Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rush Limbaugh: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:13, 13 March 2012 editThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk | contribs)4,684 edits →Limbaugh an antifeminist?← Previous edit Revision as of 06:33, 13 March 2012 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers496,742 edits →Limbaugh an antifeminist?: lead section and article bodyNext edit →
Line 350: Line 350:
I see many more examples in my searches, but four scholars saying he's an antifeminist, versus none saying he is not, is pretty decisive. ] (]) 03:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I see many more examples in my searches, but four scholars saying he's an antifeminist, versus none saying he is not, is pretty decisive. ] (]) 03:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


He's also a jerk, a nationalist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a big fat idiot, unofficial spiritual leader on the Republican Party, an addict of hillbilly heroin in recovery, a Viagra popin' tourist, and what else you got? Every single one of those I can get major and minor sources, including tin horn professors. The lead is not a place of condemnation. ] (]) 05:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) :He's also a jerk, a nationalist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a big fat idiot, unofficial spiritual leader on the Republican Party, an addict of hillbilly heroin in recovery, a Viagra popin' tourist, and what else you got? Every single one of those I can get major and minor sources, including tin horn professors. The lead is not a place of condemnation. ] (]) 05:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

::Don't trivialize the issue. The lead is a place for context and an accurate summary of the man's life. His fame comes from his political beliefs, and one of his prominent beliefs is that women should not have equal rights. This fact should be mentioned in the lead section and developed in the article body. ] (]) 06:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:33, 13 March 2012

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rush Limbaugh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rush Limbaugh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Former good articleRush 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
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
September 5, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 22, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMissouri
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconRadio High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJournalism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
[REDACTED] Alternative views Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

To-do list for Rush Limbaugh: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-02-23

Priority 1 (top)
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Rush Limbaugh. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rush Limbaugh at the Reference desk.

Conservative?

I think its misleading to call rush a conservative perhaps a ultra conservative or a neo conservative are better titles

Neoconservative is not accurate and ultra conservative is hard to define. Conservative encompasses both of these anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
What does it tell you when the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) chooses Rush Limbaugh as their keynote speaker? . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

86.158.101.94 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would work real well in offending half of the Misplaced Pages audience! And where is your proof? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) . . .

Praising Ugandan killers - L. and the Lord's Resistance Army

"Radio gasbag praises Lord's Resistance Army, which specializes in abusing Christian children" Limbaugh embraces Ugandan killers salon.com Oct 26, 2011.91.39.97.221 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Add it in. It was addressed by multiple mainstream news sources. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
We'll need coverage in independent reliable sources that say he "praised" them. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Other languages red links

Does anyone know why the links to other versions of the article are red links? I checked the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and the title is correct, without redirection. Also, I can see the language links in other articles (e.g., Template:Cite web and Victoria Azarenka), so it is unlikely to be my browser.—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny: even if the links were to pages that didn't exist, they shouldn't appear in a different color. I mean, if there were a link ] to a nonexistent Japanese-language article, this should be presented in the same color (and with the same wording, "日本語") as a link to an article in ja:WP that did exist. Anyway, all looks good to me now. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Claims" of Inaccuracy?

How are blatant factual distortions from Limbaugh "claims" of inaccuracy? The section should be relabeled "Inaccuracy", to account for his inaccurate depictions of the Lord's Resistance Army, among other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.138.72 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rush limbaugh.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rush limbaugh.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rush limbaugh.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should really bother to defend him on wikipedia, it's wikipedia, who cares? Let the liberals run crazy, we can then read it and chuckle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.156.24 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke

His 2012 attacks on this law student, on three consecutive daily broadcasts, calling her a "slut" and "prostitute" for advocating health insurance coverage for contraception, and his demand for a "sex tape" from her, and the critical response to it from across the political spectrum, and cancelling of advertisements by some of his sponsors, should be included in the article. See NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, SFGate, Washington Post, Fox News, and Forbes. Rush's response should be included for balance. Edison (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Added under "controversies". Please feel free to improve. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Completely WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. – Lionel 01:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
so you removed the whole thing? you didn't tag it, nor did you elaborate or attempt to discuss exactly on what you objected to. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If we added every controversial thing Rush said over his decades long career we would quickly run out of diskspace. This is Friday. It's a slow news cycle. This incident will be forgotten by Monday. This is an encyclopedia-not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). – Lionel 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Rush Limbaugh says this flap will be bigger than the "Phony Soldier" where he was misquoted and maligned by Senator Harry Reid but turned it around. Limbaugh has a lot of points to make that editors here should note before jumping on to attack. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

this thing isn't going to end soon. also, just so it's stated, i have a lot more sources describing his comments as an attack as well as many other synonyms, but have been told that there's enough.Paintedxbird (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
can someone have a word with this guy? this is getting significant coverage internationally from a variety of quality sources and is absolutely notable. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If this section is to be included it is too long for something so recent with the story still developing. We don't follow the story--we're not a newspaper. We document established facts. This is per WP:BLP. – Lionel 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
No WP:BLP concerns here because all the sources provided so far are some of the finest sources out there. The length is appropriate considering the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. As this is seen by Dems and the media as the newest installation of "the Republican war on women" media interest is unlikely to wane. I wish you luck keeping this information out of the article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
this is just as important as the other controversies. in fact it probably has more international attention than many. i don't know if he was mentioned by so many senior politicians previously, but there was nothing non-factual about what i wrote. did you even check my sources before you went deleting? everything is attributed and verifiable. Paintedxbird (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Painted, Sonic, WP is not a newspaper. Recent events, no matter how important you may think they are, should not dominate any article or section relative the entire article. Sonic, just because you have RS' does not mean that there cannot be BLP concerns. Painted, NPOV and Weight are overriding policies for Verifiability. If the only current reasoning for such an excessive section is "It is getting a lot of attention in the news right now" then Lionel's point is made and WP:RECENT applies. Also, don't use what you think is going to be the future outcome as rational for current events. Unless some good rational can be given the section needs to be removed as undue weight and non news for the immediate time being. Arzel (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
if you call someone a slut and a prostitute would you call that a comment or an insult? how many references equating it to an attack do you need? i had about 8, i could go higher. there's nothing ambiguous about his comments. non-news? you've got senior politicians discussing this. did they discuss his NFL club ownership bid? Paintedxbird (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, WP is indeed not a newspaper -- or anyway it says it isn't, though in places (notably the top right of the top page) it conspicuously is. The question is less of how important this event seems to either of the two editors you address, or to you, or to me, than of how important it seems to reliable sources. "Recentism" elsewhere is often rightly cited to explain a bias toward 2012 events (or non-events) at the expense of 1982 events (or ditto), but reliable sources were just as able to report on Limbaugh's utterances in, say, 2009 as they are now, and the fact is that these very recent utterances have got a lot of RS coverage. (Very possibly more than they merit, but if you or I think this, it's beside the point.) And there's more besides: "Presentador calificó de “prostituta” a estudiante defensora del control de la natalidad" takes it outside the anglosphere. ¶ Unless some good rational can be given the section needs to be removed as undue weight and non news for the immediate time being. Like it or not, it is news. That it happens to be news now ("Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper!") as opposed to news a few months ago seems beside the point: the RS don't merely exist, they're abundant. (Compare WP's coverage of the similarly recent death of Breitbart: No editor has yet suggested "His death is in the news; Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper; therefore we should just sit on the matter for a couple of weeks before writing it up.") Of course it's imaginable that much of this Limbaugh/Fluke/etc brouhaha will be largely forgotten a couple of years from now, but this too is an irrelevance: most of what most people do is largely forgotten a couple of years thereafter; Misplaced Pages records it (in a way that meets certain standards) for anybody who may be interested. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to chime in my $0.02...I can understand the concerns of recentism and undue weight, but I think removing the section entirely is a bit ridiculous. It's a notable event that's been in the headlines for several days and has received attention from not only most major press outlets but many notable and high-ranking politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. It's no "dominating the article or section"...it's roughly comparable in length to any of the other items in that section. Sure, it's not something that should be the main focus of this BLP, but I think omitting it entirely would be a disservice to this encyclopedia as it's clearly a notable event in Mr. Limbaugh's life. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
More outside the mere anglosphere: "Obama a appelé une jeune étudiante insultée pour avoir parlé contraception", "Ringen um die Moral im Schlafzimmer", "USA: Obama mot Rush – ringde upp 'fnasket'", "Obama defende estudante após polêmica sobre anticoncepcionais", "Studentessa insultata, Obama la difende". -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
+ Обама позвонил женщине, от которой публично потребовали опубликовать видеозаписи ее половых актов, Rush Limbaugh wird ausfällig... It's in reliable secondary sources in Russia, Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden,... the story is everywhere. As of today, the Sarah Fluke incident has received more global and national coverage than any other Limbaugh controversy. Given the coverage in reliable secondary sources, the length of the section is appropriate. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You really need to step back and see how this develops before jumping to conclusions about what this will mean in a historical perspective. When Limbaugh was in talks regarding NFL ownership it was a topic in the news for several weeks. This has resulted in a reactionary frenzy right now, but there is no way to know how it will be viewed in the future, so please stop acting like you know. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
As for me, I make no assumptions about what this will mean in a historical perspective. (And which "reactionary frenzy"?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This one, the one that the left is all in a tizzy about. The left seems to think that this is going to get Limbaugh off the air. I always find it amazing that what the left goes crazy about is standard fare for Bill Maher on a weekly basis. Not that I agree with what Limbaugh said, but it would be nice to see some at least an attempt by the media to not be so biased. Arzel (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well then, let's put aside the grievously tizzy-prone "left", let alone what it seems to think and what it goes crazy about. A short distance above, you're given links in Spanish, French, German, Swedish, Portuguese, Italian, Russian and again German. Are they all "left"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RECENT. Recentism is an essay, not a Misplaced Pages policy. There is extensive coverage by WP:RSs, which under WP:WEIGHT justifies including it.

I think the tag should be removed. We discussed it in talk, and rejected it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejected what? This is a recent event which is being slanted towards current events. Arzel (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the notion of an event being slanted towards events. Could you elaborate a little? -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Throwing in my 2 cents in support of what Arzel is saying. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
i think everyone is waiting for arzel to make a case... anyway i've readded some claims and sources that were deleted without explanation such as the public pressure. i've clarified the reaction he got rather than the preferred claim of "oh, some people didn't like it," that some other editor put. i've also put a short summary of what he said in his comments before the short quotations as many parts of his rants were criticised as well as the slut slur. Paintedxbird (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT. The section is quite fully explanatory, with a great number of references, without piling Ossa on Pelion at this point - especially since his apology for the affair. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
except you've seen to it that the claims that the references state aren't on the page, with your subjective view of weight. so all this talk of "the references explain it!" don't make a difference because no one is going to read them due to your censorship. when does weight become an argument for "i don't want people to see this"? it was fully explanatory, then you removed it. p.s why have you formatted the section after your repeated cutting so that it looks larger than it is? Paintedxbird (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a single event which already has extensive coverage in the article - and WP:WEIGHT is absolutely clear about this sort of thing. Adding in a hundred quotes will not make the affair more clear, and the amount you wish to add would violate WP:BLP to be sure. Is there any reason why you wish to add even more recentism stuff here? BTW, the "formatting" was substantially there when I first editted it - so your apparent accusation is totally sans merit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
why are you saying that i want to add a hundred quotes when my last edit kept to the more condensed structure of your edition. i didn't add more quotes. did you even read it before you undid it? i know what your opinions are, i'd asked why you thought that way. that's not the formatting i'm talking about, you added his apology quotation with a lots of spaces from the text. which is peculiar if "size is so important to weight!" adding recentism? i'm giving the complete account of the controversy backed up with various quality sources to fulfill the notability criteria, as you frantically try to trim it into obscurity. Paintedxbird (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT is clear on that sort of thing. The length of the section is in proportion to the coverage in reliable secondary sources. Even if people stopped writing about this tomorrow, the story has already received more coverage than any other Limbaugh controversy has received to this day. What does that even mean "recentism", I never understood that essay. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Prove It. Prove that this has already received more coverage than anything else. If you are going to make a claim like that to back up your argument then you better be able to back it up with some actual facts. Arzel (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, you claimed that unlike the other sections "Sandry Fluke comments" was undue. Please prove that the other Limbaugh controversies described in the article received more coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He did not describe or call her a "slut" and "prostitute" like it now says he did. He asked a question "What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute?" We can not take this out of context like newspapers do. We need to have his full quote there from when he started talking about Ms.Fluke tell he was done about her. It needs changed. Theworm777 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see some editors rushing in to censor the article. "NOOH!" Misplaced Pages mustn't contain embarrassing utterances by Rush and criticisms thereof from numerous reliable sources around the world!"Edison (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
theworm777 it's not anyone's place to interpret what he said or why he said it.[REDACTED] publishes based on verifiability. it's not a forum. Paintedxbird (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Paintedxbird, I know thats what I am saying whoever wrote what is there now saying he is "describing her as a "slut", "prostitute" and "round-heeled" " is interpreting what he said. Theworm777 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
that's what was widely reported as the large body of sources indicate if you read them. so that's how it appears on the page. e.g. one example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17241803 "Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "slut" and suggested her testimony to US lawmakers made her "a prostitute"."Paintedxbird (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Limbaugh apologizes and calls it a "national stir" per CBS and ABC after three advertisers cancel their sponsorship. I agree with him that the incident had national prominence, and find it puzzling that some editors disagree with him. Edison (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
No one is saying that there is no national prominence, all that is being said is that WP is NOT a newspaper and that articles need to be written from a historical perspective. There is no evidence that this is going to have any long lasting impact on anything regardless how much the Limbaugh haters scream about it. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"historical perspective"? "long-lasting impact"? how many more euphemisms will you come up with for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? notability is permanent. WP:NTEMP. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Have I deleted it? No; so don't be an ass. I simply stated WP policies for articles. Seems to me like you would rather attack other editors than discuss possible problems with the section. Arzel (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know I have read that. Calling someone a prostitute and saying something "made her a prostitute" is 2 different things and to protect wiki should have a cite after slut, prostitute, and "round-heeled" to a source that says he called her that not that he said it made her, a slut, a prostitute, or round-heeled is all I am really meaning here. Theworm777 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Libelous information from a newspaper should not be repeated so just because a newspaper might break a law dont mean we can repeat here on wiki is what I am saying. So verifiability might not be the only thing needed here. Theworm777 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
the rules are what they are.[REDACTED] isn't a place to right great wrongs. deviating from sourced information is synthesis and original research which aren't allowed. Paintedxbird (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree, and that is the problem here. The way it is now it is "deviating from sourced information is synthesis and original research which aren't allowed." It is defamation and libelous the way it is worded I think. Like I have said before just because a newspaper breaks a law that dont mean we can repeat it here. I dont really care either way but just thinK it could be breaking laws when it could be changed so there is no doubt to if it brakes a law or not. But I will leave that for you all and admin to decide. Theworm777 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment saying he put the matter to rest once and for all by apologizing should be removed. It's only days into the matter with fallout still occurring. To infer the story is over is editorializing. Misplaced Pages isn't an opinion blog, let alone the Psychic Network. 71.110.229.69 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to Nbauman who repaired it. 71.110.229.69 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

this is getting ridiculous, i think we should start a dispute resolution process over the editing on here as it seems clear that some people have a sustained desire to censor what's portrayed on the article. i think we should have a third party decide what can go on so we no longer have to hear subjective ideas on "weight". Paintedxbird (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just go re-write all the WP policies while you are at it. If you cannot follow the core policies then you should probably not be editing on WP at all. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Too long

The section here is too long, as there is a main article already regarding this event, a one paragraph summary is all that is needed here, and any detail should be in the main article namespace. Also that article should abide by BLP & NEU. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States. should be edited to read

the highest-rated talk-radio program in the United States.

OR simply deleted 86.186.32.56 (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Such statements are frequently unsourced in the intro but cited in the main article; I checked and this was not, so added the tag. Dru of Id (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I cited it and put it back. - Xcal68 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Second edit request on 3 March 2012

There should be something in the lead about the controversies. It's about one quarter of the article, but nothing in the lead. 123.203.147.78 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That might be appropriate. How do you think it should best be worded? Try drafting it here and see what others think. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Some editors want to wait a bit to see further how this plays out. Why make a major change prematurely? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The IP asks about controversies, plural. There have been a number of these. The IP should be welcome to suggest an addition, which can then be accepted, revised or rejected on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "Rush 24/7 Adopt-A-Soldier Program Limbaugh's website maintains a page where US soldiers can register for a free subscription to Limbaugh's online premium service, Rush 24/7, through memberships purchased by donors who buy a subscription (at a reduced price) as a gift."

which is currently under the heading "Charitable Work" to a heading of "Network Marketing" because the program described does not involve a donation-in-kind of goods to the military, but is a sale requiring payment from a 3rd party (referred to as "donor" in the article) to Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. a for-profit company. The program is initiated by, and results in the enrichment of Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. and does not meet the definition of "charity" as defined on Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/Charity_(practice)) and therefore should not be classified as "charitable work".

Bigggs (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Paintedxbird (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Views on Immigration" section removed.

The section as it stood before my edit today, was entirely difficult.

The lead sentence reads "Limbaugh's views on immigration have changed over the years". Two comments follow, but only one is about immigration. There's no indication of any change, because only one specific view at one specific date is described, so there's no support for the sentence.
The source for the first comment came in what was originally a newspaper article about Limbaugh and ESPN that mentioned "an immigration agent" once in passing. The quoted extract, however, was wholly concerned with US jobs lost to NAFTA, and Limbaugh's opinion of Mexican people. The quote is there to support the idea that Limbaugh is in favor of legal immigration, but it's clearly NOT about immigration of any kind.
The source for the second comment is Limbaugh's own website. Unfortunately my search of it for the actual text of the source was fruitless, probably because it is now almost six years old. We might understand that his views on illegal immigration are hardline but, without a source and amplification, the sentence is empty.

Bearing all the above in mind, there seemed to be no point in having a section about Limbaugh's views on immigration, so I have deleted the entire section. Of course, if anybody has appropriate information with verifiable sources that support it, the section probably should be reinstated.Twistlethrop (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Summary style proposal

How about a breakout article, somewhere like Fluke-Limbaugh flap, just to describe this "breaking news" incident?

I don't think Sandra Fluke is notable, but the incident is encyclopedia-worthy. The exact same information should go in the Rush Limbaugh article, even if the Sandra Fluke article is deleted - or better yet, reduced to a redirect to Rush Limbaugh#Sandra Fluke remarks.

The problem is, we now have two different versions of the same incident to keep in sync. It's a lot easier to say that Rush criticized a Georgetown student for her remarks and use {{main}} to link to an article on the details. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Rush criticized a Georgetown student for her remarks"?? Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That was my proposed topic sentence for a paragraph, to continue:
    Limbaugh disagreed with Fluke's logic (give details here)
    Limbaugh called Fluke several disparaging names, including "slut" and "prostitute"
    Democrats condemned Limbaugh for name-calling
    Some conservatives defended Limbaugh, but most condemned his name-calling
The point is to put a summary in the "Sandra Fluke remarks" section, and the details in a larger breakout article. The Sandra Fluke article can also refer to the breakout. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The summary is a good idea, but we have to be careful to not go over the top with the description of what happened. I removed one sentence that is a little extreme. Arzel (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Er, there is a big difference between a criticism of a political position and a personal attack on a private person. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh's response to critics

Rush Limbaugh's entire quote for his short apology should be included since it explains his position; leaving out the last two sentences is a disservice to Rush Limbaugh and his position and does a disservice to Misplaced Pages. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Limbaugh only apologize, or did he defend some part of his remarks? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You can find WP:RSs who say that it wasn't a sincere apology, or wasn't an apology at all. --Nbauman (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't Limbugh's ENTIRE apology not posted?? A it is now it's just selective editing.

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Davemartin7777 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Davemartin 7777

Rep. Ron Paul said an apology by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke for calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" was not sincere, and was made only because it best served Limbaugh. On CBS News' "Face the Nation," the Texas congressman told host Bob Schieffer that Limbaugh's apology "was in his best interest." "He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off of his program. It was his bottom line he was concerned about," Paul said. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57390236/paul-limbaugh-apologized-for-personal-gain/ Ranchermannn (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Good idea about the "entire" apology. I'll put it in the {{main}} article (see Limbaugh-Fluke flap). --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose merging Limbaugh–Fluke flap into this article ("Rush Limbaugh"), though in a much more condensed form. Misplaced Pages simply must distinguish between topics that it's possible to write about and topics that it should be writing about.

This incident/controversy/whatever doesn't merit its own article (especially at such a ridiculous page title—a "flap"? really?). This is a minor subtopic of a main topic (Rush Limbaugh) and should be covered in a section in the main article. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. Pro: 6
  2. Con: 14
  • Support: as the one proposing this. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Do not support. One, the information would have to go into both articles, Sandra Fluke and Rush. This is the classic reason for a divide, now we have it. It is a big enough event for one. It has had days of national media coverage and he has lost repeated sponsors over it. Casprings (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • As I said elsewhere, I think a separate article on this incident (or on Sandra Fluke) does a disservice to any notion of perspective and/or proportionality in Misplaced Pages's coverage. Simply because you can write a lot doesn't mean it's necessary. Editorial judgment requires us to make determinations about how significant this particular controversy is among all of Rush Limbaugh's other controversies. Maybe one day we'll be able to say that it fundamentally altered the rest of Mr. Limbaugh's life and career (citing reliable sources on the topic), but until then, can we at least strive for a reasonable approach and not devote pages to this? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Rush is losing sponsors. It still is national news. It's been so for about a week now. To me, that brings it to a level of needing its own page. However, one can disagree. The naming point is agreed upon and I fixed that because of pervious discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
        • WP is NOT a newspaper. Seriously, what is it with so many editors screaming "But it is in the news RIGHT NOW!" as evidence of historical value? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Because this summary on the Rush Limbaugh page is now completely inadequate. From reading this page, the reader wouldn't know that he called her a "slut," and a "prostitute," and wouldn't understand why there was such a negative reaction. It's not adequate to give a link to the full story. This is a POV fork, with a bland version of the story in the Rush Limbaugh page, and the full story in a less-accessible link, which will have far fewer page views than Rush Limbaugh. I think the summary with at least the full quote belongs on Rush Limbaugh. You can use Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy for additional detail, if you want, but not as a reason to delete essential information from Rush Limbaugh. --Nbauman (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    This version is good, no? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment i don't support merging the article, but i think the lengthier summary that was on previously should be put back on as it detailed the article in a concise way without purposely ignoring things as the current one does. Paintedxbird (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The Sandra Fluke article is being proposed for deletion . That article will probably be merged into Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy, so it will get longer. It shouldn't be merged again into this one. FurrySings (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Changed my mind - it is better merged with the Fluke article, was unaware it existed when I made my original comment. —Charles Edward  18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose enough stuff and coverage for justifying a separate article. Expecially if the result of the Sandra Fluke AfD should be a merging into that article. And I add, differently from the other minor controversities in which Limbaugh was involved, this one received extensive and international coverage (i.e. Italian coverage: , , , , , ,,, , , , and more). Cavarrone (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cavarrone. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: This incident is hot news right now, but long-term notability has not yet been established. This should be a mention in Limbaugh's article and nothing more. Ithizar (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per several comments above, the incident is at present significant enough to stand on its own and a merge is premature. Whether or not it proves to continue as such in the future remains to be seen; nobody knows what effect, if any, that it will have on Limbaugh's career. Whatever happens will be a natural process for the article at that time, and a decision about the future of the article ought to be left until then.Twistlethrop (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – One of the things partisans around this issue disagree about is whether this is an isolated misstep on Limbaugh's part which only reflects on him, or if it is representative of conservatives and/or Republicans in general. By making this only about Limbaugh, that means choosing sides in favor of the view that it is only about him and not the groups he may or may not represent. Hence a violation of WP:NPOV. The title of the article Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy (or Limbaugh–Fluke flap if you like) is just as much a violation of NPOV. There is wide disagreement about whether this was an attack on one woman, or an attack on all women, and there is disagreement on whether this is only about birth control, or about religious freedom, or about the wisdom of health insurance mandates. Naming it Limbaugh–Fluke is essentially damage control for those who hope to put the issue to rest and limit the fallout. At the other extreme, naming it Republican anti-birth control vs women's health debate broadens the issue for maximum resonance, and maximum damage to conservatives in general. Either of these two violates NPOV. It's going to take a lot more work to define the scope of this subject and find a neutral title. It's going to take a lot more work just to define the boundaries of the discussion of the article title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    NOTE I created an article about the "Republican anti-birth control vs women's health debate" at Contraceptive mandates. Feel free to help expand it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    You realize this all started with testimony on the Blunt Amendment, which was attached to some highway bill, would have allowed a moral (not only religious) exception to insurance coverage for any health service (not only contraception). It was for tactical reasons, on both sides, that this was narrowed to a religious freedom issue vs a contraception issue. And for many Republicans, it was any and alll mandates they opposed, not on moral grounds but because they wanted any avenue to undermine Obama's health reform. So every time you narrow this issue to something specific, you add a heap of POV. The reason I continue to feel, for now that Sandra Fluke is a good article title is that we can all agree, without bias, that Sandra Fluke's name is Sandra Fluke. Anything else you invent carries a POV. Although Blunt Amendment has a nice, neutral ring to it too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is more than a "flap". Nine national advertizers and one local station (in Hilo, HI) have droped Mr. Limbaugh since he disparaged Ms. Fluke. This is a serious blow to Limbaugh's standing as a radio commentator. The incident also has larger import in a national discussion on birth control that started weeks earlier when Obama admin issued rules on religious charities and their health plans. Moreover, guardians of Limbaugh's entry are likely to chip away at article after event falls out of news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cavarrone. -Mardus (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for current events I oppose this. Once it dies down it can be split into their respective biographies. As an example, suppose that Rush Lamburgh looses his career because of this, it could potentially go under his biography as the worst mistake of his career. We just don't know that yet. Keep it as-is for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.7.68 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the scope of the event goes far beyond Limbaugh. There was significant reaction by the media, the public, Congress, and the President. This is hardly a "minor subtopic", the uproar was enormous. --Pstanton (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a now a major event which will continue to be of importance and of debate. It is likely that this event will be one of the defining moments in his career. Ayzmo (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with the Oppose group for the present time, i.e. this is a dynamic contemporary event and many users of WP will benefit from reading this article in its present form for now. In the long run, once the controversy dies down, once we find out if this actually has a profound impact upon R.L.'s career, if its impact continues beyond the usual kneejerk reaction time of modern day news stories, then we will know if it deserves its own space. I believe that after a few weeks or maybe two months this will simply rate as another controversy in his career and at that time it should be moved into R.L. main entry. Also I see the Controversy section of R.L. as reaching the point where it should have a separate link, having enough substance to be a Sub in and of itself.

Ttommy69 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2012 TTVWVT 17:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh?

So, this is like a Bill O'Reilly for the radio? FeyBart (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Worldcat in EL

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add template to external links:

Hospitalization for chest pains

I am completely at a loss as to why this section exists on the article. It makes the article look unpolished (the article as a whole looks just like a bunch of news stories slapped together in a patchwork fashion by disparate editors). The chest pains section is not notable - at most it deserves a sentence in a consolidated section about his health: Limbaugh suffered chest pains in 2009 but was later released. Colipon+(Talk) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh an antifeminist?

I think we should plainly say that Limbaugh is an antifeminist, that is, someone who is against equal rights for women. Many scholarly sources call Limbaugh an antifeminist, or list him in a group of examples of the type, or discuss his antifeminist stance in very clear terms. Limbaugh coined the term femi-Nazi. Limbaugh is one of the shining examples of antifeminism, so why hide it?

  • Michael Kimmell, respected sociologist who helps us define antifeminism on Misplaced Pages, classifies Limbaugh as an antifeminist crusader on par with Lionel Tiger, Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers. (Misframing men: the politics of contemporary masculinities 2010, p. 67, Rutgers University Press, ISBN 0813547636.
  • Jacqueline Foertsch, associate professor of English at University of North Texas, quotes Limbaugh in what she calls "a typical antifeminist tirade", one that denies women's political claims. American Culture in the 1990s, 2010, p. 69, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0748622225
  • Kimberly Chabot Davis, professor of U.S. literature at Bridgewater State College, writes "anti-feminist media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh". Postmodern Texts and Emotional Audiences, 2007, p. 87, Purdue University Press, ISBN 1557534799
  • Susan J. Douglas, a professor of communications at the University of Michigan, describes Limbaugh as "simultaneously reasonable, combative, and avowedly antifeminist." "Letting the Boys Be Boys: Talk Radio, Male Hysteria, and Political Discourse in the 1980s", p. 499, in Chapter 23 of Radio reader: essays in the cultural history of radio, 2002, Psychology Press, ISBN 0415928214

I see many more examples in my searches, but four scholars saying he's an antifeminist, versus none saying he is not, is pretty decisive. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He's also a jerk, a nationalist, a bigot, a xenophobe, a big fat idiot, unofficial spiritual leader on the Republican Party, an addict of hillbilly heroin in recovery, a Viagra popin' tourist, and what else you got? Every single one of those I can get major and minor sources, including tin horn professors. The lead is not a place of condemnation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't trivialize the issue. The lead is a place for context and an accurate summary of the man's life. His fame comes from his political beliefs, and one of his prominent beliefs is that women should not have equal rights. This fact should be mentioned in the lead section and developed in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Rush Limbaugh: Difference between revisions Add topic