of to determine when a talk page should be archived. The talk page is relatively quiet at this time, so i say go ahead. --Allen3 talk 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

    Rush, Military Service and Anal Cyst

    Why no discussion of Rush's avoidance of Vietnam era military service due to an anal cyst?

    Rush's Anal Cyst

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive_3&oldid=954140040"