Talk:Phony soldiers controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep and rename (already renamed) (non admin closure).

Contents

[edit] Rationale

Absolutely a must-have entry, relevant and chronicling both sides of an issue which made history as the largest single charitable contribution in EBay history, in addition to being a benchmark categorization of our partisan times.

The letter is actually referred to throughout the media as 'the Reid Smear Letter.' You might not like how history unfolds, but you absolutely must chronicle it.

This is a legit story, covered by CNN and by Fox News among others. Whether it really deserves its own article, I'm not so sure of. Note that neither news organization refers to it by your title, nor does any other sane outfit, so the article would have to be renamed if it stays. Wasted Time R 03:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to comment on the afd page MrMurph101 03:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other articles stemming from this

Do any of the connected subjects related to this have enough notability for an Wikipedia article: Betty Casey, Marine Corps Law Enforcement Fund, Eugene B. Casey Foundation?--Bedford 05:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the other two proposed articles, but the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Fund is a vitally needed and notable charity organization. Revolutionaryluddite 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AmericanMemorabilia.com has it wrong

As a part time dealer in rare books and historical documents since 1982 I can state that the remarks by AmercianMemorabilia.com VP are inaccurate. The auction record is the single best indicator of the value of documents that suspend Habeus Corpus or Constitutional Rights. From Dred Scott, Susan B. Anthony's arrest, to Letters by FDR interning Japanese and Italian Americans during WWII, the prices for original documents are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars.

This letter, as far as my research has been able to determine, is the first instance in our history as a nation where 40 or more Senators willingly, and in writing, disregarded 1st Amendment provisions in an attempt to silence a critic. That makes this document singularly valuable. Economic forces of supply and demand seem to confirm that perception. ToddAmelio 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, please read Wikipedia:Original research for more information on why we cannot include your opinions at this time. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Then it stands to reason that the original reference to the opinion of Americanmemoribilia.com is not worthy of inclusion either. Very well, it's gone.-ToddAmelio 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context

To fully understand the nature of Limbaugh's comments, full context of the entire conversation must be included in the article. On the September 26, 2007, radio broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh received telephone calls from two listeners regarding the Iraq War. The first caller, "Mike in Chicago", who identified himself as a Republican and former service member, told Limbaugh, "I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq." Limbaugh argued with the caller and ended up treating him dismissively. After that call, Limbaugh next spoke to a listener who wanted to "retort to Mike in Chicago" (the original caller). This second caller, who identified himself as a soldier, complained that the media never talked to "real soldiers" like himself. He was clearly responding directly to the first caller, who had told Limbaugh he felt the Iraq War was a mistake. The current version of the article only contains the conversation with the second caller. It doesn't make it clear that the second caller's remarks are in response to "Mike in Chicago"'s anti-war comments. This second caller never mentioned Jesse Macbeth at all. With the addition of the first conversation, the New York Times response that Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment was "referring to Iraq war veterans critical of the war" makes sense. As is, this article is heavily skewed in favor of Limbaugh. Both sides of the controversy need to be presented. Right now, this article is simply a Limbaugh-fanatic's wet dream.-Hal Raglan 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "Limbaugh-fanatic's wet dream" shows your POV. I think this is a pretty fair article, well-sourced, although it probably needs a new name, although no clear alternative exists.--Bedford 04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you would react to only the final line of my entire commentary. I think that in itself, plus your bizarre comment that the article is "pretty fair", clearly shows your POV. Now, how about attempting to respond to the issue I raised?-Hal Raglan 05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent addition of the first call added as much to the article as a spilled salt shaker would increase the salinity of the Atlantic Ocean. The quote originally on needs to be cut. Besides, the first call doesn't help yoru side of the story anyways.--Bedford 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
How so? The second caller responded directly to the first caller, who was an anti-war vet. Suddenly, Limbaugh starts talking about phony soldiers. I understand Limbaugh's defense in that he (Limbaugh) may very well have been thinking of MacBeth when he made that comment but the logical flow of the conversation strongly suggests that he was, in fact, calling the first caller, and by extension any vet with similar views, a phony soldier. Thats not "my side" of the story, thats how the New York Times, CNN, Media Matters, and many others reacted to the comment. That said, I think the Overview section can be severely edited down, including the 1st and 2nd conversations, as long as both conversations are concisely detailed. Not mentioning the first call at all eliminates the all-important context in which Limbaugh's comment was made. Can you honestly not see that?-Hal Raglan 06:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact is, he was referring only to Jesse Macbeth and those with similar acts, not to all soldiers who are against the war. It was a purposeful smear. Anyone who insists on the larger group is purposely lying about it.--Bedford 06:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Claiming that everybody is lying and "smearing", except for your beloved Limbaugh, makes me seriously doubt that your edits are good faith attempts to improve this article. Its fine to express your extreme bias and POV-addled thinking on a talk page of an article. However, before continuing to edit on wikipedia, I strongly suggest you make attempts to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's very important NPOV policy.-Hal Raglan 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who needs to read up on it, especially if you are using Media Matters for a source. The Chicago Cubs telling how to win the Wurld Series has more credibility than that left-wing glorified blog.--Bedford 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, your extreme right-wing bias and grotesquely POV Limbaugh-lust is perfectly fine when lovingly revealed on a talk page, but unless you can maintain NPOV in your edits in actual articles you clearly do not understand the policy.-Hal Raglan 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing

Mr. Raglan, Although your comments sound sincere I question your motivations. You state that the point is neutrality and yet you have deliberately attempted on several occassion to edit the "unedited" transcript by injecting opinion and headers. The point of an unedited transcript is to NOT edit it...AT ALL.

Additionally you have deleted wholesale paragraphs that are placed there for the purpose of establishing an accurate timeline of events. I am neither pro or anti limbaugh. My interest in this topic is the abuse of Senatorial power to restrict Free speech, an issue I assume you would agree is extrememly important to all Americans.

I can't help but note on your profile several references to Al Gore, Al Franken, and a host of other liberals and only one or two reference to conservatives usually followed by the words "controversy".

I think it is safe to say that your opinion here is tainted. If you have relevant facts to add in a timeline approriate fashion you need not fear an edit from me, buit please refrain from editing transcripts or timelines in future.-ToddAmelio 03:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets see if you are truly interested in improving this article. I will make small edits, concisely detailing the reasons for the edits in my "edit summary" (something you have inadvertently neglected to do). It would be great if we could begin an active dialog to maintain NPOV and improve this article. If you are willing to do that, we may be able to come up with a compromise that satisfies both sides of the argument. And, despite your continual reverts of my edits, there are two sides to be presented here. There was a very real controversy surrounding Limbaugh's comment, and its important that this article detail why the "phony soldiers" term sparked a controversy.
I notice, in your lengthy response, that you haven't responded to any of my concerns regarding context and NPOV. If you are truly interested in creating a "timeline", can you explain your routine removal of all reference to the first telephone conversation with the anti-war vet? This first conversation, to which Limbaugh and the second caller were responding, is important to mention here, whether briefly or at length. The reason Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment became controversial was because the comment seemed to be aimed at the first caller, and, by extension, all anti-war vets. While its certainly important to detail Limbaugh's defense regarding his comment -- which is indeed adequately included here -- its also important to provide the context of the entire conversation (not just the second caller) to show why there was an original controversy. Refusing to do so slants the entire article in Limbaugh's favor. Instead of responding to my comments, you've simply insulted me ("I think it is safe to say that your opinion here is tainted."). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however. If you respond on this talk page to my future edits in a thoughtful manner, fully explaining your reasons why you believe my changes are unhelpful, I will accept that you are acting in good faith. I will argue with you of course, but thats what talk pages are for. If you do not respond, and you simply revert my edits with no explanation, then its clear that you are merely attempting to insert your admitted agenda into this article.-Hal Raglan 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be self evident but since it is not I removed the reference to the first caller because he was NOT part of the Phony soldier discussion...which is the point. You have stated your OPINION that the phony soldier reference was to this caller but have yet to support that with even the slimmest shred of evidence. Unless you can show some concrete relationship between ANY previous callers and the Phony soldier discussion then you are not entering facts but propaganda. My position on this is clear, I want the facts out there because ANY abuse of power by the Senate must be documented for historical value.
Read the transcript again, the evidence is there. My god, the second caller even says that he wants to retort to "Mike from Chicago", the first caller. His initial comments, followed by Limbaugh's, are in direct reference to the first caller's anti-war statements. And that was the whole point of Media Matters original reporting. Since Media Matters was the first organization to report on the "phony soldiers" insult, not presenting MM's view -- that "phony soldiers" was aimed at vets with anti-Iraq war sentiments -- and ONLY allowing the Limbaugh defense skews this article. You claim that you want a document for historical value yet you continue to misrepresent the facts. Not mentioning this first call at all is simply presenting one-side of the controversial issue. Remove the context (the two conversations) and you remove/obscure the meaning behind the comment.
In addition, you claim that you want an accurate time line presented, yet you continually allege that Limbaugh read from the MacBeth AP article, then took a phone call from a listener. This is simply false, based on the provided transcript which clearly shows that Limbaugh only discusses the MacBeth article AFTER the two conversations. Why are you deliberately obscuring facts here? Its seems fairly obvious, despite your protestation, that you are indeed simply interested in inserting your increasingly blatant pro-Limbaugh propaganda into the article.-Hal Raglan 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And What you percieve to be insults can best be described as a scolding. Your opinion is of ZERO value in what you yourself describe as an encyclopedia. I have added citations from various sources which you have arbitrarily called "righ wing blogs". Pray tell, what does meet your standards? It has been my experience that a quote is a quote! If someone really said it and it can be verified by multiple sources then the matter is resolved. However, I have endevoured to provide more universal citations and will be happy to do so again if requested.-ToddAmelio 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem extremely confused by what meets the standards for sourcing quotes, please read wikipedia's reliable sources policy. All the information you seek is there...including the policy against using partisan blogs. If you truly have no idea what a rightwing blog is, that linked policy should help you out a little.-Hal Raglan 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript

Usually, full transcripts are not included in articles. Does this really need to be here? MrMurph101 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable question. In this case the letter by Senator Reid made specific reference to a statement by Limbaugh. In order to show the statement in context so that people can understand the bruhaha it is necessary to show the entire discussion with the caller. People can interpret it as they choose. I personally have no horse in this race save one, the abuse of Senatorial power to spend my tax dollars on the floor of the Senate to censure a private citizen. I could care less if it was Howard Dean or Rush Limbaugh. I don't want it to ever happen to me if Harry Reid decides he doesn't like what I have to say. This is a historic event that I hope is never repeated. The Senate has better things to do...especially considering their lack of performance lately.-ToddAmelio 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I will try to keep this as civil as possible. But for someone with your editing history of this article to claim that its important to include the "context" in order for readers to understand the controversy is beyond ludicrous. Your clear agenda has been to remove any facts, including the original phone call that ultimately led to Limbaugh's insulting remark, from this article so that only your POV remains. You have censored this article repeatedly in an attempt to distort the facts to fit what you want to retain as a historical document.-Hal Raglan 04:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean. However, full transcripts are linked as a reference so readers can click the link if they want to read the whole thing. Including the entire transcript may be interpreted as original research which is not allowed. It is better to note the transcript somehow in the article and link it. MrMurph101 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the complete transcript does not need to be included here. A mention of Media Matters original report, followed by Limbaugh's defense, both concisely presented and linked to reliable sources, is all that is necessary. And besides, as I've noted above, there were actually two related telephone conversations, and to present only the second one spins the article in Limbaugh's favor. Mentioning the MM article -- which discusses both calls --will bring the necessary context and better explain the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's comment.-Hal Raglan 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is including the transcript a copyright violation?

I think having the transcript here is somewhat useful, it isn't very long, but I fear that it is a copyright violation --rogerd 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless I am msitaken it was the EIB network that originally authored this entry so I doubt there is an issue here, the transcript is public domain. You can find the transcript all over the net. I doubt it is a problem.-ToddAmelio 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your inexperience with Wikipedia is showing. Wikipedia takes copyright VERY seriously, much more than the rest of the net. There are a jillion websites with full song lyrics, for example, but if you post those lyrics into a Wikipedia article on the song, it will be removed right away as a copyvio. And as a separate matter, which editor here are you saying is an EIB employee? Wasted Time R 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the citation link for the transcript being a member-only link. Is there another link to the transcript that is not itself a copyvio? - Crockspot 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, found a guest link.[1] - Crockspot 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of article

So, this article obviously has to move. So where to?

On the AfD page, I made a quick few suggestions (Reid-Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid-Rush Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid letter to Clear Channel or Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy), but I know they are probably not the best... so where to? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that no consensus has been reached yet in the afd but can we please rename this article? The current title is odious in the extreme, and has been allowed to remain now for at least 48 hours.-Hal Raglan 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you have a low threshhold for the words "odious" and "extreme".--Bedford 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved it now to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy (as you can obviously see). The name can still be worked on, but it is good to move it for the time being. The redirect is good for now. I'm going to note the move on the deletion page. --Ali'i 13:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with that name. I see no reason whatsoever to change it anymore. Almost Anonymous 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it ever has a popular name for it, we might change it. Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy is the best alternative until then.--Bedford 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The new name looks to be the best compromise for people to use in searching for the document. In the end, most people will only remember the names of the players.-ToddAmelio 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect timeline

In the "Overview" section, it has been incorrectly and repeatedly claimed by two editors that Limbaugh read from the AP MacBeth article on his radio program, then took listener calls, during which time the infamous "phony soldiers" comment was uttered. This is false, as the included transcript clearly shows. It is also claimed that the caller referred to MacBeth, which the transcript clearly shows he did not. The actual time line, as shown by the transcript, is that Limbaugh discussed the Iraq War with a caller (in response to an original caller who was anti-war), THEN read from the AP MacBeth article. To falsify the timeline is a clear attempt by Limbaugh-apologists to justify the claim that Limbaugh's comment was obviously only referring to MacBeth. If Limbaugh had read from the article, then took the call, there would have been no controversy as Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment would have been obviously in response to the article. However, this is clearly not the case and to continually present incorrect, non-factual detail in this article is beginning to seem like nothing more than deliberate agenda driven POV-pushing, bordering on vandalism. I find it hard to believe that the edits are being done in good faith, when the two editors responsible for the disruptive edits have repeatedly refused to discuss any of their changes on a substantial level (other than hurling insults and making allegedly humorous wisecracks) on this talk page. If you claim that Limbaugh read from the article first and that the caller specifically mentioned MacBeth, you MUST explain why you believe you have knowledge of the proper timeline of events that goes against what is shown in the provided transcript. If you believe the transcript is incorrect, discuss that issue here.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False claim of widespread use of "Phony Soldiers" term by media

Two editors are repeatedly claiming that the use of the "Phony Soldiers" term was in widespread use by the media immediately prior to Limbaugh's now-infamous insult. The two are continually inserting the following into the article: "During the weeks leading up to the initial "phony soldier" controversy there were indeed several articles referencing "phony soldiers" like MacBeth including....", followed by linked news articles. (Please note the singular "soldier" and the unencyclopedic use of "indeed") The problem is that NONE of the articles references "phony soldiers". Simply reading the articles reveals that the claim made is false. The articles in question all report details about MacBeth and never use the "phony soldiers" term. The claim is obviously being made as an attempt by Limbaugh-apologists to falsely show that the term was being widely circulated prior to Limbaugh's comment, and that everybody should have known the intent of Limbaugh's remark. This is POV-pushing. My version reads: "During the weeks leading up to the initial "phony soldiers" controversy there were several articles referencing MacBeth including..." followed by the same linked articles. This is factual content fully supported by the provided sources, presented in an inarguably NPOV manner. Constantly removing factual content from an article and replacing it with deliberately false detail is, in my view, nothing more than vandalism. The two editors have continually refused to detail the reasons behind their repeated insertion of the false information, despite my repeated requests for a discussion.-Hal Raglan 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced POV editorializing re: Harry Reid

Two editors are continually inserting their POV-riddled editorializing into this article. The following is the sentence they believe is so important to include: "On October 19, 2007, within an hour of the record setting auction closing and under mounting pressure from the press over his failure to denounce the MoveOn.org New York Times Ad denegrating Army Gen. David Petraeus[1][2] and for using the forum of the floor of the Senate to pass a non-binding resolution to censure a private citizen exercising his right to free speech[3], Senator Reid addressed the issue again on the floor of the Senate stating...", followed by his comment. (It should be noted that the original version was even worse, describing Reid as "contrite".) Besides being POV-riddled, the claim that there was "mounting presssure from the press" regarding the Move.On ad is not even mentioned at all in the provided sources. Similarly, the claim that Reid was also under mounting pressure regarding "censuring a private citizen exercising his right to free speech" is not mentioned in the sourced article. I doubt if any reliable sources can be provided proving such "mounting pressure from the press" existed. I'm sure that editorials and political blogs have attacked him for his actions, but "mounting pressure from the press" is pure agenda-driven POV-pushing. I have rewritten the sentence in the following factual, NPOV manner: "On October 19, 2007, within an hour of the record setting auction closing , Senator Reid addressed the issue again on the floor of the Senate stating..." followed by his comment. Clearly, factual presentation of facts in an encyclopedia should have precedence over politically motivated POV peddling.-Hal Raglan 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mister Kettle? This is Mister Pot. Listen: you're black.

Haven't you noticed you are the only one that sees this "abuse"? Also, why do you insist on spamming Talk pages?--Bedford 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to engage in conversation is not "spamming" (see Wikipedia:Spam). Why do you refuse to discuss your edits?-Hal Raglan 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
True. But that is not what you are doing. You are spamming. You are attempting to shout down anyone who doesn't march in lock step with your ideological views by shear volume of words. Your politics, personal insults, and gutteral use of colloquialism has clearly overwhlemed any plausible pretense at objectivity you may have, to this time, been able to feign. Although this is a free venue to express opinions and we all have political trends, most of us have maintained a respectful willingness to compromise on content; MOST OF US. I dare say that any further contribution by yourself would be a mere waste of bandwidth and a continued irritation for those of us interested in getting the full an accurate story saved for posterity. I respectfully request that you withdraw from the topic.-ToddAmelio 13:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The only civil way to respond to your "respectful" request is to tell you that your post was the most unintentionally hilarious thing I've ever read on wikipedia. You have never been willing to compromise or even discuss any of your borderline vandalism/POV-pushing of non-factual material. Your only supporter in your Pro-Limbaugh bias has been User:Bedford. Nearly all of the concerns I have raised on the talk page have been addressed to my satisfaction by other editors, either on the talk page or in their edit summaries. As examples, the editorializing re: Harry Reid--gone! Your insistence that days before the Limbaugh comment, numerous news articles "indeed" used the phrase "phony soldiers"--gone! I must respectfully decline your comical request. I will continue to make edits to this article until it truly represents an NPOV, factual presentation of the events. However, unless you can add anything substantial to any of the numerous commentary that I, and other editors, have written -- which, to date, you have not even attempted -- I will simply ignore any of your future rants.-Hal Raglan 15:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sectioning poor

The organization of this article is poor. There should be several sections, not just one blob of 'Overview' (no 'overview' can possibly take up 90% of the space!). Topics (not titles) should be:

  • What Limbaugh said
  • What was said in reaction to that, by MM, Limbaugh, etc
  • What Reid & the Senate did
  • Auction of the letter and reaction thereto

And why is there a 'Media Matters' section at all? That's what the Media Matters article is for; why try to repeat it here? We don't have separate sections to explain who Limbaugh or Reid or Clear Channel are, do we? Wasted Time R 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I had sectioned it, but during Hal's rampages all the sectioning and wikifying I did got lost. I'll try to add them back.--Bedford 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not consider the Media Matters section that big of a deal. As long as there is a link to the "Media Matters" section of Wiki then I don't see any reason to clutter up an already lengthy entry. I'll go with the concensus. Regarding the sectioning I am of the opinion that a timeline of events is fairly important in order to see how the whole fiasco came to pass. Without imposing motivations on either side of the issue I have faith that the average reader is smart enough to draw their own conclusions given full and time relevant data. I think the "overview" is really the summary at the top of the page and the current "overview" would be better described as "The events as they unfolded".-ToddAmelio 23:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

I went through and formatted all of the citations, combined redundant cites, updated links, etc. I was impressed that there were no poor quality cites that had to be removed, with the exception of a single cite of a wikipedia article. I have not verified that the sources actually support statements in the article, so that would be a next step if someone wants to jump on it. Once we have confirmed that all statements and sources are verified, then we can start rearranging and picking off individual infobits that may or may not appropriately belong in the article. - Crockspot 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just removed this paragraph "During the weeks leading up to the initial "phony soldier" controversy there were indeed several articles referencing "phony soldiers" like MacBeth including a May 28th Article in Starts and Stripes,[5] a June 7th article in the Seattle Times,[10] and eventually the relevant September 21st article released by the AP and prominently reproted in the Seattle Times announcing MacBeth's fate.[11]" because none of the three articles cited contained the the term "phony soldiers" or "phony soldier". Yilloslime (t) 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No objection at this time, though I would prefer not to see my formatting work wasted, so I have retrieved the two sources removed, and post them here. They may prove yet to be useful for this article. - Crockspot 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the titles again, perhaps your edit is a bit of semantic hairsplitting. I think a minor reword of the "phony soldiers" statement could have precluded a removal of the entire section. - Crockspot 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think so. To me, the paragraph in question suggested that the meme "phony soldiers" had been floating around the media prior to Limbaugh's use of it that fateful day, and that Limbaugh just repeated it, and his listeners would have perceived his comments in that context. It also suggests that there have been more incidents of imposter soldiers than just the MacBeth case. Maybe this is all, in fact, true, but the sources cited certainly don't back it up. All the sources substantiate is that the Macbeth—and only Macbeth—had already been outted as a fake prior to Limbaugh's phony soldiers remark, and this background info is already established in the "Overview" section of the article. Therefore this paragraph doesn't belong in the article at all, even if reworded to remove the assertion that the references contain the term "phony soldiers". See what I'm getting at? Yilloslime (t) 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess you're right. The time referencing in the passage doesn't make any sense either, it says "weeks", but those sources span several months. - Crockspot 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I brought up the same concerns in the section above titled "False claim of widespread use of "Phony Soldiers" term by media". I also made the exact same edit you did repeatedly, fully providing my reasoning in my edit summaries as well as the noted section. However, Bedford and ToddAmelio repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion or explanation of any kind, strongly indicating that their main purpose here is simply to skew the entire article in Limbaugh's favor.-Hal Raglan 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I should say that I think these references are good and valid, and kudos to you for whipping all the formatting into shape. Perhaps they could go into the Overview section somewhere. My point above is simply that the way they were employed was improper. Yilloslime (t) 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess my question is, why does it matter? This article is supposed to be about the letter that Reid wrote, and the hub-bub it created. Do we really even need to go into so much detail about the "phony soldiers" thing? Isn't it just background/prologue material? Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of AP Story

Another possible issue: Was the original title for AP story containing the Doug Fisher quote really "Phony soldiers cost VA, tarnished medals" as the article says? That's certainly the title that KOMO TV in Seattle ran the story under, but that doesn't mean that it's the title AP sent the story out under. Individual publishers routinely change the titles of wire stories, and in fact VA Watchdog ran the same story under the title "Prosecutors: Faked military records cost VA, tarnished medals"[2]. And it may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but I think it does matter, and we should get it right. If the story had run in hundreds of newspapers around the country under the title "Phony soldiers cost VA, tarnished medals" as is implied in this article, then it would make a lot more sense for Limbaugh to have used the term in they way he claims to have meant it. If, on the other hand, only this one regional TV station used that title, then it's very unlikely Limbaugh or the majority of his listeners would have heard it before the day Limbaugh spoke it. Does anyone have Lexus-Nexus access or can anyone find other examples where the story was run under a headline containing the term "phony soldiers". If no one can come up with anything, then I think we'll have to change that first sentence in the Overview section. Yilloslime (t) 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Lo and Behold: you can search Lexus Nexus for free[3], you just can't read the articles. Searching for "Eight people who faked their military service in conflicts dating to World War II have been charged" (i.e. the first line of the AP story in question) yeilds: "Prosecutors: Faked military records cost VA, tarnished medals. The Associated Press State & Local Wire - 9/21/2007 - LENGTH: 621 words ". I am changing the text of this article accordingly. Yilloslime (t) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABC story

Unfortunately, the more I look at the sourcing, the more problems I discover. The latest one is this:

  • In the days that followed Limbaugh stated on his radio program that when he referred to "phony soldiers" he was specifically referring to Jesse MacBeth, whom he mentioned by name in the dialogue of his show, and those like him who never actually served. He also stated that he was quoting from the AP story and pointed out that ABC aired the same story 2 days earlier where host Brian Ross described "Phony soldiers" specifically refering to Jesse MacBeth.[10]

The problem is that the cited source is simply another version of the AP story about MacBeth. It doesn't substantiate the claim that Limbaugh later argued that he had been refering to MacBeth, nor does substantiate that Brian Ross used the term "Phony soldiers." In fact that term does not appear in the reference at all. I'll give it a few hours and this isn't addressed I'll change the passage to something along the lines of:

  • In the days that followed Limbaugh stated on his radio program that when he referred to "phony soldiers" he was specifically referring to Jesse MacBeth, whom he mentioned by name in the dialogue of his show, and those like him who never actually served. He also stated that he was quoting from the AP story and claim (incorrectly) that ABC aired the same story 2 days earlier where host Brian Ross described "Phony soldiers" specifically refering to Jesse MacBeth.{{fact}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 October 2007
Since it's unclear whether or not limbaugh referred specifically to the ABC story, I removed the sentence. Revolutionaryluddite 02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I found two well-publicized, reliable sources using the terms 'phony soldiers' or 'phony heroes' and added them to the article. Revolutionaryluddite 02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • An attempt is being made here to falsely claim that, prior to Limbaugh's comment, the term "phony soldiers" was in allegedly wide use by the media to designate vets who have lied about their military service. This is being done to to make it seem that everybody should have known what Limbaugh meant and that the controversy was purely manufactured, as absolutely nobody could possibly have been truly offended. So far, only two articles have been provided as proof of this claim...and the only one that actually used "phony soldiers" was a 2001 editorial! Although its been noted that this article was "well-publicized", how was the claim that it was "well-publicized" determined? Because it appeared in the New York Times? Many editorials appear in that newspaper on a daily basis and do not necessarily become the object of reference for multiple years. Only the second article is truly relevant, since it appeared a few days before the controversy erupted and, most importantly, because Limbaugh specifically referred to the article several minutes after using the term. Unless Limbaugh himself has referred to the NYT op ed in one of his numerous defenses, then inserting the article here smells suspiciously like Original Research. I suspect that the combination of the words "phony + soldiers" has probably been used sometime in the past other than the 2001 editorial and Limbaugh's insult, but that doesn't make such usage relevant to the issue at hand and it doesn't prove at all that "phony soldiers" was a commonly used phrase.-Hal Raglan 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raglan. A 6 year old OpEd which Limbaugh never talked about just isn't relevant here. Yilloslime (t) 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
6 year old op ed? No one is saying the term "phony soldiers" was a commonly used phrase, just a CURRENTLY used phrase, which it was. Hal's bias is showing again. In fact each reference of the term "phony soldiers" has been made with specific example and not one that I found was more that 5 months old. The fact is that Limbaugh is a talk show host and he reads from various news stories to get people to call in with opinions. He was holding a piece of paper in his hands during this entire conversation(it's on film...he tapes his radio shows). and he is reading from it. The paper in his hand in the AP story with phony soldiers in the title! THAT is where the term comes from and his use of it is directly related to the AP story. That is the only relevant issue.-ToddAmelio 14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the AP story is the only relevant issue here, not an ancient editorial. That's exactly what Yilloslime and I have clearly stated above. Nobody at all has argued against including the AP story. See the discussion on this further below on the talk page. Try keeping up with the rest of us. And your claim that "phony soldiers" is allegedly a currently used phrase but not a commonly used one is interesting and incoherent at the same time.-Hal Raglan 17:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya, and as a point of fact, the AP story did not have the phrase "phony soldier(s)" its title or text as discussed elsewehere on this page. Yilloslime (t) 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The two stories referred to in the lead-up section used the phrases "phony heroes" and "phony war heroes". To say that they're not relevent just because they didn't use the exact same term down to the letter... this is the worst kind of semantic hair splitting. Also, the NYT article is not just a '6-year old op-ed'. It's a social criticism essay by a Pulitzer-Prize winning historian.
Look, it doesn't make sense to hinge everything on whether or not the term phony soliders was a commonly used phrase. 'Commonly used'... compared to what? What's the definition of 'commonly used'? Since the definition of 'commonly used' is so subjective, labeling a news story by a reliable source as 'uncommon' is pure original research. If limbaugh had used another, very similar phrase-- such as 'phony heroes'-- why would that make a difference? Revolutionaryluddite 02:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The term was used on September 21st in the conservative blogosphere: "Phony Soldier Jesse Macbeth Sentenced Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 4:38:28 pm PST Jesse MacBeth, the lying scumbag who became a hero of the left when he claimed to be an Army Ranger and alleged that the US military was routinely murdering Iraqi civilians, has been sentenced to 5 months in prison." Revolutionaryluddite 02:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And Fox News used the exact phrase 'Phony soldier' in their reprint of the May 20th AP story-- Phony Soldier Charged With Making Up Claims of Atrocities in Iraq. Revolutionaryluddite 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On Sept. 20, the United States Department of Justice released a paper about 'Phony Vets'. Revolutionaryluddite 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On September 21, Brian Ross' blog on the ABC News website explictly referred to MacBeth as "the phony U.S. soldier". Revolutionaryluddite 02:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The blog has other reports on 'phony heroes' and a 'phony war hero'. Revolutionaryluddite 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
For your first point, nobody has argued that the AP story is irrelevant, because Limbaugh himself referred to the story a few minutes after he said "phony soldiers". And the ABC story is also relevant, as a few days after the comment Limbaugh also referred to the ABC story in one of his defenses. My comments above neglected to mention the ABC story, but I do think both the AP and ABC stories clearly have a place in the article. They help present the Limbaugh-sanctioned view of the initial controversy, i.e. it should have been clear from his comments that he was using a phrase that everybody should have recognized as specifically referring to MacBeth and others like him.
Its not hair splitting at all to state that other slightly similar phrases used in the past are not relevant because they don't mention "phony soldiers". Limbaugh's explanation, widely accepted throughout the rightwing blogosphere, is that there could not possibly have been any ambiguity about what he meant. Its important to present that view in the article, and it has been done so adequately by including the two articles that he has specifically mentioned. Hammering in this view, by including any other articles, or writings from blogs, as justification of Limbaugh's defense is definitely Original Research and POV. Like I wrote previously, there are probably many uses in the past of similar phrases, but that doesn't make all of them relevant to the current issue.-Hal Raglan 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As of right now, the article does not reprint Media Matters' patently false claim that the term 'phony soldiers' or other synoymn phrases such as 'phony heroes' were not used before Limbaugh said it. Since the claim is not mentioned in the article, this is not an issue- so I can see why including the earlier, well-documented uses of 'phony soliders' and its synoymns would be unnecessary. Revolutionaryluddite 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide me with a link to the Media Matters article that asserts "the term 'phony soldiers' or other synoymn phrases such as 'phony heroes' were not used before Limbaugh said it." If Media Matters really made such a ludicrous claim, I'd like to read it myself. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 17:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at Media Matter's archives and, amazingly, they're actually hinging their entire arguement on the fact that Rush used a "plural" word instead of a "singular" one-- see [4]. Revolutionaryluddite 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at other posts such as [5], Media Matters apparently just assumes that "phony soliders" meant all anti-war vets based on the usage of plurals and the fact that so many seconds or so passed before Rush mentioned Jesse MacBeth's name. Revolutionaryluddite 18:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic

This article seems to have drifted topic. It is supposed to be about the letter that Reid sent, and the controversy surrounding it. However, it has turned into more about Limbaugh's comments, and defending his use of the words.

It should be more like: a brief (brief) overview of his comments (no editorializing). Reid's comments on the Floor, the writing the letter, the other signatories, sending it to Mays, Mays' public comments on the letter, giving it to Limbaugh, Limbaugh's comments on his show, the auction on eBay (which should probably be the largest section of the article, including what Limbaugh stated the letter meant, if not covered in a previous section, a little bit about the bidding, the record set, the charity), the follow-up comments from Reid on the Floor, the rebuttal from Limbaugh about Reid's comments on the Floor, press coverage of the record/auction, any other material concerning the letter. Basically, these are the highlights of the controversy. Of course, the details are much deeper and broader, but I think these are the highlights. Hopefully, we can continue to improve the article. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the best ways your understandable concerns could be addressed is to remove the transcript from the article and simply concisely report on what Limbaugh said. There seems to me to be a consensus elsewhere in the talk page to remove the transcript, so I don't think doing so would create much of a stir, except for one or two editors who have expressed explicit pro-Limbaugh sentiments. However, it would still be necessary to report Limbaugh's comment within the necessary context, that is, that both the caller and Limbaugh were specifically addressing their initial comments at a previous caller who had expressed anti-war views. That still hasn't been adequately addressed in the article...again because of an attempt to slant this article in Limbaugh's favor. But you are right, this article is supposed to be about the letter and the subsequent controversy. Removing, or reducing the length, of the transcript will be a good first step.-Hal Raglan 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"your future rants" "Why do you refuse to discuss your edits?" "Limbaugh-fanatic's wet dream" "your beloved Limbaugh" "right-wing bias and grotesquely POV Limbaugh-lust" "something you have inadvertently neglected to do" (I must admit that consistently forget to place edit summaries as well...) "you've simply insulted me" (off topic: first call should stay in article) "blatant pro-Limbaugh propaganda" "other than hurling insults and making allegedly humorous wisecracks" (this paragraph being among said wisecracks) "to remove the transcript from the article and simply concisely report on what Limbaugh said" (editorializing...like I am by cherry picking above quotes?) (in responding, please remember to Stay Cool... wait, I failed to do so myself... oh well, flame on... ;-) (QUINTIX (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC))
The problem with summarizing the transcript is that it's stepping into a mine field. It's heavily debatable whether or not Limbaugh's mention of Jesse MacBeth is just an irrelevent side note to the previous discussion, as Media Matters claims, or if his mentioning means that the 'phony soldiers' comment was made specificially about phony soldiers, as Limbaugh claims. Revolutionaryluddite 15:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the transcript, and I'd be sad to see it go, as it give critical context for Limbuagh's remark. Another option would be to re-rename the article. We could call it the "Limbaugh phony soliders controversy" or something. After all, it seems a bit contrived to have an article focusing on the controversy around the letter without having an article about the controversy that the letter is about.... Yilloslime (t) 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You may be on to something there. I would rather see one article that broadly encompasses this controversy, than several articles, one on the letter, one on limbaugh's comments, etc. While I am not usually in favor of expanding the focus of an article, in this case, it might be a good idea. I would also like to comment on something else, people seem to put a lot of weight on the order in which discussion of MacBeth occurred, and how that must relate to what was in Rush's mind at the moment. This view does not take into account that radio people tend to prepare for their show ahead of time. Rush even refers to his show topics as a "stack of stuff". He would have read that MacBeth piece at least hours before he mentioned it on the air. It's not like there are people running into the studio handing him stuff to read blind. I listened to the tapes, and read the transcript, and it seems to me that he was about to work MacBeth into the conversation, but he was being polite to a caller and letting them speak their piece. We should assume that he knew exactly what he was going to pull off the stack during that broadcast before the broadcast even started. MacBeth was a hot topic on the blogs at that time, and I'm sure that story was foremost in his mind that day. - Crockspot 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion to expand the article, and rename it once again to "Phony Soldiers Controversy", is probably the best solution. Address the entire controversy, including the initial controversial Limbaugh comment and the letter that sparked off a separate controversy. I would imagine that most people would agree this is the best course of action, in order to make this a one-stop, comprehensive article on the subject. And Crockspot, I'm sure you are right about Limbaugh having planned to bring up MacBeth on that day's show, and used the two callers' comments as a good opportunity to bring it up. Nonetheless, Limbaugh's remark was made after he talked, rather dismissively, with an anti-war ex-service member. Media Matters' initial reporting noted that they perceived his "phony soldiers" comment was aimed at the first caller, as well as others who shared his anti-war views. In fact, both the second caller and Limbaugh do specifically address their initial commentary to that first caller. Obviously, alot of people accept Limbaugh's defense -- which, as you indicate, very possibly is true -- but Media Matters, CNN, New York Times, and the 41 Senators didn't, and that needs to be addressed. If we expand the article, the full context of the conversation can easily be included.-Hal Raglan 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Phoney Soldiers Letter" is also a possibility. Talking about why the letter was written, and what happened to it; it all fits in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedford (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the scope of the article should be expanded to include the entire controversy and not just the letter, I think the revised title should include Limbaugh's and Reid's names; readers searching for this article will first think of the key players' names. Revolutionaryluddite 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think something like the "Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Controversy" is best, and if we do change the title to something like that, we could create redirects to it from, say, "Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy" "Limbaugh-Reid letter controversy" "Reid-Clear Channel Letter" etc. That ought to make sure that any reasonable search for this material would land you in the right place. Yilloslime (t) 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On an earlier point made by other users, the exact term 'phony soldier' has been used in the conservative blogosphere in reference to Jesse before Limbaugh's broadcast. Revolutionaryluddite 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Lead up" section should go...

It is completely irrelevant to the controversy between Reid and Limbaugh and is redundant as Limbaugh's explanation is included later in the article. This section seems to exist only to give a POV tilt towards Limbaugh in the controversy by bolstering his explanation of his remarks.

This article is probably far too long anyway, especially given that the dust has already settled on this little incident. It should dispassionately present the facts and fairly present the arguments of both sides and that's it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think the name of the article needs to be changed to something like "Phony Soldiers Controversy." This was discussed above, and there appeared to be consensus for the change. I'll do that later if I get a chance. With regard to the "lead up" section, I think it provides critical context and needs to be in the article somewhere, but perhaps it doesn't need to be where it is. Maybe it could fit in later, though I'm skeptical—describing events chronologically seems most logical to me. I disagree that it gives a "POV tilt" in Limbaugh's direction, and here's why: Limbaugh and his supporters contend that he obviously was refering to MacBeth when he used the term "phony soldiers," and that his listeners would have known this. But that exact term was never used in the mainstream media prior to Limbaugh's use of it that day, and there were only two news stories in the week prior that used a similar term (the AP and ABC stories mentioned in the "Lead up"), so it seems highly unlikely that anyone listening to Limbaugh would have instinctively known he meant MacBeth when he said "the phony soldiers."
I think with a controversial subject like this one, truly NPOV language won't totally satisfy everyone. Both Limbaugh apologists and the Media Matters camp will feel that they're not being given a fair shake. I think the article its current state comes pretty close to "dispassionately presen[ing] the facts and fairly present[ing] the arguments of both sides." Other than the "Lead up," what else do you feel is POV? Yilloslime (t) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Loonymonkey. The NPOV tag should remain. Unlike Yilloslime, I believe the article does in fact skew things in favor of the Limbaugh-sanctioned view of events. I've explained my reasoning before, but I'll do so again here. The original Media Matters report, which is referenced in this article, discussed two undeniably related telephone calls Limbaugh received from listeners. The first conversation was with "Mike from Chicago", a caller who expressed anti-Iraq War views, which predictably resulted in a tirade from Limbaugh. Limbaugh repeatedly commented that he did not believe the caller was a (self-described) Republican, and when "Mike" claimed to be former military, Limbaugh retorted: "And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon." Mere moments later, a second caller phoned in with the stated, explicit intent to "retort to Mike from Chicago." As the included transcript shows, both Limbaugh and the second caller disparaged people who expressed views similar to "Mike"'s, and then went on to discuss "phony soldiers". As both individuals initially were responding to "Mike from Chicago", without any reference to the first call, proper context for the use of the "phony soldiers" insult is completely eliminated from this article. However, the article does go into incredibly lengthy, chronologically precise verbiage to present Limbaugh's defense, which has been done to strengthen Limbaugh's claim that everybody should have instinctively known he was referring to MacBeth when he used the insult. The first call can be very briefly mentioned somewhere in the article, properly cited to a notable source that reported on both telephone calls, such as Cincinnati's WLWT article here [6]. I have tried several times to include this important information into the article, but two editors have repeatedly deleted any mention of the first call, claiming without further explanation that reference to the conversation was irrelevant and POV. My attempts to engage in a dialog with the two editors met with derisive insults from both. Nonetheless, as long as the first conversation continues to be censored from the article, the NPOV tag should remain.-Hal Raglan (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That call Media Matters insists upon doesn't amount to a hill of bean. Plus, if this article was truly biased to Limbaugh, then it would at least point out that Rush challenged the Democrats to match the winning bid in giving a donation to MCLEF, and none did, even through many of those Democrat congressman have more money than Rush has; Kerry and Kennedy being the most glaring examples.--Bedford (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see both Hal's and Bedford's points. I think we easily include a mention that Rush challenged the Dems to match the winning bid (and that none did). I also agree that including a reference to the first call is important and should be done, the question is how. We could excerpt even more of the transcript—including the exchange with "Mike from Chicago", however then things will be really long. So I think a paraphrase would be better, perhaps something close to Hal's description of the call above?
What about changing the title to "Phony Soldiers Controversy" or "Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Controversy"? I was prepared to be WP:BOLD and change the title today, but that was based on the observation that previously active editors of this page hadn't contributed anything to it lately, and presumably had lost interest. Now that I see you-all are paying attention, what say you: Shall we change the name? Yilloslime (t) 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Phony Soldiers Controversy" sounds good to me. From previous comments, it does seem like everybody agrees a name change should be made, so I think you can go ahead with no problem.-Hal Raglan (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I thought the article was supposed to be about the letter, and the controversy is aroused. Not the phony soldiers controversy in toto. Why not just get rid of all the lead up, and keep the article focused on what it should be? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you recommend a second article be created, specifically detailing the original controversy surrounding Limbaugh's comment, with the lead up stuff added there? Unless I misread the commentary, I had thought an earlier discussion on this talk page had reached a consensus that this current article should be expanded and renamed to cover all aspects of the controversy, including the aftermath (the Reid letter and subsequent additional controversy).-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Done! Yilloslime (t) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)