Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

The active talk page is Talk:Rush Limbaugh

1 Top
2 Mockery of AIDS victims?
3 Hearing loss
4 Neutral text
5 Rush as a drug addict and hypocrite
6 Chelsea/dog comment
7 Neutral text
8 Dan's bake sale
9 Category:Propaganda
10 Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, not necessarily a republican
11 A nitpick...
12 NAALCP
13 Public opinion
14 Order of topics
15 His picture
16 Oklahoma City bombing
17 Pictures
18 Bo Snerdly?
19 Limbaugh's mention of Wikipedia?
20 Why is there a separate The Rush Limbaugh Show article?
21 Minor changes to fix typos and relative dates
22 photo
23 Joseph Goebbels link needed
24 Marriage and divorce, Rumors Rush is Gay
- 24.1 Request for Comment
25 Chickenhawk links needed
26 Rush and Eldridge.
27 Controversy
28 Innacurate, eh?
29 Failure to be unbiased
30 Edited difficult clause
31 Biography vs list of controversies
32 Are these quotes and responses real?
33 angry veterans are upset at Rush’s negative comments on Paul Hackett
34 diction??
35 John McCain
36 Controversies section
37 Section title: Miscellanea

Top

Larry, How do you state something like 'One thing causing contention is the difficulty many critics have discussing political issues objectively and not taking critical analysis of their favorite causes as a personal attack.'

I'm not sure we even want to say that. The critics, of course, will strongly disagree with the description of Rush's analysis as "objective." More importantly, you are insulting the critics. The critics certainly don't think they are reacting to a personal attack; they think they are refuting Rush using cold logic and obvious truths. You and I might or might not disagree with that, but the interests of polite discourse (even if it's discourse about impolite discourse) requires that we refrain from psychologizing about the shortcomings of critics.

The comment you make would be better placed in an article about the psychology and rhetoric of political discourse--which, I'm just guessing, is a topic on which none of us is actually expert enough to write anything worth reading. --Larry Sanger

I guess I should have added something about the rebuttal not being based on logic and using one or more unproven cliches.

Personally, I don't think that would do the trick either. Please see neutral point of view. --LMS

Someone put this link on the first page...it deserves to be on the talk page.

Anti-conservative web sites:

http://www.bartcop.com

Actually, I'd say anti-Rush (not anti-conservative) websites would be perfectly appropriate for Rush Limbaugh. Anti-conservative websites would be appropriate for political conservatism, just as anti-liberal websites would be appropriate for political liberalism.

Are there any conservative, anti-Limbaugh websites?

Don't know, but there are plenty of anti-Limbaugh conservatives (me for one). - ZSpinal 04:05, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From the article:

His harshest critics can see that he is an excellent broadcaster.

This needs clarification to stand. --Robert Merkel 05:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In 1992, President George Bush made an appearance on Limbaugh's show as part of his re-election campaign.

Is there documentation for this somewhere? Beyond this needing more specificity (that it was George H. W. Bush and not George W. Bush), it would probably be more informative to note that while Rush's show is not based on guests (such as many talk shows), a number of notable political guests have appeared on his show, such as ... — Daniel Quinlan 05:39, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Well obviously it's not George W. Bush. He couldn't run for reelection in 1992, having never been elected until 2000.Dubc0724 14:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, what's wrong with adding Bill Hicks' take on Limbaugh? [1] Many people find Limbaugh a deeply disturbing character and are suspicious of his personality. That's why I found the Bill Hicks stuff appropriate. Did I disrespect any of the Wikipedia rules? If so, then take it off by all means, but if not please re-revert. pir

Bill Hicks said a lot of things about famous people intended to provoke. I don't think that makes it appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. Not to mention that the content is just plain inappropriate and highly-charged POV. It's also not even factual or based in fact, it's a fantasy (involving sexual urination and defecation with other Republicans, no less) drawn out of Bill Hicks' imagination. I could find similar insulting fantasies about any number of political figures, I can't believe you're claiming that they're appropriate for this Wikipedia article. Daniel Quinlan 16:12, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

P.S. Please put new comments at the bottom of the talk article.

Mockery of AIDS victims?

User:Zotz writes in a comment: I hope we never have to review his mockery of AIDS victims: presumably his drug abuse was oral, not intravenous.

I somehow doubt you really feel that way. Just the same, when did Rush Limbaugh mock AIDS victims? I know he has questioned aspects of the AIDS movement and I can provide quotes about that, but I'm sure you would prefer to focus the article on controversy and anything resembling hypocrisy.

Daniel Quinlan 03:26, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Doubt if you wish, I know enough from personal experience with AIDS victims that I very, very sincerely would not wish the disease on the worst human imaginable. Rush's mockery of AIDS victims through his AIDS updates is one of the most disgusting things in his history: his mockery of AIDS victims is one of the reasons his first foray into television failed: After that mockery,his studio audience had to be removed before taping could continue. I sincerely hope that Rush's drug addiction causes him to become more tolerant of other's shortcomings. His past history suggests this is a forlorn hope. BUT personally, I wish him no ill: the AIDS victims he mocked will not be benefited by any ill he suffers. -- Zotz 03:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It really does sound like you are happy about Rush having a drug problem and it seemed as though you wished he had AIDS. Nevertheless, I'm unaware of Rush ever mocking the victims of AIDS. He has talked some about the AIDS movement and how the media covers AIDS. Could you please provide a source with a good quote or a transcript? Daniel Quinlan 04:07, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

No, I have no such transcript. The first place for you track it down would be his first foray into television: it was nauseating. That Rush used "I Know I'll Never Love This Way Again" as his AIDS update theme really should require no additional comment. -- Zotz 04:15, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Addendum: additionally, I sincerely hope that Rush finds a solution that renders him pain free, and that he finds a physician who can provide him freedom from pain with no untoward drug effects. As sincerely, I hope that he learns that the fact that people do irrational things that harm them does not make them worthless people. -- Zotz 04:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hearing loss

" a system where Rush could seem to be normally conversing with callers." What was the system exactly? Kingturtle 03:48, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

as far as I know, he's never revealed the details, but apparently there was a tape delay system whereby a screener could convey the essence of a caller's comments via computer screen to Rush (where Rush could read it), who would appear to answer the computerized communication as though it were auditory. --Zotz 03:52, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My guess is that it was a combination of some sort of private closed-captioning (a fast typist/stenographer) combined with a short tape delay (and maybe some sort of hand-signaling so Rush could begin talking during a natural pause). Broadcasters generally use a tape delay of 3-5 seconds so profanity can be bleeped (I think it's normal to delay both the broadcaster and the caller), so delaying just the caller's audio would be trivial. Anyway, I heard the show during this period and sometimes there was a longer-than-usual (for Rush) pause between the caller finishing a thought and his response. I don't know if he ever said anything specific about the system, though. Daniel Quinlan 03:58, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Any court reporter/stenographer worth his/her pay could easily transcribe callers' speech quickly enough to allow Limbaugh plenty of time to read and respond to it. - ZSpinal 04:05, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But apparently not perfectly enough to be seamless. The strategem was readily apparent to any attentive listener, though it was only admitted to post facto. -- Zotz 04:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Strategem:

A military maneuver designed to deceive or surprise an enemy.
A clever, often underhanded scheme for achieving an objective.

Please read about Wikipedia's policy of presenting a neutral point of view. Attempting to characterize that Limbaugh views his listeners as an enemy, hiding heading loss as underhanded, etc. does not even come close. If you feel the need to editorialize, Wikipedia is not the right place. Daniel Quinlan 06:32, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thus, I have not changed "seem to converse" to "deceptively created the illusion of conversing with" to describe his deceiving, underhanded scheme... He knowingly lied to his listeners about his hearing loss. Any neutral observer would recognize that. -- Zotz 06:37, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's not what you haven't done, but that you have continually added the invective to (at least) this article. Daniel Quinlan 06:54, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Calling a lie a lie is not invective. -- Zotz 07:02, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Anyhow, I thought it would be useful to point out how the system was not 100% perfect (as I pointed out earlier in this thread), so I added some text to that effect. It wasn't necessary to pitch the addition one way or the other. Daniel Quinlan 06:54, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done playing games for tonight. If Zotz adds his invective again to push his personal views, can someone please evaluate it vs. my last version. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan 07:06, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

The personal view that Rush lied about his hearing loss to his listeners??? It's cold, hard fact. Please also take into account that implying that lying about being able to hear (when you cannot) facilitates communication is disingenuous. -- Zotz 07:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I added this to my version: "Some critics of Rush contend that this episode and his month-long concealment of his deafness constitutes a lie. Most listeners of Rush do not feel that way." I think it's trite and unnecessary, but you are a critic and you seem to believe Rush needs to be declared a liar in his Wikipedia article, so it's true that some critics feel that way. That's as far as I can go to compromise with your invective. Daniel Quinlan 07:13, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I think it's self-evident that "this episode and his month-long concealment of his deafness constitutes a deception, and I would have hoped that even Rush's most uncritical fans would recognize this as well. -- Zotz 07:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Very well. I tried to compromise and now I regret it since not only is my compromise included, but your charged invective. I renew my request for other people to review the paragraph in question. Good night. For what it's worth, I'm not a "fan", just a occasional listener, usually when driving in the morning (the only station on the FM band that I can stand is NPR). Daniel Quinlan 07:26, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the debate over whether it's a "lie", as long as it's recognized as a deception. In fact, I'll do it now. I enjoy listening to Rush as well, but truth is truth. (P.S. it really is "progressive" hearing loss, not "progressing". -- Zotz 07:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I happen to be very critical of Limbaugh and I'm not a fan at all. However the above phrase quoted by Zotz is POV and therefore not allowed here. Who says this? If you can find a good cite, then say "such and such said....", otherwise it is out. --mav 07:28, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mav, To which phrase do you allude? -- Zotz 07:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The one about the "lie" that you just deleted. Much better now. --mav

Ah, that was Daniel Quinlan's phrase, not mine. -- Zotz 07:35, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC) Oh, maybe you knew that already. Nevermind<G> -- Zotz 07:36, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Neutral text

From the village pump

I don't think this quite rises to the level of problem of an NPOV dispute or an edit war, but I'd like someone (or multiple someones) to look at the following two paragraphs from Rush Limbaugh (initially, without looking at the edit history and discussion) and take a gander at which is more successful at being neutral.

In September 2001, Limbaugh denied suggestions that his voice and diction had changed. However, on October 8, 2001, he admitted that the changes in his voice were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. Rush also revealed that his radio staff was aiding him in concealing his rapidly progressing hearing loss and subsequent deafness by setting up a system where Rush could maintain a conversation with callers. Some listeners could discern the change, especially after Rush was unable to hear callers, sometimes a longer delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding, and sometimes he would seem to accidentally talk over a caller. Some critics of Rush contend that this episode and his month-long concealment of his deafness constitutes a lie. Most listeners of Rush do not feel that way.

By September 2001, Limbaugh's listeners had noted changes in his voice and diction, changes that Limbaugh initially denied. However, on October 8, 2001, he reversed himself, admitting that the changes in his voice were due to complete deafness in his left ear and substantial hearing loss in his right ear. Rush also revealed that his radio staff was aiding him in concealing his rapidly progressing hearing loss by setting up a system where Rush could appear to hear his callers. The system worked remarkably well, but did not deceive all listeners, some of whom noted a long delay between a caller ending his point and Limbaugh responding, and Rush occasionally speaking over a caller. Some critics of Rush contend that this episode and his month-long concealment of his deafness constitutes a lie. Most listeners of Rush do not feel that way.

Thanks. Daniel Quinlan 07:21, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it would be especially helpful if someone who heard Rush during this period of pretending to be able to hear voiced their comments! -- Zotz 07:24, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Huh. Neither is egregious, I'll state that right off... it's tricky. At first, I was leaning towards the second one, but 'Limbaugh's listeners had noted' set off a bell in my head. I'd say the first is more accurate, but I think I'd have written it slightly differently from either... and I'd think the page would be busy telling different versions of the controversy surrounding his admitting his painkiller addiction now to worry about old disputes... interesting. -- Jake 07:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personally I think either should be acceptable to any fairminded person. I can not imagine what the bone of contention could be. Very slightly think the second one is less weasel-wordy; but anyone seriously and actively objecting to the first one is way too picky. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 09:20, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

I think the goal is to aim for neutrality, not perfect negativity. Should Wikipedia pitch things as negatively as possible?

"by setting up a strategem where Rush could deceptively seem to be normally conversing with callers."

"he and his radio staff had systematically deceived his listeners"

and so on

Anyway, I'm fed up with people who join Wikipedia with little more than an axe to grind. To inveigh that reluctance of a radio host, someone who relies on sound, to reveal hearing loss is a "systematic deception" or a "strategem" (look it up) — that is neutral? Daniel Quinlan 09:52, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

To imply that what Rush did (set up a system whereby he and his staff could fool his listeners into thinking he could hear them), after having told them their concerns about his voice were completely unfounded, is reluctance to reveal hearing loss, rather than a lie about having lost his hearing, is to be completely uncritical. -- Zotz 10:05, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree that both will do... my immediate (and usual) response is look at the "Some critics of .... say that...." line and say Who are these critics?? We should name them. The 'pedia is chock full of examples of this "Some critics.." line... often (not sure if it is the case here) because someone has thought oh no we have no criticism of X, better put some in else the article isn't NPOV. This line is present in both versions of the article. Pete 09:43, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I wrote the above 'blind' as requested. I have not read the article or its talk page (yet). Pete 09:47, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know which one is best, weird that a persons handicap can become a political issue. But the use of his forname, Rush, seems wrong. In many cultures and so also in the American I guess, using someone's firstname implies a friendly relation to that person. For example, it would be extremely awkward if in the articles about the Bush presidents they were referred to as "George". Same applied to Rush Limbaugh I think. BL 13:46, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thec following text was false:

"During a segment on Bill Clinton's cat he mentioned that there was also a White House dog, then displayed a picture of Chelsea Clinton."

Here is a partial transcript from lexis nexis as to what really happened:

(Rush was doing a segment about the In/Out lists that were coming out in magazines, newspapers by the dozens at the time. Rush was trying to demonstrate the bias of these lists.): Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET) November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House. (A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

— User:172.156.81.197

Limbaugh later apologized, in person and in private, to Hillary Clinton, about even mentioning Chelsea on his show. She told the story herself:

Mr. Limbaugh's apology, it turned out, was for talking about Mrs. Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, on his show. She accepted. [2]

Daniel Quinlan 08:59, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

I added "left-wing" as a descriptive for FAIR after someone else removed "liberal". After thinking about it, "left-wing" seemed more accurate in their case.

http://www.fair.org/whats-fair.html

Jeff Cohen, the founder of FAIR, is a liberal commentator on the news. Formerly, he was a regular panelist (one of the two liberals, not one of the two conservatives) on Fox News Channel's News Watch. He has served as the co-host of CNN's Crossfire (on the left, not the right).

Daniel Quinlan 08:59, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Since the article now contains a section devoted to his detractors' responses to the drug controversy, it should also include facts relating to his followers' responses, in, of course, an appropriately NPOV voice.

The article is now dominated by two negative controversies, incidents which are very recent, which means they will become stale very quickly in an encyclopedia. In order to document Limbaugh's story more fully, and thus more accurately, these ought to be balanced with historical biography which details his place in popular culture, his influence on politics, and his professional success (e.g., I am double-checking the existence of an unprecedented $300 million contract). The ESPN and drug incidents (which I will not edit for the moment) are negative when viewed from the left POV but not necessarily the right, and they promise to become footnotes to the Limbaugh story very quickly. Rather than jumping right in and contributing material, however, I intend to spur discussion, do some research, give it some time, and revisit the page with some work.

In closing, we had all better do some thinking about allowing sensational, ratings-driven news stories to dominate an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic writing should strive to place such news in historical context, even if this requires giving it very little space. If we are being honest about striving for NPOV, we should each ask, "Who else's drug problems am I rushing to document?" and "What neutral or positive stories about Rush Limbaugh have I made a point to document?" (by Paul Klenk, October 17, 2003)

Hope you don't mind I moved this conversation down to the bottom of the talk page, as it is the convention in Wikipedia. You point is well taken, and is a concern for both the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) and Ann Coulter pages where negative comments dominate.

However, I would take issue with you on the two incidents being "sensational" and merely "footnotes to the Limbaugh story." For one, Limbaugh could be credited with being controversial but he stayed within his relatively well-defined circle of listeners -- talk radio in the non-urban America. But with the ESPN gig, he crossed over into the mainstream and onto the number one national sports network with the number one spectator sport in the US. That cuts across social, geographic and economic lines, so any analysis of an incident on that high profile a stage cannot be fairly characterized as "sensational."

As for the oxycontin incident, there is a reasonable debate about whether it contributed to his hearing loss and it has started a serious reassessment in the US about its use and abuse. So while perhaps it can be downplayed a bit, it doesn't seem the inclusion of these two points constitutes what Limbaugh himself might call an unfair conspiracy against him. Just think if you were writing an obituary of him in ten or so years, you would most certainly mention these points, no? Fuzheado 00:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fuz, points well taken. However, the detail and amount of space devoted to these two topics is disproportionate to rest of the content in the article. Thanks for your response. (by Paul Klenk, October 17, 2003)

The ESPN section seems a pretty fair characterization, with perhaps the Al Sharpton viewpoint a bit odd. However, I agree the drug issue is overblown, with too many quotes simply taking blatant digs at Limbaugh. Fuzheado 10:16, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Rush as a drug addict and hypocrite

Rush is not to blame for his initial addiction, since it was connected with back pain, however, once you become an addict you seek out the drugs because you like the high it gives you. I remember Rush referring to Clinton and then making a sucking sound like taking a hit on a joint. The purpose of this was of course to ridicule Clinton. Bear in mind however that he was probably stoned to the gills himself. Rush can say anything he wants, this is America. However when he had already been through treatment two other times, and chose to continue using narcotics, I would say this makes him quite the hypocrite. What else has he done that we don't know about? -- User:208.48.4.215

I'm just happy he lost all that weight. Otherwise, the compulsion to add "Rush put the hippo back into hypocrite would be obsessional. -- Zotz 08:19, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow, obsessed Rush-hater might be the right word. Since you bring up Clinton, when confronted about his drug use, Limbaugh at least didn't claim that he "never inhaled" or the equivalent (which is also the source of the sucking sound joke, I suspect). He also didn't joke about his own drug use (with a quip like "although I wish I did", that might be a slight misquote). No lawyerly equivocation either ("is", "sexual relations", and so on).

On a more serious note, after hurting my back exercising last year (strain near my spine), I have a new profound understanding for back pain. It's hard to describe how intense and debilitating it is. I was basically flat on my back (on the floor, no less, for two days). Every movement caused shooting pain. I was back exercising 10 days later, but I hate to think what it would be like having serious back pain every day. Daniel Quinlan 11:46, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Equally seriously, analgesic abuse may start with the use of analgesics for pain, but the escalation of dosage is in pursuit of a "high", a sensation of euphoria, not in pursuit of pain relief. Lots of people with back pain, and with other forms of pain equally severe, but fortunate enough not to have a predeliction to be addicted, manage not to become abuse their medication, and do not manifest drug-seeking behaviour. -- Zotz 03:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[The handling of Rush Limbaugh by the legal system has become something of a scandal. Limbaugh has often been accused of hypocrisy by his detractors, but many observers think that he is now also guilty of preferential treatment under the law. On January 23, 2004, USA Today ("Prosecutors refuse Rush Limbaugh's plea offer") reported that Limbaugh, who has admitted that he became addicted to prescription painkillers while being treated for a back injury, had not been arrested and no charges had been filed. Further, in an attempt to head off charges, Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, wrote prosecutors on Dec. 11 to suggest that his client enter a court-sponsored drug intervention program without a guilty plea. Rush Limbaugh makes something in the neighborhood of $30 million per year from his radio show. He is extremely wealthy. The question is, how would he have been treated if he were not wealthy? -Remy]

- Rush is treated mostly the same way that all other famous and wealthy people except for Martha Stewart are treated when they break the law. Rush was allegedly acquiring prescription painkillers illegally. When professional athletes, movie stars, and musicians engage in the consumption of clearly illegal narcotics, even when seen doing so in the public sphere, nobody really cares. With a few minor exceptions (Hugh Grant's prostitute, e.g.), very little ever comes of it. They almost never serve jail time, and rarely have to so much as show up to court and state their plea. If you're willing to pay for it, you basically will never get convicted of anything. You don't even have to deal with speeding tickets if you're willing to bribe the court to change the violation. My last ticket for going 89 in a 65 ended up being a parking ticket. The one before that was a "driving on the shoulder" violation that turned into a loud muffler. Money > Legal System. If that needs to be stated, so be it, but let's not pretend that Rush Limbaugh is the sole beneficiary of this arrangement in America just because he's got more money than God. --Bjsiders 17:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Chelsea/dog comment

The Chelsea/dog thing is still in the article. Is there a reason for this? The transcript above seems to establish that it is false.—Eloquence 04:10, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to get around to removing it, so I just did.

An example of a real attack on Chelsea happened during Saturday Night Live, which does a lot of political satire, during a Wayne's World segment and has since been edited out of replayed episodes. I'm not suggesting we add it to any of those articles, though. Daniel Quinlan 18:22, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

The attack on Chelsea Clinton was factual; Rush blamed it on a technician. The "transcript" which has been floating around is spurious. The idea that he'd devote any time on the show to calling Chelsea a "cute kid" is a dead giveaway. ~ Ouroboros

No, the attack on Chelsea was NOT factual. Yes, Rush did blame it on some behind the scenes tech (for whom apparently, was not his first on screen mistake), and I believe the guy was fired. The transcript is NOT spurious. It has been archived on Lexis-Nexis since somewhere around the early-mid 90's. And I was an eyewitness to the show. It was only a couple months old at the time, and the transcript is word for word accurate. He was not devoting any time on the show calling chelsea a "cute kid". He was devoting time doing a segment on in/out lists. That's what the one of in/out articles he was reading from called her.

Good Lord, is this still around?

Transcript from lexis nexis:

Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)

November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: But I--I apologize...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. I'm fatigued. I'm tired. I really don't--in fact, you know what I'll do? Let's pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I'm a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)

I'll do it with my left hand. I--I'm right-handed, so it won't hurt as much. Do it with my left hand.

(Rush spanks himself, screaming and crying; written on screen, Ouch!!!')

LIMBAUGH: There.

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: We'll be back with the rest of our show in a moment.

Okay, anybody who believes that was an accident, and not a staged "bit".... Funny how the purported "segment on in/out lists" consists of just the one item; and is introduced with "it's very strange". What's very strange? Or is that just a fumbly effort to introduce the bit? And of course the apology with on air self-spanking, with applause and laughter (give the man credit, he understands the level of his audience all too well).. sincere? And the reference to Amy Carter being unattractive, followed by laughter? And we see where the myth of "a tech who did it three times and was fired" originates. Not to be NPOV here, but Limbaugh followers seem to be awfully good at embellishing little details into massive stories which get repeated all over the internet and become not just urban legends, but Articles of Urban Faith. Anyway, that "three times" reference is obviously just another dig. "Gee, three times we try to show you Chelsea and confuse her picture with the dog's". Gosh, what could he be implying there?

But a few days later, no more laughing boy:

1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)

November 10, 1992, Tuesday 11:15 AM

("Who's Sorry Now" is played and Rush points to himself)

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry.

LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away.

Not such a chucklefest any more, apparently. Meanwhile, back to the Urban Limbaugh Articles of Faith I: the Bad Technician Who Got Fired: Search for the descriptions of the event posted on Google.[3] Click on the bottom where it says repeat the search with the omitted results included, because the point is to find similar sites. The actual list of sites found changes from time to time (obviously), but note how many are not only identically worded, spaced and punctuated, but contain, verbatim, the identical fired techie comment not found in the transcript inserted in the middle, complete with the identical separator lines:

__________________

Yes, it was a mistake, and yes, he profusely apologized (and the guy responsible was fired).

_________________________

This time around it was 3/6 I found. A little over a year ago, I found 5/6 with that little editorial comment, identical. And clearly, the anonymous Limbaugh defender above has also seen this writeup and attached it to his/her "eyewitness to the show" testimony, along with "He was not devoting any time on the show calling chelsea a 'cute kid'. He was devoting time doing a segment on in/out lists." Well, at least he/she remembers that "the transcript is word for word accurate"; so read it above and make up your own mind. If you're still curious, see if you can find any other evidence for the existence of this scapegoat; then sort out for yourself what is fact, what is joke, and what is a rationalization fantasized from whole cloth. Gzuckier 21:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow....1992.....can anyone say "Get over it?"AFethke 22:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Funny how the purported "segment on in/out lists" consists of just the one item; and is introduced with "it's very strange". What's very strange?"

What was very strange is that the liberal columnist Hinkley put Chelsea and Millie the dog together in an In/Out item in his newspaper column. Rush, as a normal human being found that strange. The fact that Hinkley does it, he gets a pass. But when Rush refers to it, and calls it "strange" (rightfully so), somehow he is the villian. Accused of setting up a punchline to a joke, which clearly wasnt the case.

"Anyway, that "three times" reference is obviously just another dig. "Gee, three times we try to show you Chelsea and confuse her picture with the dog's". Gosh, what could he be implying there?"

Your interpretation of what Rush said is an example of what YOU are talking about: "Urban Limbaugh Articles of Faith" and "Articles of Urban Faith".

Here is what Rush said: "that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton"

That "third time" reference, Rush is refering to two more onscreen mistakes that the behind the scenes tech made. Rush's show was only in the second month of his very first season, and this tech guy had made his third onscreen mistake with the Chelsea thing. The previous two mistakes had nothing to do with Chelsea or dogs, etc. How many stories did you think he had to do on Chelsea in those two months?

Now, I can see how one would misinterpret what Rush said as "Rush admitted to having done it three times", but look at this logically: If the same "chelsea/dog" reference was done three times in a short two month period, don't you think there would be millions of eyewitnesses to that effect? But there arent. Wouldnt the transcripts (and/or video) show these two other mistakes previous to this one and show that all three times refered to Chelsea and dogs? They do not. They do show two more onscreen mistakes, but none pertaining to Chelsea and dogs. Wouldn't have Rush's critics provided us with those transcripts and/or video as their proof? They do not. And it's been 13 years now.

"And clearly, the anonymous Limbaugh defender above has also seen this writeup and attached it to his/her "eyewitness to the show" testimony, along with "He was not devoting any time on the show calling chelsea a 'cute kid'. He was devoting time doing a segment on in/out lists." Well, at least he/she remembers that "the transcript is word for word accurate"; so read it above and make up your own mind."

Could be the same person posting it over and over again. And he COULD BE an eyewitness. I guess cutting and pasting the same thing over and over again is easier than re-writing it over and over again.

"Urban Limbaugh Articles of Faith I: the Bad Technician Who Got Fired" "And we see where the myth of "a tech who did it three times and was fired" originates."

There WAS a tech guy who got fired (three onscreen mistakes in very first two months of the very first season!). IIRC, after being fired by Rush, he went on to produce a short lived tv talk show (talk shows were all the rage back in the early 90s, much like "reality tv" today. God knows why. I hated those talk shows.). For the life of me, I cannot recall the name of the show he produced.

"And of course the apology with on air self-spanking, with applause and laughter (give the man credit, he understands the level of his audience all too well).. sincere?"

Yes, Rush was a smart ass in his apology. Obviously he's very uncomfortable in delivering an apology, but he also apologized on his radio show where he was a bit more sincere without the smart ass comments.

Neutral text

Following material moved from Wikipedia:Peer review by Wapcaplet 23:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Daniel Quinlan 07:21, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

The first two sentences (of either version) are fine. From my scarcely-know-who-this-man-is perspective, everything after that is so vanishingly trivial as to no be worth keeping. -- Finlay McWalter 00:00, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The first one is more NPOV. I would disagree with Finlay McWalter that the material should in fact be kept. Wiki is not paper. -Smack 03:11, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh any more. He's too liberal." - Overheard by someone. :)

End of moved material

Dan's bake sale

There needs to be some discussion of this, as it's a pretty big event that in my opinion really helped put Rush on the map. Unfortunately my memory of it isn't particularly good, so I couldn't write anything on it.

The whole idea of Dan's bake sale is that depending on your gender or race the items in the bake sale cost a different amount according to the buyer. -- anonymous posting, 19:43, 21 Jun 2005 UTC

Dan's bake sale had nothing to do with race. It was to pay for a subscription to the Limbaugh letter for a guy named Dan. His wife refused to allow any of the household funds to go to Rush. I think that anonymous must be confusing Dan's bake sale with various college republican hijinks. - Bruce - 08-17-05

Yep, that is the story behing Dan's, although the college Republican bake sales are possibly influence by Rush, as Rush always says "demonstrate absurdity by being absurd". User:Bedford 13:37 EST 8/17/05

Category:Propaganda

In response to the inclusion of Michael Moore in the Propaganda category, I added the same category tag to this article. It was reverted. Appropriate use of the category is being discussed at Category talk:Propaganda. JamesMLane 00:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, not necessarily a republican

I reverted back to Merovingian's edits. The latest edit describes Rush as a republican. Limbaugh has always said that his nature is of a conservative, and he disagrees with the RNC on numerous issues. --G3pro 02:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have heard Rush's show before, and he has actually said stuff like, "conservative first, Republican second." In fact, when I first heard of his show, every time I tuned in he was ripping into Republicans and I thought it was a left-leaning show, until I realized he was complaining that they (Republicans) weren't being conservative enough. Bjsiders 21:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A nitpick...

At the beginning of the article, Limbaugh is described as "right wing." Personally, I *never* use the terms "liberal" and "left wing" interchangably, nor do I hold "conservative" and "right wing" as being synonymous. In my opinion liberals and conservatives are both generally in touch with the views of their cultures' political moderates. Calling someone left wing or right wing pegs them as an extremist, and to label Rush Limbaugh as right wing is not using a neutral viewpoint in desribing him.

In short, I think that "right wing" should be changed to "conservative" in this article. There are other points that liberals and conservatives could argue about all day, but on the whole the article is farily neutral in my opinion. Thoughts?

TJSwoboda 20:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem with terms like "left-wing" and "right-wing" is that the views they encompass will change from generation to generation. Also, in American especially, the political connotations of the term "liberal" have been altered so severely as to not resemble the classical definition of "liberal," nor to match what the term means in much of the rest of the world. Calling somebody "Republican", "conservative" (another term that has nothing to do with the definition of "conservative"), or "right-wing" might be accurate for now, but unless that person openly self-identifies with such labels, I don't think it's entirely fair to apply them. And even if somebody does self-identify, I think it's best to state that ("Limbaugh self-identifies as a conservative blah blah") and move on. What he REALLY thinks none of us will ever know. The ideology he espouses probably most closely matches the American conservative movement and some elements of the American libertarian movement. And, as American conservatives drift left on some issues, Limbaugh is not, and some of his views may end up being described as decidedly anti-right if the American right continues to migrate. Again, these terms are imprecise, sloppy, and imply a bias by both the author, and REQUIRE the reader to apply a bias. It's probably best to indicate self-identification and maybe summarize quotes on policy and allow the reader to determine what side of the political spectrum those views fall on. Bjsiders 22:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

NAALCP

Is this neutral point of view?

'..."National Association for the Advancement of LAZY Colored People." This slur, not unlike those against black NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb among others, fuels the fire for Rush’s detractors to argue that Rush’s political and ideological point of view, and that of most neo-conservatives in general, is essentially race-based.'

How is it a "slur", "race-based"? Cannot "non-colored" people be lazy? If anything, this statement makes it a "race-based" "slur". RL 23:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, could you clarify a bit more? If you are saying that NAALCP should not be referred to as a slur, since that betrays a certain point of view, you may have a point, but I think that clearly the term is being used in a disparaging manner. Slur may indeed be too strong a word, and perhaps we could replace it with something else. Is that what you are talking about? --Cvaneg 23:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. However, it is only disparaging to the NAACP or lazy people, not all "colored" people. RL 23:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are saying now. I think that's the reason the authors included the part about Donovan McNabb, it better illustrates that detractors feel that it is not an isolated comment, but rather an indication of an overall philosophy on race. Incidentally this section is in general very hard to judge as it deals with the point of view of Rush's critics, so even if it is unfair, it may very well be true from their viewpoint. The question that has to be answered is whether or not the information it provides, that of perception of Rush by his detractors as at least a bit of a racist, taints the entire article, or if it is a widely enough held belief that it deserves some mention. --Cvaneg 00:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what all this talk is about. The original statement was false, what NAALCP stands for is National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People. Not Lazy people. This just seems like an uneducated comment from somebody who is just trying to start a controversy.--Nick Berardi 16:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Public opinion

I reworked Ted-m's new "Public Opinion" section. First of all, I couldn't see keeping this as a separate section: "Public Opinion" describes much of the content of this article, and there wasn't enough content in this paragraph to merit a separate Level 2 section. Secondly, the sentence about Rush Limbaugh having a lot of detractors from the left seemed pretty redundant. Once I made those changes, I reworded what was left to better fit into the end of the "Overview" section. — DLJessup 00:39, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Order of topics

I think it is only fair for any entry in wikipedia to open with the biography portion of the article. Each article needs to start with the factual information, and then it can jump into the controversial areas. It is not fair to anyone if you do the opposite. -- (unsigned contribution by Goodness0001 12:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Well, to begin with, there shouldn't be an "Overview" section. Any Wikipedia article should have one to three paragraphs of text before the first section title to serve as an introduction. The most obvious solution would be to simply remove the "Overview" section title. The problem with this is that the "Overview" really isn't; it's just a set of facts that should be distributed elsewhere in the article.

Since this article is about a person, the whole thing is a biographical article. The "Biography" section title should be eliminated and all its subsections raised a level.

Finally, the various controversy sections should be subsections of a "Controversy" section. — DLJessup 13:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just made the changes I just described. The "Talk radio and television career" section needs to be reorganized so that it flows, but it needed that even before my changes. — DLJessup 13:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His picture

Why is there a picture of him smoking with thick smoke surrounding him? It seems very negative of him. Either negative or very "cinematic". (I'm not american, am I missing something? Is there something about him and heavy smoking or something like that?)

I imagine it's somewhat symbolic, that he'd certainly be in favor of the right to smoke a cigar in any public place and strongly against any attempts to legislate that right away. (just a guess on my part). Gzuckier 15:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

I'm not sure why the followinf was cut out

Shortly after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton criticized some radio talk show hosts, "They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable." Clinton did not mention anyone my name and later singled out another conservative radio host G. Gordon Liddy (who had told his listeners to shoot federal ATF officers in the head rather than the chest because they wear bullet proof vest), but many people felt that the target of Clinton's criticism was actaully Limbaugh who was by far the most recognized conservative voice on the radio.

I did not originate this part of the article but I did expand it and make it more accurate. If no one has a reason for taking it out, I'm putting it back in.

I believe the criticism was that the connection was terribly tenuous, and therefore not terribly encyclopedic. If this can be sourced and attributed to Clinton (or another prominent figure) then we could probably include it. --CVaneg 15:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Clinton quote is from his address to the Association of Community Colleges on April 24, 1995. http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/042495-remarks-by-president-to-association-of-community-colleges.htm

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I believe the quote was made, what I'm not sure about (and probably what the original editor thought) was that the link between that statement and Limbaugh was not an appropriate one to make without more substantive evidence. -- CVaneg 19:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the quote was directed at Limbaugh. But it was perceived that way (as any google search will verify). But the intent of that passage seemed to be to discuss the reaction to the quote and how it was perceived rather than it's intent. When I rewrote that passage I tried to make it even clearer that Clinton did not mention Limbaugh by name and that he could have just as easily have been refering to someone else (probably Liddy.) And even though I don't know that Clinton was trying to refer to Limbaugh, Clinton did paint with a pretty broad brush when he criticize radio talk show host in general. Limbaugh may not have been the target, but you can't fire a shot at radio talk show host and not hit the biggest one in the business. Therefore, I think it was on topic.

Pictures

It seems to me that the two pictures of Mr. Limbaugh presented on this page are somewhat unflattering. His facial expression in both the main picture at the top of the page and the Time magazine cover imply, for lack of better words, "meaness" and "hatred." They do not present a neutral picture (pardon the pun) of his demeanor.

Perhaps one of the following pictures (which are neither unflattering nor PR pieces) would be more appropriate.

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/nfl/2000/0523/photo/a_rush.jpg http://www.wvnn.com/images/host_rush_limbaugh.jpg http://englishcomposition.com/RUSHLI.gif http://www.badeagle.com/journal/archives/RushL.jpg http://www.illinoisleader.com/photo/img/f307/SZ300_MRC9-RushStandingO.jpg

I like the smoking pic which is on the page, but I agree an additional picture which shows a different demenor would be as good addition.

Pictures depicting Rush's meanness, hatred and petty ressentiment are entirely appropriate, it accurately reflects the personality he strives so hard to project on his show, I vote to keep them, lest readers unfamiliar with the show get the wrong idea.

You know, I'd be nice if, just once, one of these losers who decides to spew hatred and petty resentment on the Wikipedia talk pages would learn to spell or use proper grammar. — DLJessup 04:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Spewing ignorance of the French word ressentiment [4] popularized in philosophical parlance by Nietzsche in his analysis of the geneaology of slave morality, eh?

No, it's just that, when (a) a post consists entirely of a single run-on sentence, and (b) the author of the post fails to follow proper usage by italicizing a foreign word such as ressentiment, Ockham's razor dictates that the simplest theory — namely, that the author is an ignorant boob who can't spell "resentment" — should obtain.

— DLJessup 04:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ressentiment as a term used in Philosophy and Psychology needs no italicizing - it has been taken into English as it is, with it's 'technical' definition. To do otherwise (i.e., treat it as a foreign word needing italicizing) equates the term with the normal French term ressentiment (and, by extension, with the normal English word 'resentment') - which would be a mistake (on both counts). Surry. black thorn of brethil 18:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Resentment and ressentiment are two different words, as you now apparently have learned. Please try to restrain your dittoheadish ignorance in the future. User:User

Bo Snerdly?

does anybody have proof that there isn't a Bo Snerdly? There are two seperate days on the radio that contradict each other.

The first day which I trust much less is when he explained where Bo Snerdly came from. In which Rush claims that Bo Snerdly is a figment of his imagination. He is a person that always plays devils advocate, and allows Rush to point out the opposition to his point of view and then explain it.

The second day which I trust much more is when Rush got really mad at a caller and stormed away from the mic. A man with a deap voice, sounded African American, said "This is Snerdly and we will be right back.". (or something to that extent) However to give credability to this argument, in the past I have also heard Rush say that Snerdly was on meet the nation. In addition on April 19, 2005 Rush commented about how snerdly flew off the hook at a person because the person on the other end of the line implied that the show used talking points.

Either way like many of Rush's staff which have nicknames like "Co Co" the webmaster. Snerdly is probably just a made up name for a real person to protect the identity of this person. So I beleive the person that Snerdly represents is real however I do not beleive that, that is the persons real name.

--Nick Berardi 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Bo Snerdly" is a nickname for Rush's longtime assistant and call screener, James Golden, which Rush dubbed him with in the show's early days. Golden left for a while to host and produce an Internet radio station (which apparently went bust duing the "dot com" crash), occassionally appearing as a caller in the interim, but has been back for a long time. Early in the show there were other ethnic Snerdlies, including, I think, Wo Fat Snerdly or something to that effect, maybe Wu Tang Snerdley; whoever was call screening that day was "Snerdly", but this was dropped years ago. Rlquall 01:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rlquall is correct. The use of the pseudonym x Snerdley has been a long-standing bit on Limbaugh's show. Bo Snerdley (or Snerdly?) is James Golden, who also had his own radio show on WABC AM in the mid-1990s. I believe that Golden was the third person who was given a Snerdley moniker on Limbaugh's national show. The first was "Merva Snerdley" in the late 1980s. I don't know her real name. The second was Tony "Vegas" Virga (a.k.a. Mario Snerdley) who left the radio business for an acting career. 68.14.90.253 18:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh's mention of Wikipedia?

I noted that someone added that Limbaugh mentioned Wikipedia yesterday (19 April) on his show, calling it some "liberal internet encyclopedia thingy."

In which context did he mention Wikipedia?

JRo - 20 April 2005

It was in response to Wikipedia covering the pope. Check out The Rush Limbaugh Show.

On April 22, 2005, Rush retracted his comment about Wikipedia being liberal, blaming his staff for the comment, which he said had been whispered in his ear (presumably over his headphones). Rlquall 01:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a pattern here? Does he blame his staff for every one of his buffoonish gaffes? Has he blamed his maid for buying him drugs? Must be a tough guy to work for.

Presumably over his headphones? I'm guessing on a visual prompter. You do realize that Limbaugh is basically deaf, right? (Edit: Forgot about the implant, scratch that.)

Limbaugh had apparantly heard about Wikipedia from somebody else who also didn't know what they were talking about. A caller later contacted him and corrected his inaccurate assumptions about the nature of Wikipedia, referencing this very talk page. Warning: Opinion Coming in 3 ... 2 ... 1: I've been on the Internet in various forms since about 1991, and it was, at the time, the sole providence of academia, which is mostly liberal. After that, it became the combined playground of academia and college students, who are mostly liberal. As it's become popularized and commercialized, the demographics have become moderated and more balanced, but I run into far, far more people who self-identify as liberal than who self-identify as conservative. This may be because conservatives are more ashamed of what they believe, or liberals are more likely to announce their politics, or whatever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that a "free on-line community-managed and community-contributed encyclopedia" is likely to be some kind of leftist project. Now, I happen to be very familir with the open source community and have been an open source code developer for a decade, so I know that these things aren't motivated by political philosophy (or, at least, not usually, and if the are, not entirely). But to an uninformed observer with right-leaning tendancies, it's not a ridiculous conclusion. Anyway, a caller corrected him, citing this very talk page, in fact, and told him that he ought to check it out.

Let's be careful about assuming. As we can see by this small example, when you assume something, you come out looking like an idiot. I realize that people like Limbaugh are polarizing figures who elicit strong emotional responses from people, and that he's responsible for what he says on-air, regardless of its source. But in reading this talk page I've noticed a remarkable tendancy for people to instantly leap the worst possibly conclusions about Limbaugh's motivation for a given statement, opinion, or activity, and now we're starting to psychoanalyze his personality flaws. I don't see how this is helpful in producing a better encyclopedia page about the man. If there's a cause to be made for it, so be it, but it's not self-evident and in the absence of a compelling rational argument on why we need these discussions, let's focus our resources more on Wikipedia and less on petty two-user bickerfests along political lines (referring more to Zotz and Dan than anybody in this section). --Bjsiders 18:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a separate The Rush Limbaugh Show article?

I don't see a justification for the split-off of material from this article to a Rush Limbaugh show article. The vast majority of the Rush Limbaugh show article consists of the section "Jargon". But the Jargon given there is not exclusive to Limbaugh's radio show; it has been used in his books and in his television show and in his speeches. Therefore, I would return that section to this article. The remaining two sections consist of the section titles, two subsection titles, and a single sentence, which barely qualifies as a stub.

Moreover, Rush Limbaugh and The Rush Limbaugh Show are entwined to a very high degree: the show is most of what makes Rush encyclopedia-worthy and Rush is 90% of the content of the show, especially now that Paul Shanklin's parodies get far more play on the 24/7 website.

Therefore, I propose that The Rush Limbaugh Show be remerged with this article and "The Rush Limbaugh Show" become a redirect to this page. — DLJessup 23:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Show is the source of all jargon, and while he has used it in books and speeches and his television show, I would argue that those are in reality offshoots of his show. The separation of The Rush Limbaugh Show from the original Rush Limbaugh page was intended to separate purely biographical information and previous career records from the show itself. The ideas, facts and nuances of the show indeed warrant a separate article to explain the origins and details of the show.

A small relative example: quotes from Bugs Bunny would not be put in Mel Blanc's biographical info, despite the fact that he made them all popular. It would be relegated to pages on Bugs Bunny and/or Merrie Melodies and/or Looney Tunes. EddieH 03:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Mel Blanc/Merrie Melodies example is scarcely parallel. While you might say that Rush has an on-air persona, he isn't playing a fictional character in a fictional universe: he is playing himself, making commentaries on the real world.

Moreover, there's not a very clear line between "purely biographical information" and the show itself. For instance, why is Rush's deafness dealt with here instead of on the show? Its primary impact was on the show, and on Rush's ability to host the show. — DLJessup 12:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire - there is marginal overlap between the show and Rush's bio concerning his deafness. Certainly his deafness is to be included in detail in his bio, but it didn't really affect the show that much - he got a cochlear implant and moved on. I don't personally see any problem in discussing show-related stuff in detail on the show page and only giving minor reference to them in the bio page, and vice versa.

Were Rush to appear in front of a non-show-related audience, he simply would not use the same jargon that he uses - the jargon is based on historical context in the show himself, and only consistent listeners are even expected to understand any of it. Noone can really make the case that he would talk to his family using the same jargon that he uses on the show. Therefore jargon really belongs on the show page. That was the tangent that I was trying to compare to the Merrie Melodies example. EddieH 17:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I definitely could have picked a better example of the blurring of the Rush/show line than the deafness. The paragraph on "Rush as a political symbol" would have served better, because all of its examples concern people showing up on his show, but it's about Limbaugh.

However, I'm going to concede the Rush/show point and in fact concede the argument. I cannot tell you how tempted I am to try to pick holes in your arguments, but there is an empirical reality: since I wrote the first posting to this thread, the article The Rush Limbaugh Show has doubled in size. Moreover, it seems that the split is also helping this article to be organized better. Therefore, I am withdrawing my proposal.

My one worry going forward, however, is that there will be duplication of material between this article and The Rush Limbaugh Show, but I'm willing to wait and see if that develops.

BTW, a comment about posting style: it's generally considered a good idea to distinguish postings by indentation. I've seen three different styles (alternating 0 & 1 indents, +1 indent per posting, and +1 indent per poster), but any of them is better than not distinguishing postings at all. — DLJessup 00:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to attempt to knock down my arguments - I generally like a good debate. I was just pointing out that from my perspective the language Rush uses is based on context of his audience having listened to the show for so long and understanding that kind of language. If he were to converse with President Bush, I doubt that he would use the same language unless Rush were aware whether or not Bush had listened to his show or not.

It does appear that you and I are the main contributors to the show page currently. I have been in email contact with Paul Shanklin and Paul Silhan, both of whom have given info and permission to use some of their media copyright-free. I'll be working on articles for them shortly. EddieH 07:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes to fix typos and relative dates

I am new to this, but I noticed some misspelled words in the article. Also, there were a few mentions of "now" and "as of today" remarks that seem out of place since there is no clear date on the remark. I verified that the items are still true "today" (4/25/2005) and updated the sentences to refer to specific dates.

I apologize if this was the wrong thing to do. - sgartner 4/25/2005

Nope, it was exactly the right thing to do. See Wikipedia:as of, Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly, and Wikipedia:Time-resistant grammatical forms for some idea of how little the "now" and "as of today" remarks are liked by the Wikipedia admins. — DLJessup 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation and also thank you for fixing up the dates properly, I'll make sure I do that in the future. Also, I realize now that I should not have marked all of those changes as minor, I'll be more careful about that as well. — Sgartner 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

photo

can't someone find a regular photo. not one with him smoking?! I found one. But, someone changed it back to the smoking one. --Justy329 22:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternately, a photo of him with his pants actually on fire.Gzuckier 21:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm no Rush fan, BY ANY MEANS. But, we should find a better picture. --Justy329 22:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels link needed

why was the link to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels removed? Rush's techniques of bombastically repeating the Big Lie are so derivative of Goebbels, that a link is warranted.

Rush's job is to be POV, but Wikipedia's job is to be NPOV. That's why. And please, in the future, sign your talk page entries. Rogerd 21:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Marriage and divorce, Rumors Rush is Gay

I feel that my comments about allegations that Rush had an romantic affair while in college with another man should have been kept in. They did not come from the National Enquier and they were releated to a fairly popular theory among gay people as to why his marraiges continue to fail.

fat chance, the NPOV Nazis wont allow it. But, come up with a few references and post them on the talk page, along with the theories of Karl Rove's self-hating gay references, and George W. Bush's gay mafia, if you have any.

more info on rumors that rush is a closeted self hating gay: [5], not to mention the rumors of child pornography. Rush's purported gay lover, Elliot Sanders is described in this news article [6].

The sources so far given for Rush being gay make the National Enquirer look reliable.Bedford 07:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It seems that a number of anonymous contributors would like to remove the reference to Compuserve.... why? It seems like an appropriate reference to me. Anyone care to discuss this? Gregmg 00:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference to how Limbaugh happened to meet his ex-wife is irrelevant, even if they happen to meet in a rather unconventional (increasingly conventional) manner. It's gone.

What some people find irrelevant can be notable to others. There are a number of ways you can make this point, but there is a three time revert rule. If you think it shouldn't be there, please propose a vote on it, but it seems that you are the only one insisting on removing it. MicahMN | Talk 00:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "notable" about it. It's pointless information and is undermining the objectivity of thee article. It's gone.

You do not just get to dictate what you think is pointless or not. There are clearly a number of people that do not see it that way. MicahMN | Talk 02:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone actually argue why a reference to how Rush met his ex-wife is relevant to anything other than trying to make him look like some kind of weirdo. I for one will stop changing it if someone can explain that. If its there just because people want it....that's not good enough. If 99/100 people agree on something, it doesn't make it right. I'm listening. Any arguments?

I am going to stop reverting your changes, it is silly because you have no intention of ever stopping. The reason why it is in there is because Limbaugh is not some milkman who met his wife online, but a mega-celebrity. I could understand if it was a common thing, but frankly it isn't, and that makes it notable. If you want to start a crusade against pointless information on Wikipedia, I suggest you get started and maybe look elsewhere. MicahMN | Talk 13:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

How good of you to listen. It's exceptionally bad form to make repeated, controversial edits without discussing the issue. You and/or another individual didn't even comment in the edit summary. The reference to Compuserve is a rather minor data point, and probably doesn't add much to the article, but many other articles on famous people describe how they met their wives. The Bill Clinton article mentions Bill and Hillary meeting at Yale Law School. Dr. Laura's article describes in great detail her family life, relationship with her son, and how she met her husband. The George Washington article gives a brief synopsis of his family relationships and how he resigned his commision and then married Martha Dandridge Custis. So, clearly there is a precedent for mentioning something like this, but there's another point to consider. How they met is a documented, undisputed fact, and it suggests a certain degree of technical awareness or computer literacy. While this might be a positive data point, to leave it out because of that is biased and not NPOV. So, this item should remain in the article because there is a precedent for this, and because leaving it out would be biased. Gregmg 13:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, sorry. I think it's there to make him look bad and removing it increasing the value of the artcile as an objecive piece. I'm still listening for any better arguments. Your precedents are simply not applicable: How the Clinons met reveals there educational background and history together, Dr. Laura' history relates to other controversies and Washington doesn't say HOW they met and his married life is soemwhat relevant, as it is here. The details of how they met just makes him look werid and is not helpful to the article. It's like saying they met at a bar and look at Rush the big hypocrite. I'm still listeniing though.

Huh? You can't be serious? You think the reference is there to make him look bad? If anything this makes Rush look like a modern and hip sort of guy. Most would consider this a positive reference. Regardless of whether this reflects well on Rush, the concensus is that this is relevant and appropriate, and that it should remain. Be aware that the behavior you are engaged in is frowned upon and you may find your IP addresses being banned if you persist. Gregmg 14:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The concensus is wrong then. Don't threaten, argue. You know it's pointless.

You do realize that your crusade is drawing far more attention to this detail, right? Just LET IT GO. I think that the fact that he has been divorced three times and was a drug addict would make him look bad. He met his wife on the internet, and that is fact. Instead of deleting it, you could dispute the neutrality of it, propose a vote, or write it in a NPOV way (not deleting it though). If you want to know how to do that, feel free to ask. Trust me when I tell you that there are many dedicated men and women on wikipedia who will weigh in. You will not make many friends if you continue doing what you are doing. MicahMN | Talk 14:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be unpopular?! Oh no. I'm sure glad I came here to "discuss it." Never make that mistake again.

I've posted an RFC for this issue. Hopefully an admin or other neutral party will take action soon. Gregmg 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

A simple statement that Rush met his wife on Compuserve is certainly NPOV. If you're reporting all the facts in an unbiased way, there's no reason it shouldn't be in here. If anything, it is putting forth a POV to not have it in, because it conceals pertinent information about his character and about his marriage. Anon user, please stop reverting any changes to the section. James 14:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Does the persistent anon user have a different wording that he/she would prefer? Or is it all-or-nothing my-way? - Tεx τ urε 15:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the anon user for 24 hours for his continual reverting. If when he returns he continues please report any 3RR violations at WP:AN3. If he uses multiple IPs or sockpuppetry to try and get his way, pleas re-request page protection at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Good plan; try to convince a bunch of obviously dedicated heavy internet users that meeting your wife on the internet makes you "look like some kind of weirdo". Gzuckier 18:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Chickenhawk links needed

Limbaugh as an exemplar of the Chickenhawk syndrome definitely needs some attention in this article, e.g. [7], as it is in important aspect to his influence in American politics. Perhaps a page devoted to List of Chickenhawks is needed.

My understanding of the term is that "Chickenhawk" is a pejorative intended to insult or suggest incompetance or lack of expertise on the topic of war or war-waging due to the personal inexperience of the person advocating it. Given that the overwhelming majority of people have never served in the military, to say nothing of actually experiencing combat duty, it strikes me as a little unfair to genericize the term as some kind of psychological disorder and selectively apply it to outspoken political figures. It may be more fair and more helpful to indicate in a general "Criticism" section that Limbaugh has been characterized by his critics as a chickenhawk, and offer quotes or references supporting this accusation. --Bjsiders 20:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Rush and Eldridge.

Both Rush and Eldridge Cleaver are(was) die hard mavericks and into "the righteous way". To their credit - to a point. In the case of the latter - a zealous Christianity.

Both fell into drug induced haze.

Anyone see a pattern here?

--Scroll1 07:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

no.

Controversy

I am absoultely shocked that more is not explained about his controversial remarks and positions. He is known for remarks that many consider to be anti-Black, anti-Gay and anti-women and his extremist stances on many issues infuriate not only Democrats but also Republicans and conservatives--like myself. I think in order to make this article conform to a higher standard of journalistic integrity, somebody has to revise it in order to include the trait of his that most people associate with him--his extremist beliefs and remarks.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — Dan | Talk 17:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

save your breath, don't bother, any mention of Limbaugh's misogyny, racism, self hating gay homophobia, fascism, and just plain old ignorance will not survive more than 2 seconds before the NPOV Nazis impose the Nerd Point of View dogma of censorship.

Perhaps if you were not so hell bent on using Wikipedia to further your own viewpoint you wouldn't feel so frustrated. If you have an opinion about Limbaugh (or anything else, for that matter) start your own web site.

Unfortunately, any mention of Limbaugh's frequent use of Hate speech will be censored if added to the article. Though, if Limbaugh used the language he uses against liberals againstt Jews instead, it would be obvious to all how close he is to the Nazi ideal hate monger.

I really, really, really hate this "self-hating-gay" crap. It's so stupid. It probably originated with someone who got picked on a lot in high school and then invented that as a defense. While it might work in some situations (in other words, high school) it has no credibility in the real world. By the way, Rush isn't Racist, anti-gay, etc.

Innacurate, eh?

If he's claiming its innacurate, someone care to explain to him that he can edit it? --Kiand 00:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Well, Kiand, we follow your suggestion. Here's an edit that may help. The phenomenon of Rush Limbaugh doesn't occur in a vacuum. Limbaugh is made possible by a cultural soil long cultivated in America in which opinionated know-nothingism (a specialty of the Right) is prized as much as well reasoned argument (let alone fact). A mean-spirited bully like Limbaugh, a millionaire who defends the interests of the ultra-rich while pretending to speak for the unwashed disempowered masses, and his army of dedicated morons, would be difficult to imagine in a society where the media did their job of informing the public truthfully and responsibly. Instead, we see this crucial resource wasted on sports, the obsession du jour (Schiavo, kidnapped children, Elian Gonzalez, missing young women, the canonization of criminal politicians a la Reagan, the never-ending terror threat, the Tsunami story, and the like). It is precisely in such knowledge and dinsinformation vacuum that demagogic maggots like Limbaugh thrive. As for trading information with any of its followers: good luck. People for the most part arrive at their political positions via temperament and class positions. Their material environment tends to define their capacity to perceive and empathize. Information counts a poor second and in many cases of obstinate imbecility, for naught. You are more likely to get through to Osama Bin Laden on religion. Still, better to inform and educate than to curse the darkness, right?—Paul Van Dermere (By the way, FAIR did publish an extensive review of Limbaugh's outright falsifications, FAIR's link appears elsewhere on this page. Also, a general antidote for self-inflicted stupidity is SWANS.COM http://www.swans.com and the newer, smaller media watchdog and biting cultural critique, Cyranos Journal Online at http://www.cjonline.org --I'd give them a try.]
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please take your eloquence elsewhere, or use it to make useful contributions instead of political screeds. — Dan | Talk 4 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

[With due respect to Dan's intent in trying to keep the Wikipedia free of garbage, a notion I totally support, I think in this case he is missing the point and he's a bit out of line, too. His "deletian" impulse may have taken him over the edge. First of all, I've read the WIKI principles, participated in it a number of times on a variety of subjects, and I think I understand well its parameters. I don't see anywhere anything banning informed comment on a subject that is by definition a matter of opinion, and which comment appears, in this case, under the very subhead of CONTROVERSY. Dan is quick to condem Paul V. (see above) for what he labels as a mere "political screed" against Limbaugh, telling him to get his views elsewhere, forgetting that Limbaugh's very essence and career has been built on outspoken, provocative opinion on a multitude of issues, with a consistent track record of demonstrable right-wingism. To deny that is to deny the obvious. Thus, commentary such as this belongs in a Limbaugh profile. Because of this, when it comes to topics such as Limbaugh, perhaps the broadest discussion is to be welcome, even if some will frown on the practice as being too close to "soapboxing". But if not here (where readers come to inquire about the true nature of a Limbaugh), where on earth is such comment to be published? On an article on Antarctica? Many people in America believe this man is a dangerous demagogue, a smooth-talking hatemonger in a world that has paid a high price for such demagoguery. They are entitled to their say and to contribute their views to round out any profile on such a figure. It seems to me that Dan happens to believe in the sanctity and infallibility of "objective" history and journalism. If so, I think he has a lot to learn about the realities of the world we live in. --T.L. Mathews, Los Angeles]

Failure to be unbiased

I wish to lodge a formal complaint with Wikipedia staff and the person or persons that has written the Rush Limbaugh article. The author of the article continues to delete any reference to the accusations (well circulated online) that Limbaugh is gay. He does not want it in the article itself or even listed as a reference.

Your first attempt included a mispelled word and seemed quite biased. Your second attempt included the phrase "(keep deleting this and I will keep putting it back)". A personal message has no place in an encyclopedia article. Your third edit, which consisted solely of an external link seemed ok to me at first glance, but I noticed that JW1805 removed it with the comment "Wikipedia is not a tabloid.". So, I followed the link and found a parady of a Biography on Limbaugh. The biography was entirely a slam of him, and appears to include only rumors. I don't believe that unsubstantiated rumors, persistent or not, have any place in an encyclopedia article. If you feel strongly about this, I would encourage you to do your research and find substantiated and well documented facts that support your views and include them in the article. Your edits are more likely to remain intact if you follow the Wikipedia style guidelines and refrain from including unsubstantiated rumors. Gregmg 7 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

hmm, where exactly would one 'lodge' a 'formal complaint' with the 'Wikipedia staff'? If the location can be specified, I intend to lodge a large and turgid complaint myself. Anyway, perhaps the outing page is the right venue to lodge the rumors of Limbaugh's self hating gay identity, along with that of Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, et. al. ad nauseam.

Wikipedia doesn't have a formal staff, but if you really want to, go to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment and file an RfC on this issue. (I suggest you register an account before you do that though.) — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

I am sorry if I included any slanted or misspelled words. However, given the fact that Rush Limbaugh has denied the rumors and calls them politically motivated it is entirely appropiate to have it mentioned. Many of Wiki articles on celebrities make note of rumors that they are gay and how they have denied them.

Rumors are troublesome. Please see the accusation and insinuation subheadings in the Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. Do your research, stick with the style guidelines, and your edits are more likely to stay in place. Gregmg 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

Edited difficult clause

I edited the statement that 2 ESPN commentators "are themselves former African-American football players" to "are African-American former football players." Obviously they cannot be former African-Americans. Also, since McNabb was not a "former" football player, then the comparative word "themselves" is out of place. Josephconklin 4 August 2005

Word order Yoda not wise men using correct sometimes. Gzuckier 21:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Biography vs list of controversies

Much of the biographical information in this article is listed under a heading of "Controversies". While I can see how sections on his political leanings (3.3 Libertarianism, 3.4 Views on homosexuality) might go under a broad heading like that, the actual things that happened in his life should be part of his biography, not "controversies". That includes: 3.1 ESPN controversy, 3.2 Drug use and investigation, 3.5 Divorce, 3.6 AFRTS controversy. Calling something a "controversy" makes the issue about the controversy, not what Limbaugh did and said. Yes, controversies resulted and should be mentioned, but we should endeavor to simply describe Limbaugh's life in chronological order, with a separate section on his views. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 21:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear! HKT ^talk 22:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, user:DLJessup, for reorganizing it. That's much better (and I wasn't looking forward to doing it myself). Cheers, -Willmcw 18:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the suggestion. — DLJessup 04:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Are these quotes and responses real?

LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93)

REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured.

[lengthy quote of list of assertions and counter assertions from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895 snipped]

Where did you find them? -Willmcw 18:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The above was copied from a far-left organization, and it's quite full of distortions. I believe there's a link to it in this article. HKT ^talk 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of who it's from it's not our place to determine the truth or accuracy of anything on our own authority. We're just here to summarize in an NPOV manner verifiable info. I think the article handles the issue correctly. -Willmcw 07:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. HKT ^talk 23:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

angry veterans are upset at Rush’s negative comments on Paul Hackett

Rush did not take calls on his show for two days before the Ohio election because of his comments on Paul Hackett. The reason was that most of the calls were from angry veterans who were upset at Rush’s negative comments on Paul Hackett’s military service like accusing Hackett of going over to Iraq to pad his resume. I think something should be said about this in this article as this might be the last nail in the coffin of Rush’s career.

QuestioningAuthority 16:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence?

if he didnt take the calls how do we know who they were from? If moronic comments were ever a criteria for getting fired, Rush would have been gone long ago. He is too deeply in bed with the right wing fascists in this country to ever be'fired'. He will still be on the air propagandizing even when his ratings are in the toilet as long as a member of the Bush crime family is in power.

Please take your loony conspiracy theories elsewhere.

diction??

"In December 2001, Limbaugh underwent cochlear implant surgery, which restored a measure of hearing in one ear, and his voice and diction improved."

How can one's diction improve with a hearing implant? Diction is choice of words, which the human ear has no control over. This sounds to me like someone trying to sound smarter than they are. --B. Phillips 17:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary.com lists two primary definitions:

1. Choice and use of words in speech or writing.

2. Degree of clarity and distinctness of pronunciation in speech or singing; enunciation.

Gregmg 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Meh, I've never heard it used that way in my life, but oh well. --B. Phillips 20:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "elocution" would be a less ambiguous word. -Willmcw 21:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have heard "diction" used as a synonym for "elocution" before, but I agree that "elocution" would be less ambiguous here. I have changed the article page accordingly.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

But what about those of us who have never heard of "elocution"? Sounds like some form of capital punishment to me :-) In all seriousness, might enunciation be a better word to use? Gregmg 22:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe we'll improve the diction of people who read this. ;) (we can include a wiktionary link if you think it's necessary). But in some seriousness, "enunciation" is probably a clearer word.-Willmcw 23:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Done — DLJessup (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing I love better than people inserting obscure synonyms for common words in Wikipedia. If it sounds sarcastic, I'm totally serious about this. Look at "hodiern" in the T.S. Eliot page for "modern". That's just a totally new word in my vocabulary thanks to that. --B. Phillips 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The term diction is used to describe singing all the time -- as in, how well a listener can understand the sung words (clarity). Any voice coach would be familiar with this term, as defined by number 2 of the example above. --KBecks 13:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

John McCain

Anyone know the explanation of Limbaugh's feud with John McCain, seems he's the most fiscally conservative (at least on the spending side of things)member of the Senate...Does Limbaugh have a strong tie to the Bushes or is it something else with McCain66.72.215.225 21:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)jme

McCain is a ranting liberal. I'm from Arizona, and I've been watching McCain and aware of his record on social issues for a long time. Describing him as a fiscal conservative is a stretch, and as for social matters, he's as liberal as many democrats. Rush is calling this one like he sees it. I don't believe there's anything else at play here. Gregmg 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversies section

I am opposed to the Air America "generally more factual" language. I think it's POV and have removed it and someone hs put it back. I know an edit war when I see one. What's the consensus? I thinks it's POV as it implies that Rush's show is not factual and outright says it's less factual....sounds POV to me. Am I crazy? I won't change it back, but what's everyone's take and if there's a consensus here then it can go or stay.

Also, the Bush adminstration Dick Cheney language seems a bit much. It starts off by saying Rush never portrayed the Iraq war as going to be easy but then seems to go off on a rant about how Bush and Cheney said the oppsoite. First, that's very debateable, there are at least as many (if not many more quotes) from Bush and Cheney about how the war was not going to be easy and it also seems a little off topic. I'll compromise, how about citing to stuff supporitng that Bush and Cheney said it was going to be easy. There's no cite. Seems like a big enough claim that a cite would be appropriate. Thoughts on this as well. Thanks.Gator1 19:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

On the one hand, "generally more factual" sounds POV. But I don't see slews of direct examples of Schultz stretching the truth, like I do with Limbaugh, so I'm inclined to leave it. Counterexamples welcome. --Arnoldlover 19:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone else offer an opinion about the use of that language? Forgive me, but it sounds lke the author has a bit of a POV here, but that doesn't mean that everything he writes needs to go (let's be fair). Anyone else think it should go or stay?Gator1 19:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

"More factual" is POV. Just getting two people to agree on what IS a fact is hard enough. I'd leave it out, it's a subjective evaluation. As for the Bush/Cheney comment, their apparant wisdy-washiness on the war difficulty belongs in their own column. This set of edits strikes me as somebody basically wanting to point out that Rush Limbaugh is sometimes wrong. This strikes me, anyway, as an unnecessary assertion. If references can be found to the quotes in question, include them. If counter-quotes are found, reference those too, I guess. Personally I'm concerned that Wikipedia is turning into a platform for people who try to push a political agenda by just cherry-picking quotes that prove their point. I'd move to have all of this section stricken. I think the author is unquestionably POV. Saying, "Schultz is more factually correct" is one thing. Saying, "The Blah Blah Media Research Foundation found 9 errors per hour of Limbaugh's show vs 4 per hour of Schultz's show" would be more helpful. In the absence of substantive data on the topic, I don't see a strong case for leaving it in. Bjsiders 20:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but does anyone else have anyhting to add before we start editing/removing Arnold's additions?Gator1 21:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of specific examples of outright lies by Limbaugh, and whitewashing them would clearly by POV. But taking a step back, I think the whole comparison with an Air America host in style is a bit POV. I'll wipe the whole Shultz comparison. NPOV means we present the facts and let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.--Arnoldlover 04:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops- looks like Gator1 took out my additions of a number of specific examples of false claims by Limbaugh under the claim of POV. Perhaps I put in too many but lies it speak to a person's character. These are not "claims by critics", the refs have the actual audio of his program. I would think the reader, not the author, should decide. --Arnoldlover 04:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Bjsiders, could we shelve the inflamatory language? Calling the author POV is a lot more inflamatory than calling the segment POV.--Arnoldlover 04:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I said nothing inflammatory. You are clearly embracing a POV here. The fact that you categorize inaccuracies in statements made by somebody as lies (lies are statements INTENDED to deceive hide the truth) demonstrates this. Limbaugh might be lying when he's wrong about stuff. He might not. He might REALLY BELIEVE the stuff he says that's false. In that case, he's just willfully ignorant, not lying. A lie implies that he knows the truth and deliberately covering it up. I don't know that this is the case, and neither do you. If you can provide some example of this being the case, then I think you should include a section or comment on it. Quoting Limbaugh's segment isn't proof. If I say, "The sky is green," and I really believe that it is, I'm not lying just because I'm wrong, and quoting me in saying so doesn't PROVE anything. Otherwise, your segment, and you, are POV on this. It's hard not to be with a guy like Limbaugh, I admit, but I'm not flamming or attacking. I think you are POV on this, and I'm going to say so. Bjsiders 14:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV, and if you think you are immune you are delusional. The point is to respect the reader's POV by writing NPOV. Omitting uncomfortable facts is POV. But yes, you do have a point on "lie" and "falsely". Thank you for addressing the issue this time rather than slamming the author. I'll put back refs to specific examples of cases where Limbaugh denied having said something with the evidence that he said it, and let the reader decide whether it's a lie or a delusion or something else. --Arnoldlover 18:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not claim I had no POV on this or anything else. The issue isn't my POV, I'm not adding anything to the article. Bjsiders 15:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

POV can be in deletion/censorship of inconvenient facts too. --Arnoldlover 18:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it can. It's one of the worst forms of bias, too. Detecting bais in what you read is easy. Detecting bias based on what you are selectively NOT told is much more difficult. That's why I suggested, several times, that we include facts and exclude things that cannot be verified. Saying, "Program B is generally more factual" is an opinion. Saying, "Program B has been found to commit 4 factual errors per hour of non-commercial broadcast time in 2005, whereas Program A has commited 7.2" is a sourcable, verifiable fact. Include something like that. Arm people with data. Let them believe what they wish from there. Bjsiders 20:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

hased on whaPOV can be in deletion/censorship of inconvenient facts too. --Arnoldlover 18:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of you actually. Arnold, I love yah man, I really do. I think you're adding some good stuff to the page or else I would just argue for blanking your work instead of just editing it a bit. It's not personal, it's just that when you read the info you add, it really comes off POV and negative towards Rush. "Mean spiritedness?" I mean, that just assumes the guy is mean spiritded and that's POV. many would argue the other way. Better to just say "Allegations of Mean-Spiritdness" If that's the case, maybe we should add a section called "Allegations of Genius" as many would argue that as well. We'll see if that ever happens. probably not. That's just an example and I amde some recent changes to make my point. Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, but that's just my particular POV. Have a good one.Gator1 20:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all your edits this time, Gator1. I presumed "allegations of" was implied by presence in "Controversies" section, but I see your point of view, and best to be clear.--Arnoldlover 20:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Caught one you missed and added it. --Arnoldlover 02:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Re your comments about FAIR in the article change log- they have a point of view but they also provide accurate quotes to reference, AFAICT. --Arnoldlover 20:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The references to mediamatters.org need to go. Using references from a liberal, conservative bashing organization to support an anti-Rush position is like using information from nra.org to illustrate the failures of gun control (without offering the counter viewpoint). Gregmg 21:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, now that I think about it. Arnold, can you get a better cite for that info? If not then I'm with Greg. Greg, if you want to even remove them now and Arnold can put them back if/when he gets some better sources, I'd support that.Gator1 21:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. Who else has the motivation to provide the bandwidth for video and audio?
If the NRA had clips of gun control advocates, I wouldn't object to them being used I couldn't find more neutral refs.

--Arnoldlover 22:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I went back and re-read the NPOV tutorial. "A citation tells readers where they can look to verify that the attribution is accurate." The mediamatters sites are good citations by this criterion. Material in the wikipedia needs to be NPOV, but you can't make the citations be NPOV (we can't edit them). Though when choosing among many citations, clearly the more neutral ones are best. Looking for more neutral ones. --Arnoldlover 22:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying that someone often LIES has nothing to do with POV. Although Media Matters may have a left-wing slant, the quote they draw from Limbaugh's show are indisputable unless they make them up. Which they don't, because they are a media watchdog group that is heavily watched themselves by a number of bitter conservatives. There is no better documented liar (or conversely, should you believe that he honestly believes his mistruths, an ENORMOUS IDIOT who is completely reckless in his use of information) in America and probably the world than Rush Limbaugh. I think our article should probably take time to mention this special status. Lies or mistruths are not a subject of POV, they are a subject of REALITY and FACT. User:B. Phillips 05:03, 3 September 2005

I don't trust sources with a political interest in discrediting specific people with honestly, fairly, and contextually reporting statements made by those people. That doesn't mean their information isn't worth including but a defense of the statement, "Bjsiders is a jerk" issued by my ex-wife isn't really a helpful cite regardless of the truth of the statement. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that facts shouldn't be believed due to their source, statements can true (or false) regardless of who said them. But I think it's worth continuing to find additional cites for this particular issue. Bjsiders 15:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The only enormous idiots and liars around here are those who insist that Rush is the biggest liar/idiot. --Bedford 09:30 EST 9/03/2005

"Although Media Matters may have a left wing slant"... you must be kidding? They exist for the sole purpose of slamming conservatives. Suggesting that they are "heavily watched" is a bit misleading. I, for one, didn't even know they existed, and since we have freedom of speach in this country, they are free to say whatever they want, true or not. On another, related topic, why exactly does the following comment exist in this article?: "On August 24, 2005, Limbaugh denied that the Bush Administration had predicted a short and easy process of regime change in Iraq: 'has always been portrayed as something that's gonna be hard'." This is an article on Rush Limbaugh. He is not a member of the administration, and how he intrepreted what members of the administration said or implied on the topic of the war in Iraq isn't terribly relevant to this article. Gregmg 14:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think it MAY have been Arnold that reently added it (don't quote me), but I think its non-relevant as well. If anything, I think it may be relevant in a section devoted to trying to prove how he's really a secret libertarian..maybe. But to list this as a controversy implies that he was either totally wrong about this or that the Bush adminstration was ayingthe exact oppsoite (and as we all know, there are at least as many quotes from Bush that the war wasn't going to be easy as people can dig up implying the opposite. My vote: take it out.Gator1 16:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that mediamatters exists to discredit the right wing media, but the way they do it is to host *actual media clips*. The founder, David Brock, is the author of Blinded By The Right, and an admitted former right wing propagandist. Yes, they aren't the best sources for a citation, but they meet the criteria of providing facts that can be checked. Feel free to replace them with more neutral sources of the same clips if you find them. But removing factual information that speaks to character is POV. --Arnoldlover 00:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

??? "speaks to character"??? I'm at a loss here... I just can't figure out where you are coming from. Rush Limbaugh isn't a member of the administration. He doesn't speak for the administration. He does, however, speak constantly about everything. How exactly, is his perspective on how the administration characterized the Iraq war relevant to an encyclopedia article? I'm just having a hard time with this. I don't see how this comment belongs in the article. Your clarification on this issue would be appreciated. Gregmg 04:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the passage in question:

On August 24, 2005, Limbaugh denied that the Bush Administration had predicted a short and easy process of regime change in Iraq: "has always been portrayed as something that's gonna be hard"[8].

It speaks to Limbaugh's character that he puts forth such factually innacurate statements, i.e. to his extreme POV to the point that it looks like a lie (though, as Gator1 pointed out, it may be delusion). In either case, it is factual information that the reader has a right to know. --Arnoldlover 17:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to understand where you are coming from on this. It is certainly factual that Rush made those statements with respect to how he perceived the administration's characterization of the upcoming war in Iraq. What I'm trying to figure out though is why this is noteworthy and belongs in an encyclopedia article. If Rush was a member of the administration, stated before the war that it was going to be a walk in the park, then later denied ever saying that, then I would think that it should be mentioned in the article. That wasn't the case. Why is it important how Rush perceived the administration's view on the difficulty (or ease) in winning the war? It seems to me that the inclusion of this item is motivated by some POV, but what exactly that is, I don't understand. Again, I don't take issue with this item from a POV standpoint. I do, however, take issue with it as something that isn't noteworthy. Volumes of books could be written (and have) on the things that Rush says and believes. Why is this item any different than thousands of others? Gregmg 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Greg, I don't see how this is important. What I'm getting from Arnold is that it was SO obvious that it was a lie (very arguable) that this says something about his character. Well, the way I see it, is that the only people who see it that obvious are people who have a strong POV about the war and the Bush administration. Thos who don't share a particular POV are left wondeirng why this is so important. I am beginning to feel that the inclusion of that quote is would hurt the articles already stellar NPOV and add next to nothing to the article. I vote to keep it out.Gator1 18:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

After looking again at the quote, I guess this is what I am trying to say. To say that it's says something about Rush's character because it's a lie is to accept the POV that the Bush adminstration made such claims to begin with. THAT is very debateable as both sides can dig up all kind of quotes of Bush and Cheney saying the war was going to be easy versus it was going to be hard. And THAT is why I fdear that its inclusion is POV, because presupposes a very deabteable issue. For Arnold to simply assume it was a lie shows his POV and for someone to wonder why this is even a controversial topic, reveals their own POV (becuase let's face it the adminstration has said contradictory things on the subject) I say, it just ain't worth it and hurts NPOV. Keep it outGator1 19:19, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've had some time to consider this since making my last post. I'm starting to understand where Arnoldlover is coming from. I think you (Gator1) have arrived at the same conclusion. This item presupposes that it is a well accepted fact that the administration characterized the war as an easy thing. Therefore, anyone suggesting otherwise is a liar. If the first part of this equation were true, then I suppose the item in question should remain in the article as it suggests a character flaw. As Gator1 has suggested, it is not a well accepted fact that the administration made such claims, therefore, this item is POV after all. It's all a bit convoluted, I know, but in light of this, I think that the item in question does reflect POV and should remain excluded from the article. Gregmg 19:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand correctly, you are claiming that it is not commonly accepted knowldege that Bush administration officials said American troops would be greeted as liberators and that the war would cost maybe 1 $billion? I'd go look up the reference to the specific persons and quotes, but the vibe I'm getting is that there's so much POV here that you two would just revert them right away. --Arnoldlover 21:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone but myself. I just remember all of those speeches the President, Rumsfeld, and others gave where they talked about "difficult days ahead" and the like. I remember just before it started hearing about some outrageous number of body bags being ordered by the Pentagon. What was it... 100,000? You've quoted Rush as saying regime change "has always been portrayed as something that's gonna be hard." I have no reason to doubt he said that, because that's always been my understanding as well. I think some may have gotten the wrong impression when the initial thrust into Baghdad only took ~3 weeks. This may have set the stage for unrealistic expectations for what would follow. I sense a certain amount of frustration on your end, and I'm sorry you feel that way. I stand by my earlier comments, however. Gregmg 23:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this back and forth illustrates my point. It is VERY debateable and until history reaches some sort of consensus on this one, the issue is way too POV right now to be included. No offense Arnold, it's just not as clear cut as you'd like to think.Gator1 01:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Limbaugh is, if nothing else, a political commentator.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is without a doubt one of the greatest issues of our day.

Whether or not you agree with his POV, it is appropriate to have his charaterization of the Bush political position in the article. The reader may conclude that he is lying, as I do, or that it's a reasonable point of view, like you do, but it should be included and the conclusion left to the reader. That is NPOV.

--Arnoldlover 17:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Rush's characterizaton of how the war is going is relevant. I think his characterization of how the Bush administration is conducting the war is relevant. But his characterization of the administration's characerization of how the war would go before we went to war......what?!

Let's just be honest here. You want this in because you think its so obvious that the Bush administration told us that this was going to be an easy war and that it's so obvious that it's not goign well that anyhting to the contrary is so incredibly crazy that it just must be put in the article, to show that Rush is off his nut. You're letting your POV cloud your judgment on this one Arnold. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this one. It's not important enough to get in.Gator1 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh is a political commentator. Charactization of the Bush position is political, much more so than the actual invasion and occupation.

What's clear to me is that Gregmg is working hard to keep any factual information that is harmful to Limbaugh and/or Bush out of this article.

And if you have any doubts about his POV, look at his characterization of McCain above.

--Arnoldlover 18:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm done with this topic. Have a good one!Gator1 18:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to make this very clear, while I find Limbaugh's commentary left wing and extremely liberal, I don't let this affect how I edit this article. I've always strived to maintain complete neutrality in my Wikipedia edits. I urge Arnoldlover and others to review my edits and check for POV issues. I believe you'll find that my edits generally contribute to NPOV. Gregmg 03:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Section title: Miscellanea

Hi there:

I just performed a series of edits, and I should explain the rationale behind some of them. The one that's probably going to cause the most annoyance is my retitling of the section "Controversies" as "Miscellanea". Here's what's up with that:

This used to be titled "Other controversies". Sometime in the past few days, the section was retitled "Controversies". Fair enough. Then certain sections (such as "Drug use...") got pulled out of "Biography" and into "Controversies". This was unacceptable. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia article on an individual is to be a biography of that individual. If something fits into the Biography section, it should go there in preference to the other sections.

Secondly, Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. If we have a section labelled "Controversies", it attracts POV commentary, and Limbaugh's article's going to have enough of that without asking for more.

Finally, the contents of this section are simply what's left over after the other stuff was moved into the "Biography" and "Philosophy" sections.

This "Miscellanea" section title is intended to be a temporary placeholder until the information in it can be properly organized and placed under proper section titles. The subsectioning (done by Arnoldlover?) is a nice start toward that end, although the subsection titles are not parallel to "Biography" and "Philosophy" and so should not be elevated to section titles.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh is controversial. It's what makes him successful. It's why people listen. There's a lot more information there about who Limbaugh is than the name of his ex-wife, etc. We shouldn't be trying to hide it- that's POV, IMHO.

With someone as controversial as Limbaugh, controversies exist. Rather than fighting to keep them out the those that are newsworthy should be listed, with both sides of the question represented clearly. The Wikipedia NPOV guidelines address this.

OK, take a hack at it.

--Arnoldlover 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[Moved the above down, per DLJessup's request.Arnoldlover 19:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)]

Arnoldlover:

Could you please not interleave your comments within other user's comments? It makes reading the comments later a bitch, particularly when it comes to figuring out who said what. It is currently nonobvious that all of my comments were part of a single posting or indeed that I authored anything but the last paragraph.

Anyway, in reply to your comments: yes, Limbaugh is controversial. I'm not "fighting to keep [the controversies] out", I just figure that the controversies will crop up naturally in a description of Limbaugh's career, of his philosophy, and in any other sections which make sense. My points were simply (a) that biographical information (such as Limbaugh's loss of hearing, his brief stint on ESPN, or his check-in to drug rehab) is more likely to be encyclopedic than other random information and (b) that a "Controversies" section tends to attract content-free bashing and approval.

Another point: Chronology serves to act as something of an organizing principal for the "Biography" section. The "Controversies" section, on the other hand, has a nasty tendency to get disorganized rather quickly. (I note that this claim could also be levelled at the "Philosophy" section, but the "Philosophy" section is rather slower to get random edits.)

One other aside: I think it's highly interesting that Limbaugh has been through three marriages. We know nothing about the first two marriages: the names of his wives, how long they lasted, why they may have broken up. We know next to nothing about his third marriage. Limbaugh has stated on his radio show that he's glad he never had kids. Wouldn't this information tell us something about who Limbaugh is and about his approach to life? Lord knows that if it turned out that Limbaugh's marriages broke up due to infidelity, there'd be a loud chorus of: "Family values? Hah!" on his critic's websites.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As I commented above in the section labelled#Biography vs list of controversies, this biography (and almost any biography) is better if we handle the events chronologically. It is not a matter of hiding controversies but rather a matter of handling them in the order in which they occured, in the context of whatever else was happening at the same time. -Willmcw 05:12, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I understand you not wanting to attract highly-POV content-free material. And it does make sense to do Biography chronologically. But it is informative to, as you say, group the marriages together. I'll try this: Biography be split into Personal Life and Public Life, with public life grouped strictly chronologically. That would make pulling the controversies into it, which would let us get away from the "whitewashing" impression that "Other" and "Miscellanea" give without the wingnut-attraction of "Controversies". --Arnoldlover 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Separating personal and public would be easier if there were no overlap, but in Limbaugh's case these is considerable overlap. In particular, the addiction matter began privately and became public. Also, he made considerable public mention of his third wife and their courtship. Perhaps you can find a way to make your suggestion work. -Willmcw 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, took a hack at it. I like it better. I put drug addiction in Public Life because it was covered by the media. I figured the marriage goes in Private Life, even though he talks about it, it's not really an issue to the public. His earliest job is in Private Life because it was mostly about his father. --Arnoldlover 21:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Top

Mockery of AIDS victims?

Hearing loss

Neutral text

Rush as a drug addict and hypocrite

Chelsea/dog comment

Neutral text

Dan's bake sale

Category:Propaganda

Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, not necessarily a republican

A nitpick...

NAALCP

Public opinion

Order of topics

His picture

Oklahoma City bombing

Pictures

Bo Snerdly?

Limbaugh's mention of Wikipedia?

Why is there a separate The Rush Limbaugh Show article?

Minor changes to fix typos and relative dates

photo

Joseph Goebbels link needed

Marriage and divorce, Rumors Rush is Gay

Request for Comment

Chickenhawk links needed

Rush and Eldridge.

Controversy

Innacurate, eh?

Failure to be unbiased

Edited difficult clause

Biography vs list of controversies

Are these quotes and responses real?

angry veterans are upset at Rush’s negative comments on Paul Hackett

diction??

John McCain

Controversies section

Section title: Miscellanea

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search