Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

I added the following to the FOX CONTROVERSY

"He later stated that they sped up the video in which hey was "imitating" Fox. Also he apologized for what he said and done.

"he was shaking, and moving all about and it was purely an act"

It's all notbale, and I dare somebody to prove otherwise, also I will revert this till the day I die if anybody try to erase it! Dragong4 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If the above is a parody of a Limbaugh fan, I don't think it's funny. And it's very uncivil. I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but I think purposely trying to paint a "supporter" of Limbaugh as dim-witted hurts the purpose of Wikipedia.
UPDATE: Just checked his Talk Page: Serial Vandal

Eleemosynary 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

parody? wtf are you talking about, what do you mean? Zabrak 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Eleemosynary. You shouldnt have removed Zabrak's comment. Please do not remove comments from this talk page. If you suspected that this was a comment from the same user under a different account, you should have ADDED a comment noting your suspicion rather than deleting the content. I have reverted your revert. Please do not do this in the future. If this was a slip up, it was instructive and should stay on the record.Caper13 22:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No, removing the comment was perfectly justified, in this instance. "wtf are you talking about" is nothing more than baiting, which is vandalism. His previous comment of "I will revert this till the day I die..." was baiting, which is vandalism. Talk page vandalism can be removed, as per Wikipedia policy. Eleemosynary 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You are pretty quick to censor. Did you form a consensus of one again? I'm not sure if it was baiting, but if it was, you certainly took it. Caper13 04:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Your personal attacks are laughable. Accept that you're wrong, and move on. Eleemosynary 07:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to attack you personally and personal attacks are not laughable. Wrong about what? A demonstrated tendency over the last while to form a consensus of one and claim an issue is settled and closed? You provided the evidence of that. I just commented on it. Please don't consider that a personal attack. I'd rather you took it as constructive criticism meant to create more cooperation among the editors. I would love to move on, but please stop deleting user comments unless truly vandalism (and the definition of vandalism you gave above is SO broad it could apply to pretty much anyone who had the temerity to disagree with or question you). I DO agree with you that the comments you were reacting to were of questionable, ahem, quality and appeared to me to be the work of a troublemaker and a sock puppet also, but you were not elected judge jury and executioner. You should have posted your suspicions. Deleting user comments should only be done in extreme cases of blatant vandalism. If it was an example of a sock puppet, it is good to leave it in as a clue to other people to help interpret their postings. If you would like to have a discussion on what constitutes vandalism to help further clarify things I would be happy to participate, but I don't appreciate bullying. I could look up and quote a Wikipedia guideline, but I'll assume you are familiar with them. If not that can be remedied as well. Caper13 16:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Bluster is no substitute for a cogent argument. Eleemosynary 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I am still waiting for one from you. Caper13 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You've received several. That you choose to ignore them is not the problem of your fellow editors. Eleemosynary 04:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Rtrev 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Yo! The fact is that it has been proven that Limbaugh listeners are far more intelligent than others. Read it and weep[citation needed].--Bedford 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When and where was it "proven"? "Others" being everyone who doesn't listen to Limbaugh? Thanks for proving my point.

There was a study out a month or two ago that looked at the listeners of various news programs and shows on TV and Radio[citation needed]. Rush was on top[citation needed]. --Bedford 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so they're "smarter" than other people who sit in front of the TV all day? (something you're no doubt guilty of) That's hardly a key demographic for finding intelligent people. Good job citing the study by the way. QED

"Bedford" is baiting again. Just ignore this troll. There was no study demonstrating anything he's claiming. The tipoff is he can't even cite it. 69.64.213.146 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Jackson quote in ESPN controversy section

I've restored Tom Jackson's quote to the ESPN controversy section. Per WP:NPOV, "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented ..." We can't explain a controversy merely by simply quoting Limbaugh's comments and his own defenses of them; we need to present each side of the controversy. Including Tom Jackson's quote helps us do that. -- WillyWonty 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What conflicting view do you think this quote represents that wasnt already presented. The only one I can think of is the view that Tom Jackson didnt like him and didnt think he belonged in the booth (which is POV) and an unsubstantiated claim that other people didnt like him being there either. That is not the point of the section which is to recount the events surrounding Limbaugh being fired (or resigning) from his role on ESPN. Additionally the quote was issued AFTER Limbaugh resigned making it even less relevant. The story is adequately recounted by letting the facts speak for themselves. Limbaugh made a certain comment on the air. A controversy erupted (controversey is overly described by citing Al Sharpton and threats of boycotts against Disney) and then Limbaugh's official statement when he resigned. The facts speak for themselves in this case. The added quote is POV by people who made it clear they didnt like Limbaugh being there from the getgo. People often confuse NPOV. NOPV doesnt mean you need to include a negative comment about someone in order to balance things. It doesnt mean that if you write an article about Mother Theresa (not trying to equate Limbaugh and MT) you need to include some negative information on her in order to balance it. Rush Limbaugh IS a controversial character but achieving neutrality doesnt mean loading up his page with negative comments or quotes from people who dont like him. It is already acknowledged in the article that he is controversial and elicits strong reactions from people on both sides of the aisle. Finally, the ESPN story is hardly complimentary to Limbaugh. Suggesting that you need to balance it with an after the fact quote from a coworker that equates to "We never liked him anyway" only makes the story more negative towards him. Please do not readd this quote to the story until this is fully discussed in talk. Caper13 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Caper13 is trying to employ a "consensus of one." It won't wash. I support WillyWonty's inclusion of the text. It should stay. Eleemosynary 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thats a surprise. At least get some original material (smiley) Ok, other than the fact that you want to insert a negative quote about Limbaugh there, please DISCUSS the issue in reference to my points above. Why is this necessary. Lets try to be rational here rather than just engaging in knee jerk partisanship. Incidentally, I never disputed the authenticity of the Tom Jackson quote, so sourcing it doesnt improve it. My point was that the Tom Jackson quote is simply Jackson's POV and was just someone's (admittedly) biased comment after the entire event was over. It is not relevant to the recounting of that event. Come on. I'm trying to work with you here. Defend your desire to include this quote and why it is relevant. Caper13 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The quote has been in the article for over a year. As I said above, we can't cover a controversy from a neutral point of view without showing the various sides. This is what WP:NPOV requires. -- WillyWonty 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You are still failing to demonstrate what SIDE the Tom Jackson quote covers. In truth, it doesnt cover any side. It is simply a criticism of Limbaugh and is extraneous to the story. NPOV doesnt mean that you include a negative comment to balance a positive one. If you can't justify its inclusion, it shouldnt be there. Caper13 08:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
TJ and the text's id of him indicate which side. Either remove RL's quotationor include both his and TJ's. Kdammers 09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The TJ quote is very relevant to the intrepid surfer's full understanding of Rush's brief tenure on the show. I vote that it should be kept.--RattBoy 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course it should be kept. It's nice to see consensus has been reached. Eleemosynary 11:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
keep. both relevant and significant. Gzuckier 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE to address in a serious way the points I made. Simply voting to keep without any logical backup carries no weight. We could all vote that the earth was flat, but that wouldnt make it so or warrant its inclusion in a serious geography article. I'll make my second call for people to rise above partisanship and behave responsibly. Consensus wont come without a serious debate. Caper13 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom Jackson's quote begins to show what the controversy was about: Limbaugh's comments made some people "uncomfortable" as they saw them as "divisive" and they felt that "The fact that Donovan McNabb's skin color was brought up at all was wrong" especially on a show where Limbaugh was "brought in to talk football." I've restored the Jackson quote as there is clearly not a consensus that this quote that has been in the article for over a year ought to be removed. -- WillyWonty 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because something previously existed, doesnt mean it deserves to be there. Lets, for the sake of arguement assume that TJ's quote is not in the article and someone is reading it for the first time. Do you think that a person reading this article will be unable to determine that the reason for the controversy was because of the racial angle, and that the inclusion of the racial angle made people uncomfortable. Limbaugh's statement that sparked the kerfuffle speaks for itself and his statement shouldnt be considered his point of view, it is simply exhibit A. This statement is followed by a paragraph that summarizes the positions of his supporters and his detractors, further spelling out the details of the controversy. This summary is then followed by the resolution of the controversy by printing Limbaugh's resignation statement (exhibit B), ADMITTING his statement caused the crew discomfort and announcing he was leaving the show. What is left out here? Tom Jackson's comments are simply his POV, and add nothing to the story except serve as an additional negative anchor to Limbaugh's resignation and repeat the charges which were already clear. WP:NPOV states to let the facts speak for themselves. Adding additional quotes from tertiary sources garnered after the entire episode ended and which only serve to add an additional negative spin to the story are contrary to QP:NPOV. the fact that this story had a racial angle is not in dispute and needs no additional corroborating sources. The fact that some members of the crew were uncomfortable with his comments is not in dispute and is documented by Limbaughs primary source public resignation statement. The TJ quote is one person expressing his opinion on the situation after the fact, stating his opinion that Limbaugh's commentary was wrong and making an attack. It is a violation of WP:NOPV. Additionally, there are sources who directly support Limbaugh's statements and posit, that the reference to race that limbaugh made was entirely appropriate given current issues in professional football, and these viewpoints are not presented at all. This article though is about Rush Limbaugh, and not race issues in professional football, or Tom Jackson's after the fact characterization of his views on the episode. Caper13 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Caper13, the quote is Jackson's POV, and adds nothing new to the article. The fact that it has been there for a year is irrelevant. Children have been molested since the beginning of mankind. Does that mean it's OK to allow it to continue? - Crockspot 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we now have one editor who thinks that representing two points of view in a controversy with sourced statements is an example of "partisanship" and that WP:NPOV would be better served by only providing Limbaugh's point of view, and we have one editor that compares our attempts at representing two points of view in a controversy with molesting children. On the other hand, we have four editors that think we can't cover a controversy from purely Limbaugh's side, that we should have some sourced information from those who found the comments controversial, and that there is no consensus for removing the year-old sourced quote that provides a point of view other than Limbaugh's. Any other comments? -- WillyWonty 19:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Willywonty. This following paragraph is also included in the article. Does this not present both sides of the dispute?
“ ...defenders of Limbaugh's comments point out that McNabb had the worst start of his career in the 2003 season and was the NFL's lowest-rated starting quarterback.McNabb's defenders say that to his credit, McNabb was a runner-up for the year 2000's Most Valuable (NFL) Player, was a member of three Pro Bowl teams, led his team to two straight NFC championship games, and had been slow to recover from a broken leg suffered during the 2002 season. ”
You would have to completely ignore the preceeding paragraph to say that this controversy is being covered purely from Limbaugh's side, but in any case Limbaugh's dispute was not with Tom Jackson. Additionally, Your distortion of Crockspot's comment above is wrong. He did not say what you claim he did, and that is clear to anyone reading this paragraph. Please be honest in this discussion and refrain from personal attacks. your characterization of my comments about partisanship are also unwelcome. I did not say that it is partisanship to cover both sides of a disputed story. I said it was partisanship for people to simply try to insert negative comments into an article about someone solely because they do not like them. You do not need sourced statements from bystanders to illustrate that Limbaugh's comments in this matter were controversial. The facts speak for themselves in that the statements were controversial. You want a quote from my neighbor as well? She thinks they were controversial too. This section is recounting an event. It IS NOT being told from Limbaugh's side and this section taken by itself (even without the quote) recounts a negative event in Limbaugh's career. It is already negative toward Limbaugh. Please reread WP:NPOV. NPOV does not require a rebuttal from third parties every time the subject of the article says something. Please address why the included quote above does not adaquately present both sides of the dispute, and remember, the debate here is not whether Limbaugh's comments were controversial or not, if they weren't, this section would not even exist. No one is even debating whether Limbaugh's comments were right or not. That is left to the reader to decide after reading the supporting material presented by supporters of Limbaugh's comments and defenders of McNab. Let the facts speak for themselves. Do not try to colour the story by adding an POV comment from a bystander to the end. Caper13 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that unsourced paragraph about McNabb's statistics does not reflect any real side of the controversy surrounding Limbaugh's comments about McNabb's race. The controversy was not about McNabb's football statistics, but that some people thought that the racial comments were innapropriate. Tom Jackson's quote has explained for well over a year in this article exactly what the controversy was about: That some people were made "uncomfortable" by comments they saw as "divisive" and they felt that "The fact that Donovan McNabb's skin color was brought up at all was wrong" especially on a show where Limbaugh was "brought in to talk football." As the section reads now, we have Limbaugh's comments, a completely unsourced paragraph that makes it sound like the controversy that led to Limbaugh's resignation was over McNabb's passing rating and Pro Bowl appaearances, and then Limbaugh's resignation in which he defends his comments. Also, can we just stop throwing around comments about partisanship and comparisons to molesting children? And work on trying to make this article reflect conflicting points of view fairly? Thank you. Does anyone else have anything to add? -- WillyWonty 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to be careful with the term, "POV," which is anathema in Wikipedia. It is incorrect to use Wikipedia to promote or enforce one's own "POV." In contrast, especially with respect to controversial statements by public figures, part of Wikipedia's purpose is expose the intrepid surfer to the Point of View of public figures about issues of interest. Jackson's POV is clearly relevant to the controversy about Limbaugh's use of a sports talk show to give his opinion about racial issues, and it belongs in the article.--RattBoy 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There was quite a long running debate in professional football proir to this incident about the paucity of black quarterbacks in the NFL and the desire by many to see more diversity among the ranks of NFL quarterbacks. Limbaugh was referring to that debate which is well documented elsewhere. This wasnt an issue Limbaugh invented, so your characterization of the controversy as being use of a sports talk show to give his opinion about racial issues is incorrect. He wasnt giving his opinion on racial issues. He didnt question whether the desire to see more black quarterbacks was good or bad, only that it existed, which is documented. People were talking about how McNabb hasnt been living up to expectations and he questioned whether those expectations were in line with reality, given McNabb's prior performances, and theorized that the hope to see a black quarterback do well had lead some to overstate the contributions of mcnabb versus the other parts of the team who he felt were more instrumental in past successes. I'm not taking either side in this, but that was the issue. If this is to be a neutral recounting of this incident, you should not be including comments by those who were self described as "being made unconfortable" by the comments and who felt that any reference to McNabb's skin color was wrong. That is their POV, and it is valid as their POV, but it isnt valid to include in a neutral entry recounting the event. Here is this controversy in a nutshell. Limbaugh made comments. Comments were controversial. Limbaugh resigned as a result. Allow the intrepid surfer to read Limbaugh's original comments which are sourced and cited. Read the neutral information that follows that provides some background information on McNabb's performance (which were the subject of limbaugh's comments), and then read his resignation statement. The intrepid surfer can then make up his own mind without someone throwing in a POV statement at the end talking about how offended they were and that Limbaugh had no right to refer to McNabb's race. Let the reader decide if Limbaugh was correct or not in making a reference to McNabb's race. Jackson's POV is relevant to a page on Tom Jackson. Go put it there if you want.
As for RattBoy's comment part of Wikipedia's purpose is expose the intrepid surfer to the Point of View of public figures about issues of interest. No. That is not Wikipedia's purpose. That is the purpose of a blog. You can go to Barbara Streisand's or Michelle Malkin's blog and you will find out their opinions on areas of interest. Would you describe the Encyclopedia Britannica as a book for readers to find out the points of view of public figures on the issues of the day or historical issues? No. What you are describing is a series of editorials or opinion pieces, not a neutral scholary work. And inclusion of this quote turns this entry into an opinion piece, as you have already admitted that its main purpose is to illustrate the opinion of Jackson on the episode. Frankly, I would be just as opposed to replacing this with a comment from someone describing how Limbaugh's comments were entirely appropriate and that no one should have been offended. That would also be POV. Caper13 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you misrepresent me deliberately when you quote me as describing "part of Wikipedia's purpose," and then morph that into "its main purpose?" Or is your research as sloppy as your spelling? Similarly, you misrepresent the facts of this controversy. Tom Jackson is not in a category akin to Barbra Streisand or Michelle Malkin, because he was part of the show. The apparent reluctance of Limbaugh's colleague to have had him on the show at all add value to the intrepid surfer's understanding of Rush's role—such as it was—on the show.--RattBoy 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Caper13 has restated his case enough times, however WP:NPOV still holds that "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. ... Debates are described, represented, and characterized.... Background is provided on who believes what and why," etc. Presenting only Limbaugh's point of view is still a mistake, as is the unsourced comments attrubuted to unnmaed defenders and critics regarding McNabb's statistsics. Does anyone else have anything to add? It appears a majority of people here support keeping the Tom Jackson quote that was in the article for the past year. -- WillyWonty 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Not so fast. You just admitted that Jackson's comment should be included because it shows an alternate POV. Well, this POV is already represented. The fact that the episode is labelled a controversy does that. You can't redefine NPOV to require the inclusion of a specific persons POV, just like you can't redefine Wikipedia as an opinionblog to show the opinions of public figures on contemporary events. Go put Jackson's opinions in a section about Jackson. Wikipedia is more tolerand to the inclusion of a subject's poV statements in their own article. Again, you want to pretend there is a debate about whether Limbaugh's comments caused controversy and then include a POV quote from an offended party to cite this controversy debate. Perhaps we could simply add a statement that Limbaugh's comments caused controversy because the issue of race was touched upon, without any POV. comments? Caper13 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That would also be a misrepresentation. The problem was not simply that "the issue of race was touched upon," but that Rush denigrated the skills of a professional, opining that his value had been inflated because of his race. (Notice that he's neglected to apply the same analysis to Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice. Determining a reason for the apparent contradiction is left as an exercise for the intrepid surfer.)--RattBoy 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering the outcry over Limbaugh's comments, we've actually grossly overrepresented the position of Limbaugh and his unnamed defenders. The section ought to cite multiple sourcess, perhaps like "Limabugh's comments were alternately described as 'something'[citation needed], 'something'[citation needed] or 'something else.'"[citation needed] I'll work on this. Also, let's just try to focus on improving the quality of this article, comment on content not contributors, and leave out the personal opinions about Powell and Rice or whatever. -- WillyWonty 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Its amusing that you think that citing a series of opinions makes it NPOV. I hope you dont try to force your opinions through in an edit war. I tried to reason with you, I tried to find a compromise. Perhaps mediation is in order if you think that what you are talking about doing is acceptable. This is not a forum for you to grind your axe against Limbaugh. Its pretty unprofessional and people see that. And RattBoy, sorry but in your comments about Rice and Powell, your bias is really showing. Caper13 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you find it "amusing" that I think we should cite sourced commentary from all sides of a controversy. That's exactly what WP:NPOV seems to require. As far as your statements about "axes to grind," etc. please just comment on content, not contributors. My desire to represent multiple sides of a disagreement should not be miscontrued as an advancement of any side in that disagreement. I'm simply trying to create an encyclopedia article that represents controveries in an accurate manner. As per Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial, "We should then list all points of views, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated." I think we've restated our positions regarding sourced analysis of controversial topics enough times. Yours is still in the minority. Let's hear what some others have to say. -- WillyWonty 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Caper13 needs to stop misrepresenting people's words. It's very bad form. The comments he keeps deleting have been restored, and will continue to be restored.
Caper13: Your arguments have been addressed and refuted. That you refuse to acknowledge them is not the fault, nor the problem, of your fellow editors. You have chosen to ignore this Talk Page and unilaterally remove the comments. This is bordering on vandalism, and will soon result in a warning if you do not comply with the policies of Wikipedia. Eleemosynary 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not concerned about threats or attempts to bully. I AM upholding the policies of Wikipedia. The only argument you have offered so far is that the POV quote in question should be included because you think it should, unless I missed your cogent argument. If I did, please direct me to it. I am assuming that mistakes about what NPOV are are honest misconceptions rather than simple partisanship and a desire to insert negative material into the biography of someone controversial for the sake of making them look bad. Often, a common mistake goes like this. Limbaugh is a popular and extremely successful radio figure and the biography says so. Someone comes along and says "he isnt so great, and here's why" Many people don't like him because he said "X". People dont like him because he said "Y", "he kicked a dog once", Many people disagree with him because of his view of "Z". Many people think he hates animals because of "incident 5" and before you know it, the biography of limbaugh has become a stub and the rest of the article is composed of a list of complaints about him. NPOV does not mean that if a paragraph describes a successful person, that you need to enter something else to balance it. If this is your conception, you need to study NPOV. You may or may not like Limbaugh, but there is no denying he is a towering figure in the media and in the history of talk radio. His biography article isnt a list of debits and credits that should equal zero at the end. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV support my approach and I am perfectly comfortable with what I am doing. Additionally, Wikipedia specifically warns against noisy minorities of views who's aim is to steer articles in a certain direction and that they do not need to be accommodated. There is a majority view here that the quote is POV, has been inserted into the paragraph to function as a POV conclusion to the entry, and is therefore inappropriate. I have tried to compromise by offering to insert a specific sentence into the section stating that the focus of the controversy was related to the mention of race (as if that wasn't already abundantly clear to anyone) but that WAS actually proper use of NPOV and was rejected by opponents who threatened to add additional examples of POV to balance and further skew the article to the negative. It has already been admitted by proponents of inclusion of this quote that the quote is POV. Caper13 15:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Caper is well within his editorial bounds to remove the comment. Not only does it further POV it is simply not notable in the context of Limbaugh's biography. Per WP:BLP Caper has a lot of latitude to remove POV and non notable claims. There is yet to be a really solid argument for the inclusion of this statement especially considering the tags at the top of the article. As it stands the article reads like a litany of grievances, overly reinforced. I know that Limbaugh is a controversial figure but a neutral POV is still required. Unless there is a really good argument for the inclusion of redundant quotes then it does not belong in the article.

The fact of the matter is that several people have expressed reservations about the inclusion of this quote. The burden of proof is the inclusion of the comments. Unless significant consensus in favor of their addition is seen the quote should remain out of the article. --Rtrev 08:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. You are deliberately choosing to ignore the above arguments for inclusion. Significant consensus for the addition is demonstrated, backed up, and explained several times by several different editors. The quote should stay. Eleemosynary 08:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The quote has once again been deleted, this time by Dual Freq "per talk page concensus" (sic). This certainly represents a unique definition of the word. It looks as though we need a call for arbitration, or a vote, or something—because a few editors (on both sides) have made their views known, countless times, and it's clear that neither side will convince the other. Further discussion of this sort ain't gonna resolve nuthin.--RattBoy 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Eleemosynary, please debate the reasons why it is ok to add this POV quote, not other users. Personal attacks like the one above are not helpful, nor is the argument "It should stay because a couple of us want it to stay". Despite your assertion, only one argument has been made for inclusion and that argument admits the quote is POV Caper13 15:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please cease using the loaded term, "POV," to describe the Jackson quotation. Most quotations are "POV." Of course the quotation reflects Jackson's point of view. That does not mean, de facto, that inclusion of the quotation is POV. As an intelligent and experienced editor, I'd be surprised if you didn't understand how the misuse of the term is counter-productive to constructive debate.--RattBoy 16:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Quotes do not have to be POV. Quotes can be used as the basis for an article if the article is about the quote. It can also depend on how they are used. If I quoted Neil Armstrong's "one small step.." item, it would not be POV and would be entirely appropriate to include in an article about him or the Apollo 11 Moon Landing. Referring to Jacksons quote as POV is not utilizing a loaded term. It is being accurate. Jackson's quote represents the inclusion of a one sided POV and represents his feelings about what Limbaugh said after the whole event was over. That would be no different than a quote from my neighbor (who watches professional football and is a fan of McNabb) talking about how he was offended by Limbaugh's statement. Let the facts speak for themselves without trying to insert a POV conclusion to push the reader in one direction or the other. Caper13 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
NO, you don't get it. Neil Armstrong's quote is his OWN POINT OF VIEW - not everyone believed that the moon landing was a "small step...", some believed it to be a waste of money, some believe it prolonged the Cold War. It doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong, its that they are an expressing an opinion. Of course, the fact that it is point of view simply adds weight to why it should be included, Wikipedia should have quotes from reputed sources - just not from you. Mirag3 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

for consensus purposes i say let it in. we heard what rush had to say now lets hear what a coworker said about the same issue. this article reads like it was written by his publicist. lets get objective. Brendan19 04:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Caper's Reverts of Edits on 11/4/06

A previous version linked to [1], which makes no mention of Rush Limbaugh. In addition, it's from a very partisan source, hardly a reliable source of information. So I posted a "fact" tag in its place.[2]

I also replaced a link to freerepublic.com, which does not conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability, with a link to Campus Progress. Admittedly, this is not a well-known news source, but it lists its author (likely not a pseudonym) and it gives its sources (Nexis and the Rush transcripts), so I find it more in conformance with the Verifiability requirement than the freeper blog/massage board.

Finally, I put a lot of work into converting external lynx into references, so that the entire article followed one convention. Caper's reversion, though perhaps well-intentioned, contravened that effort. I believe the external lynx should be re-converted to references, and I'd like to see a return to the verifiability standard.--RattBoy 18:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, geez. It gets worse. I just checked out the WND reference further. It's written by one Jack Cashill, whose book asserts that the Clintons had Ron Brown murdered in that plane crash. This wild-eyed conspiracy nut should get no credibility at all. The reference dirties the article, and I'm scrubbing it.--RattBoy 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The first item from World Net Daily referred to the incident Limbaugh was talking about, the fact that it didnt refer to him directly, which was your stated problem with it, isnt important. The item you removed that referenced a posting on FreeRepublic was a transcript of the chelsea clinton episode of his tv show in question. No one has disputed the contents of the transcript. The source you replaced it with was an opinion piece by an anti Limbaugh writer which begins as follows
Rush Limbaugh, that right-wing king of the airwaves, and a clown in the vaudevillian tradition, endures as a permanent scab on the American political landscape, spinning incendiary yarns, half-truths, and personal attacks. The Radio Hall of Famer has been “credited with saving AM radio,” but it is doubtful whether AM radio was worth the travesty that is The Rush Limbaugh Show, which has now aired nationally for seventeen years. Please...I did read it.
As for your changes to the formatting of the citations, I don't believe I backed out any that were simply format changes. If I did it wasn't intentional. Caper13 18:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted back to the original article again. Additionally, I don't think it is necessary to cite the fact that Limbaugh either played the clip on his show, or his opinion on the clip. It is well known and easily verifiable that Limbaugh played the clip of Ron Brown's service and that he focused great attention on the fact that Clinton's facial expression changed on seeing the camera. In general it doesnt hurt to cite things, but not everything requires a citation, especially non-controversial (in the sense that there is little doubt he said it) statements of opinion by the subject of the article. If you want to debate the specifics of Ron Brown's funeral and the truth of whether Clinton did put on act or whether he was being sincere, a more appropriate place might be the Ron Brown page or the Bill Clinton page. As for FreeRepublic. I would admit to being more suspicious of that as a source, HOWEVER, it could be used on a case by case basis. In this case, the cited post has a transcript of the episode of the Rush Limbaugh segment in question which would be invaluable to someone trying to determine what really happened on that show. No way it should be removed for no other reason than because it is posted on the FReeRepublic Domain. The domain may be partisan but the information doesn't appear to be, and considering the content it is more than relevant. Cites of information posted on Free Republic may invite well deserved extra scrutiny, but are not automatically invalid as you suggest. Caper13 23:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't find Free Republic or Campus Progress to be neutral or reliable sources. The CP link cites Lyin' Bully article which is an opinion piece published in Mother Jones (magazine), May 1995. It's an opinion article, but at least it is a "Magazine", maybe it could be used instead though it clearly has a bias. What we really need is a link to the actual transcript, but it is copyrighted. If we can't trust the FR version of the transcript, all Limbaugh transcripts from Sept 1992 are available via Lexis Nexis.[3] Is there a way to link to the real transcript or maybe just reference "Rush Limbaugh Show, November 6, 1992"? Alternately, maybe it is time to discuss notability of the entire issue. --Dual Freq 23:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I did look for an alternate source for the transcript of that episode but couldn't find one. (I did find someone else referencing the same post though). Free Republic on its own isn't really the source per se, i suppose the person who made the posting (and his notations about where it came from) would be the source. IT is just an area where people can post as far as I know. (Not being a member, that is the extent of my familiarity with the site). I dont think Free Republic itself really publishes any original content on its own. In that sense, any reference to a post made there is only as good as the poster. I do think it is valuable to have the text of the episode available though. I never saw the show in question, and learned something from reading the transcript. Unless I am mistaken, I think the FR article printed the transcript without any editorializing. I think we should have a discussion about a lot of the items here and how notable they are. I think many items could be condensed without losing the context or meaning and many things in there don't deserve to be. For example, I haven't seen too many comparable figures who have a section devoted exclusively to critical books written about them. Go check out the Al Franken article for contrast. I wouldnt have a problem with removing that whole section completely. (Ron Brown and Chelsea). Both incidents are of questionable notability. Caper13 00:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue is one of trust, can we trust a random post on a blog website like Free Republic or Campus Progress. WP:RS indicates blogs can't be trusted. For what it's worth, I just searched Lexis Nexis Academic and I can confirm that the quote does accurately reflect the contents of the Rush Limbaugh program from November 10, 1992. I'd say we can reference that quote with the actual transcript, saying it comes from the Rush Limbaugh Television program Nov 10, 1992. --Dual Freq 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for making the effort to verify the transcript in question. Caper13 00:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism Warning

User:Dual Freq, removing a citable statement of Limbaugh's lack of professional medical qualifications in a section describing his making a medical mis-diagnosis is POV-related vandalism. Attempting to minimize the vandalism by mislabelling it with the "Minor" tag compounds the offense.

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you.

Davidkevin 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Dual Freq is correct, and I will list the reasons why. First, the statement self-sources Wikipedia, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is not a reliable source in any circumstance. Second, the statement contains synthesis (drawing a conclusion), which is not supported by a reliable secondary source, which makes it original research. Third, it is POV. Since this is an article about a living person, WP:BLP applies, and these problems allow any editor to remove the statement withoug discussion, and with extreme prejudice, exempt from WP:3RR. If you can find a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper article or citable television clip, stating that he is not medically trained and not qualified to blah blah blah, then something along the lines of the statement can be included, but without the WP self-source. But simply reinserting the information as-is is considered a violation of WP:BLP, and is blockable. Please do not issue any warnings to Dual Freq over this. He is doing the right thing, at least in my opinion. - Crockspot 16:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


The source is not Wikipedia as you falsely state, the source is the same source as the information about his education previously cited in the article.
> Second, the statement contains synthesis (drawing a conclusion),
> which is not supported by a reliable secondary source, which makes
> it original research.
Please cite where a high school diploma and one year of university without a degree is professional medical qualification. What I wrote is not a "conclusion", it is a fact. He is not qualified to judge whether anybody's body movement is or is not evidence of disease.


Or, I should also have added, whether or not the range or frequency or likelihood of involuntary body movement are indicative of the severity of disease.
Davidkevin 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
David. At the risk of beating a dead horse, you do understand that Limbaugh never questioned whether Fox had Parkinsons or not? Right? Caper13 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not know whether this is an attempt to POV the article prior to an election in my state of Missouri by removing relevant information or not, so I will be requesting mediation as quickly as possible.
Davidkevin 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is your right to request mediation. However, I feel very confident in my interpretation of what constitutes original research. The statement that was removed clearly referred to a section of a Wikipedia article, which is indeed a self-source. A statement about what someone is qualified for, if not supported by a reliable source, is a synthesis of facts that draws a conclusion. That is original research, clearly. The standard for inclusion into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - Crockspot 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


As you well know, the source is http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/, which is item #6 in the References section of the article. This is not a citing of another Wikipedia article, which is to what "self-sourcing" refers, but a second reference within the same article to the same original outside source. Please stop the manipulative nonsense.
Davidkevin 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Limbaugh ISN'T qualified to make a medical diagnosis. But so what. He never said that Fox didn't have parkinsons or tried to diagnose whether Fox had parkinsons. In medical matters he is a layman. But again, so what. As Dual Freq pointed out, Limbaugh is not many things (I believe his example was that of a veterinarian) that the things he is not are not notable to be included in his profile even if you do find citations that state he is not qualified to be something he hasnt claimed to be. Limbaugh has commented on stories involving Economics. He is not a trained economist. He has commented on Space Travel, he is not a physicist. He has commented on animals, and he is not a veterinarian. He also questioned whether Fox had either exaggerated the visible symptoms of his parkinsons by either acting or not taking his medication (as Fox has admitted doing in the past). A question like this doesn't require medical credentials. Limbaugh never questioned whether the symptoms he showed were parkinsons symptoms or not. In fact it was there severity that apparently took him by surprise (as Fox apparently has not been often seen in public showing such severe symptoms). That is why I never quite understood the Limbaugh critics who wanted to post that bit from the doctor talking about how a trained professional wold recognize the symptoms as being characteristic of severe parkinsons. No one questioned whether the symptoms were characteristic of parkinsons or not, and Limbaugh (in his defense) is not a trained professional. If anything this statement supports Limbaughs mistake. Since he never claimed to be qualified to diagnose diseases, adding a statement that judges him to be unqualified is not notable, in the same way that it would not be notable to add a section to his profile citing his lack of classical music training after he talked about the Dixie Chicks. Dual Freq was entirely correct in his removal of your entry and your information was not relevant. Get all the admin review you want, if you really want a weak claim like this on your record. Again, the pertinent point here is that Limbaugh never claimed that Fox didnt have parkinsons. Your assertion that Limbaugh isnt qualified to make medical diagnoses is true but is irrelevant even if verifiable. Caper13 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I endorse Caper13's argument on the relevance of this information. My comments were focused on and limited to the technical merits of the edit itself. I will will also take the liberty of informing the user on his talk page about 3RR, since a previous talk page warning is required before a user can be blocked for 3RR. - Crockspot 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't post to the user page because he was previously warned and stated that he was "well aware" of WP:3RR. [4] --Dual Freq 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I personally think it's a given that Rush is not qualified to make a medical diagnosis (especially at a distance, ala Bill Frist), I also thought that the text was OR, POV, unnecessarily piling-on, and thus not worthy of Wikipedia. I agree with Caper-mon that it's essentially irrelevant. I expected it to be obliterated quickly, and I'm not sorry to see that it was. Good luck, DK, with the mediation if you do request it, but I think such mediation would only serve to take the time of a mediator who could probably find better uses for his/her time.--RattBoy 18:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about WP:3RR. [5], [6], [7] a fourth revert could result in a block. As for the material in question, besides the above problems, it's totally redundant. His education is stated in the education section and there is already a note about what a neuroscientist thinks about his statement. As for Fox's political ad, I'd like to know if it's still being aired in Missouri. I heard it was removed, maybe they realized the tactic of politicizing an illness wouldn't work. --Dual Freq 17:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm already well-aware of WP:3RR, and I can both count and tell time. I'm not as stupid as your apparent and self-deceptive definition of "liberal" is, and unlike some people, I'm not going to break the Wikipedia rules to push a political POV which controvenes the truth two days before a close election. I leave that to those who lack a sense of right and wrong.
The Fox endorsement ad for Mrs. McCaskell continues to run here in Missouri -- she appears to be smart enough to realize the value of telling the voters the truth and trusting them to make the right decision rather than hiding the truth from them.
Davidkevin 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't resort to personal attacks, and assume a lack of good faith. My watchlist is abuzz with politically-related articles on all sides that are being attacked with slander and smears from anons and campaign workers. I'm doing my best to try to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic over the next few days. Limbaugh isn't even running for office (nor is Fox). This is pretty minor compared to other articles. It's not worth losing your cool over. - Crockspot 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I am not a "liberal", anonymous, or a campaign worker -- but a vital and amazingly close election will be held in my state beginning in about 41 hours and I perceive at least the possibility of an attempt to remove information relevant to voters making decisions for that amazingly close election from an established reference source. I realize that good faith is to be assumed, but I also respectfully suggest you look at it from my standpoint. This situation feels like an attempt by a group to remove encyclopedic completeness from an article for political purpose.
I would be more than happy to see any indication I could trust that this isn't so, rather than that I am being "ganged up on", so to speak, for wanting the article to include a disliked truth.
Davidkevin 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not that your truth is disliked. It is that it is irrelevant. Lets look at the bigger picture here that you touch upon in your last post. A wikipedia entry on Rush Limbaugh isn't going to change the outcome of the election in Missouri either way, so you can relax. As far as politics go, I am purposely waiting until AFTER the election to do any real cleanup on the Fox section. It is obvious this article has attracted the attention of partisans who see an opportunity to either post or remove information that they think will be helpful to their cause. This is itself a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, but I suppose I am being a pragmatist here in letting that section go to seed for a short time. Passions, based on external issues like the election are so heightened, that rational collaboration on either the content of that section, or whether it should even exist, is pretty much impossible. After the possibility of influencing an election is over, I expect interest in this minor episode will decline, as will interest in defacing Clair McAskill's page, Jim Talent's, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. Let let it go David. You believe what you are doing is right, but your admitted motivations are wrong. GO to an Admin and they will tell you the same thing. If you really want to influence the Missouri election, go stand on a street corner with a sign. Trust me, you will have more impact and none of us will try to prevent you. Caper13 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The above personal attack by Caper13 of DavidKevin is not only a lucid insight into why Caper13's editing should never be construed as objective, it is also a textbook violation of WP:DICK. Eleemosynary 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Eleemosynary...WP:NPA Caper13 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You violated WP:NPA and WP:DICK in your incredibly rude, obnoxious comments to DavidKevin (see above). Stop attacking other editors, and you'll find that editors won't have to call you out on it. Eleemosynary 09:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Side note: Caper13 can you stop posting really long diatribes disguised as rebuttal's? It takes a really long time to read through them in an attempt to refute your argument. Mirag3 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My motivation is to see that the article is encyclopedically complete. I want Wikipedia to be as valuable a reference as we the editors are capable of making it. If important information is being left out, whether for political purpose or not, that value is lessened.
I think it's vitally important that this value especially not be lessened at this time. I don't want to use Wikipedia to influence the election in a direction, I want it to be as useful and accurate a resource as possible for those who may still need it to make a decision in this critical period. Therefore I don't want facts left out.
Davidkevin 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

bait from anonymous posters

Its amusing how some people would automatically assume I am upset by the results of the election. I had to laugh at the comments though. I guess I do a good job of keeping a NPOV. Caper13 02:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is a troll#Not feeding the trolls --Dual Freq 03:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As someone that generally keeps tabs on articles of controversial political figures I would like to thank Dual, Caper, and Crockspot (who I have regularly seen on politico pages). You did great in a rough time for WP:BLP articles for anyone in politics. I am glad to see some semblance of order on the WP. --Rtrev 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rtrev. I too see some of the same names out there (including you) reverting vandalism and trying to fight the good fight. Caper13 07:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Fox controversy

The article quotes a random neuroscientist from Oct 25 as saying: "Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease. Any other interpretation is misinformed." The neuroscientist's opinion was subsequently contradicted by Fox himself the next day (Oct 26) when he explained to Couric: "The symptoms that I had in the ad that I did, that's called dyskinesia, and that's actually from too much medication." I suggest removing the neuroscientist's opinion since we now know it to be wrong. --Herb West 20:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. Actually, poor try. Fox did not contradict the neuroscientist, though that's would you'd like to read into it. Wishing won't make it so. Even if Fox had contradicted the neuroscientist, that would not necessarily make the neuroscientist wrong. Eleemosynary 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton incident

On November 6, 1992, three days after the presidential election, Limbaugh made a reference to Chelsea Clinton, daughter of President-elect Bill Clinton, Limbaugh stated: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" — a picture of Chelsea then appeared onscreen. Although Limbaugh has claimed it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, the show was on a tape delay, so if truly a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to the show's airing. Limbaugh countered that the television show was a big drain on his time and did not include retakes. Limbaugh apologized on his show, claiming fatigue. A few days later, he said, "I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, [Chelsea] can't control the way she looks."[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032838/posts] On a later broadcast, Limbaugh played a video clip of then-President Bill Clinton laughing and joking on his way to a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown with Tony Campolo and then looking mournful. [8] Limbaugh claimed that Clinton's sudden mood change resulted from the spying news cameras, and was evidence of both the President's insincerity and the tendency of the national media to overlook it.

-OR-

On November 6, 1992, three days after the presidential election, Limbaugh made a reference to Chelsea Clinton, daughter of President-elect Bill Clinton, Limbaugh stated: "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?" A photo was flashed on the monitor of Millie, Former President George H W Bush's dog. Limbaugh was heard in the background saying: "No, no, no. That's not the kid." A photo was then shown of Chelsea Clinton. Limbaugh was then heard to say: "That's--that's the kid. We're trying to..." The audience reacted to this event as if it was intended as a joke and applauded. Limbaugh then, on camera, said: "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." On November 10, 1992, Limbaugh raised the issue again saying, "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. I don't--look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks. And we really--we do not--we do not do that on this kind of show."[1] It has been noted that since the show was on a tape delay it could have been corrected prior to airing. Rush Limbaugh The TV Show was taped before a live audience. It is not uncommon for shows taped before a live audience to have a no retake policy and air mistakes as part of the final product. The Tonight Show is one example of this policy. [2] On August 28, 1996, Limbaugh played a video clip of then-President Bill Clinton laughing and joking on his way to a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown with Tony Campolo and then looking mournful.[9] Limbaugh claimed that Clinton's sudden mood change resulted from the spying news cameras, and was evidence of both the President's insincerity and the tendency of the national media to overlook it.[3]

The real point is that this whole incident is not notable for any number of reasons. It is clearly a minor flap that is not important to Limbaugh's overall biography. It has not remained in the public interest and is not really important biographically. I left the first part about the TV show because that is notable to Limbaugh's life. --Rtrev 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Rtrev. Let me start by agreeing with you that I don't think the Chelsea section is notable. That being said, here is why I think it should remain. The previous edit was factually incorrect. This is apparently the story that has spread over the internet (that Limbaugh said "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?"). I even thought it was true until we recently dug up the show transcript. I think it is valuable to keep this section because it is one of the few places that documents the truth of this widely distorted episode. Also, if we remove the true version, it is inevitable that some ill informed person will come along and reinsert the incorrect one. Caper13 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it is necessarily our job to "correct" the mistake in any sense beyond following WP guidelines. So my call is to keep it out entirely. I don't think there is consensus to keep it in. I hope this doesn't become a 3RR problem either. It is now out and has been reverted three times I believe. So lets have discussion before any more edits. --Rtrev 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't argue with the fact that, at the end of the day, this isnt that notable. I'd like to keep the true story of what happened available, but if you ask me if I honestly can say that it belongs in an encyclopedia, then I'd have to say no... Caper13 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that the Chelsea Clinton/dog photo incident is "not notable." A brief search shows that this incident from 14 years ago is still being dicussed within the last five years on CNN and CBS News, and in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Denver Post, etc. Clearly multiple, well-respected news organizations believe this incident is notable. WillyWonty 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with WillyWonty. The section was moved prematurely, after the above colloquy between Rtrev and Caper13. Now, there are at least two editors for its inclusion. I have made several cases above for including it, which I commend anyone to read, if interested. The section should be restored immediately. Eleemosynary 03:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Put me down for non-notable as well. 14 years ago, mostly misquoted and the transcript tells the story. Lets see the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Denver Post links. Probably the opinion section. --Dual Freq 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the Washington Post link[10]. Not from the "opinion" section. Even if it were, that would not necessarily make it an unreliable source. The transcript most certainly does not tell the story, as it's from a rabidly pro-Limbaugh site that often engages in slander (Free Republic). Eleemosynary 03:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody said recent, the Wa Post says 1996. --Dual Freq 03:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The date of the article does not invalidate the hard source. It confirms, in a news article, Limbaugh's quote. That something happened several years ago does not make it automatically non-notable. Eleemosynary 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
He did not "hold up" a picture of Chelsea Clinton. This shows the bias of WA post article / opinion piece. Not notable. --Dual Freq 04:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not an opinion piece. Your opinion for removal has been noted. This is an ongoing discussion, and you are now trying to provoke an edit war by removing the section without consensus. Stay tuned for further developments. Eleemosynary 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring? Who's edit warring here? You have no consensus. Asking for additional assistance so you won't be blocked for 3RR for the second time in as many days?[11], [12], [13] Interesting but it doesn't make this notable. --Dual Freq 04:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand it must be disappointing that someone has found an honest way around your bad faith editing. You have no consensus to delete the section, which you know. Eleemosynary 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You're quoting section D of the WA Post from 10+ years ago and I'm the one edit warring? Yeah right. You have no consensus to add the section. --Dual Freq 04:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The section and the year have no bearing on the issue at hand. The issue: do we have a hard source verifying what Limbaugh did? The answer is yes. You have no consensus to delete the section, which is why you're responding angrily, and with personal attacks. It's good to have these things out in the open. Eleemosynary 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any anger here or personal attacks. You are adding material that is over 10 years old and mis-quotes Limbaugh. It is also non-notable for a biography. --Dual Freq 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to provide a source that Limbaugh is being misquoted. Your refusal to accept the source because it is from 1996 is puzzling. Would you no longer accept an original news report of the bombing of Pearl Harbor because it is now 65 years old? Please explain your logic.
Now that the issue is under mediation, I suggest you comment below, under that section. Eleemosynary 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Addressing the reversion of edits to the Rush Limbaugh TV Show section

I will address the three edits Eleemosynary made to this section based on her stated justification for removing or reverting sections of this article in three seperate threads. Caper13 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Eleseemorary said: Removed completely untrue statement about Tonight Show, which has nothing to do with Limbaugh's old show. Simplay stated you are incorrect. The Tonight Show films straight through, the only pauses being for commercial breaks. Mistakes when they occur are normally included in the finished product which is broadcast to affiliates later that night. It is relevant because it provides a high profile example of a TV show that (like RL the TV Show) filmed live before a studio audience, and did not edit out mistakes but rather acknowledged them on air. Shows his procedures are not unusual in the industry.Caper13 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The Tonight Show has indeed edited out mistakes for broadcast. A recent show where an audience member approached Colin Farrell and a show with Howard Stern were both edited before the broadcast. You provide no source for your claim about the Tonight Show, and your attempt to draw parallelism between what The Tonight Show may do and what RL's tv show may have done is POV speculation, and faulty speculation at that. Eleemosynary 05:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I didnt say they have NEVER edited out things. Please reread my sentence. I said they normally do not edit out mistakes and do not do retakes. My primary source for their policy is Jay Leno. Now of course, you might not believe that if I claimed it, so I also provided a citation from the Los Angeles times which confirms the taping of the Tonight Show runs straight through. If you really think both I and the LA times are lieing, you can call NBC in Burbank where the Tonight Show is filmed. They will confirm what I have said and what the Los Angeles times has said. I can give you the phone number if you want.Caper13 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk about a smokescreen. Once again, your attempts to show parallelism between between how Leno and Limbaugh's producers may have broadcast each show is nothing more than POV speculation. The man insulted a young girl on national television, comparing her to a dog. It happened to be the daughter of a President he detested. Is it really worth bending oneself into a partisan pretzel, to torture logic and reason and all credulity, in order to deny what Limbaugh did? Apparently so. Eleemosynary 06:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eleseemorary said: Restored previous edit. Section had been edited to obscure Limbaugh's insulting Chelsea. The previous edit you reverted to was factually incorrect. The words attributed to Limbaugh are untrue as the verified show transcript I replaced it with details. The show transcript gives the words that were actually said on the show. Caper13 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. The transcript you used was not verified, but came from Free Republic, a particularly strident supporter of Limbaugh's. It is a site containing threads of overwhelmingly conservative opinion, and is on record for dealing in untruths. It would be hard to find a more disreputable source than the one you are citing as gospel. Eleemosynary 05:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The show transcript was verified against Lexis/Nexis and was cited to the Rush Limbaugh Show Transcript after that. Caper13 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Show your work. Let's see some sources. No one is required to take your word for it, particularly after a great deal of bad faith editing on your part that is inordinately skewed toward ramping up praise of Limbaugh in this article, and removing any criticism. And no, that wasn't a personal attack. Eleemosynary 06:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA Caper13 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Reread my final sentence. Well-deserved criticism for poor editing is not the same as a personal attack. Eleemosynary 09:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eleseemorary said: Removed speculative trivia. An NRO editorial is opinion, not fact.. The NRO editorial was referencing A fact 'that Rush Limbaugh was the only person prosecuted for doctor shopping in Palm Beach county'. The previous edit I replaced included a quote from Limbaugh's Lawyer declaring that the prosecution itself was politically motivated. I replaced that with a more NPOV stating of fact that Limbaugh was the only '...'. Readers can make up their own minds about the merits of the prosecution. I'd rather just state the facts. As to any biases that an NRO editorial might have, it is only used as a reference for the statement of fact that Limbaugh was the only person to have been prosecuted for this offence in Palm Beach County.Caper13 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you've corrected your error since posting this. Your previous incorrect edit that Limbaugh "was the only person prosecuted for doctor shopping in Palm Beach" was a flat-out lie. Thank you for removing it. Eleemosynary 05:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being a liar. WP:AGF. I was the one that replaced the quote. When the article referred to only one prosecution in Palm Beach County I thought they were were referring to Limbaugh when they were referring to one other guy. Doesnt really change anything though. That type of charge has been almost nonexistant in a county of over a million people. When I discovered my error I immediately corrected it. That suggests I am honest. not a liar. Your aggressiveness and name calling are not constructive. Caper13 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Your actions (and editing history) suggest that you did not let the truth get in your way when you wanted to post something you hoped would cast aspersions on Limbaugh's prosecutor. You did replace the quote only after two editors took issue with you using an NRO editorial blasting Limbaugh as a primary source. If we hadn't taken issue, your untruth may have stood for a very long time.
You are trying to use WP:AGF as a shield, when your actions severely call your objectivity into question. You've been feuding with me on this page for some time, using personal attacks of your own, yet you want to be treated as beyond reproach. Please. You are trying to game the system. If you think such behavior is new to Wikipedia, you're very much mistaken. This Pot/Kettle nonsense is as old as Wikipedia. Eleemosynary 06:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Eleemosynary. Your personal attacks are not acceptable and do nothing to help the credibility of your position. You have offered no evidence or proof for your statements so I have reverted your edits. I ask you to review WP:NPA and refrain from the use of personal attacks or edit warring.. Caper13 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your stonewalling continues to be ridiculous. Your attempts to game the system and throw up procedural firewalls are laughable. That you ignore every reasoned argument is not the fault of your fellow editors. No one owes you further explanations. Eleemosynary 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I think this is getting a little out of hand. Eleemosynary please do not add any more personal attacks. I do not believe that Caper is throwing up any more "procedural firewalls" (although the extremely negative connotation is a little much) than is warranted by Wikipedia policy. Remember we are dealing with a BLP and we should tread lightly. I do not believe that Caper is being out of line. Your arguments have valid points but I am certianly not convinced.
Caper I don't really like using biased sources even if they are reliable if other sources are available. Can the doctor shopping claim be found elsewhere? I think it would be beneficial to resource it especially to avoid an air of POV.
Most of the problem is that the whole section is not notable there is no reason to go into an edit war over something that does not need clarification... it simply does not need to be. It should remain completely out unless we can come to some kind of consensus over what it should be. Right now we have 1 for removal (myself), one for a rewrite (Caper), and one for leaving as is (Elee). Since the factuality of the quoted statement has been thrown into question it should definitely remain out until we can agree on a rewrite or agree to keep it out completely. In my mind the lack of notability trumps discussion over how it should be written... because it should not be written at all. --Rtrev 04:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above. In the spirit of compromise I will go 'not notable' and vote for removal. As for the NRO article, I don't want to set a precedent that NRO is taboo to use as a source, especially when it is simply being used to confirm a fact they referenced as opposed to referencing an opinion in an editorial. Eg, if an NRO story contained tax figures or economic growth numbers we wanted to reference, I think they are a respectable enough magazine to trust that they haven't lied about the numbers. I dont think it is any more biased than the Brookings Institution, which while it might come from a particular angle, it doesnt distort 'facts'. Obviously an opinion expressed in NRO, is just as POV as an opinion expressed in a New York Times editorial, but a fact reported in NRO is fair game. National Review is a legitimate publication. Ok, again in the spirit of compromise, I did find another source which referenced the same information. I will update the page with a referenced direct quote from the alternate source. Caper13 05:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning is quite correct and there has been a great deal of discussion on it in relation to sites such as Media Matters for America. It is quite possible for a source to be both biased and reliable. When taking information from that source it is acceptable to cite using stated facts but in many cases not acceptable to use biased conclusions drawn from facts. Magazines like The National Review and/or The Nation are reliable in that they are editorially reviewed and have a history of reliability. One just has to be careful when using them. I think that in this case the decision to use another source is not required but would alleviate some tension. I support your decision. --Rtrev 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what dissembling from Caper13. The new source completely contradicted the previous information sourced to NRO. Limbaugh was not the only person ever prosecuted for "doctor shopping" in PBC. But Caper13 just... can't... admit it. Yeesh. Well, at least the new source proves Levin, et al. were lying. Either that, or Caper13 purposely misrepresented the NRO article. Disgusting.
The game-playing on the page has become ridiculous. Caper13, Rtrev, DualFreq, and a few others are trying to turn this page into pro-Limbaugh propaganda by proclaiming any of Limbaugh's less-than-savory activities (insulting Chelsea Clinton's looks, insulting a Parkinson's victim, etc) as "not relevant." When challenged, they come to this page to logroll under the guise of "building consensus," and throw up, yes, "procedural firewalls" by choosing to interpret Wikipedia policies in ways that favor only their own argument.
It's standard, tiresome "gaming the system."
But pro-Limbaugh cheerleading? Sources like Free Republic? A section on Limbaugh's history with cigars? That's just fine with this crew, and completely worthy of inclusion.
This page needs (and will get) a thorough reworking soon enough. Relevant info deleted for spurious reasons will be restored. Pro-Limbaugh cheerleading will be removed. Eleemosynary 05:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I really don't know where you think the pro-Rush cheerleading is coming from. I believe that Caper has adequately sourced the doctor shopping claim unless there is some objection to the source. He definitely met you half way and got a different source. You still have not made a reasonable argument on why the Chelsea Clinton stuff is notable. There is not a consensus for it and it really is not something you see in a biography. As for the Fox controversy. I think the paragraph is fine and explains what happened. Do you object to it? I don't appreciate charges of bias leveled against me especially when they are coupled with statements that reject consensus and argued more as ad hominem attacks than actual concern. All I want is reasonable discussion, even mindedness, and a lack of personal attacks. --Rtrev 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Rtrev. The ruse is no longer working. You are countenancing bias and claiming to take the high ground. Please. Eleemosynary 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Chelsea Clinton incident is notable, because it gives an insight into the tactics that the man has employed. The incident has been referenced numerous times, in the print media as well as the blogosphere. A search on "limbaugh 'chelsea clinton'" turned up 111,000 hits.[14] With that much attention over the years, it's hard to argue that it's not notable.--RattBoy 11:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: For comparison, searches on "'rush limbaugh' neckties" and "'rush limbaugh' cigars" turned up 32,000 and 298,000 hits, respectively.[15][16]--RattBoy 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the Chelsea stuff seems to be blogs, I'm not seeing a whole lot of reliable sources. A bunch of blogs misquoting Limbaugh may not indicate notability. I wonder if Britannica would include it. --Dual Freq 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of the cigar and necktie stuff is also blog activity. Though blogs are not usually a reliable source, blog activity is an indicator of notability. More to the point: as I pointed out, the search I link to does include the print media, as well as non-blog sources.[17] [18] [19] [20]
Rush's supporters will be tempted to dismiss the above links as being liberally biased, but that would evade the point. The question is of notability, and the links provided clearly demonstrate that. Rush's fans can claim that it was a mistake, citing his infallible word as their support. They're free to make that claim. But as the incident is clearly notable, the article must give it due mention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RattBoy (talk • contribs) 11:10, November 15, 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Fair, Campus progress and Mother Jones are clearly biased sources and they don't care about what Limbaugh actually said. "Rush's fans can claim that it was a mistake", and Limbaugh himself via his transcript says it was a mistake. This article is basically a bunch of block quotes and a list of reasons no one should like Limbaugh. If at some point someone wants to write a biographical NPOV encyclopedia article, they should feel free to do so. --Dual Freq 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You sure called it, Rattboy. You provided several sources, and they were immediately dismissed as biased. Why? Because they were critical of Limbaugh. And, as a handful of editors here have been insisting via their actions, Limbaugh is never to be criticized, and is incapable of doing wrong.
It really does make one laugh. However, the incident is indeed notable, and should be mentioned in the article. Eleemosynary 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cigars, Ties and TV show

Not sure why Cigars and Ties are controversial. they are definitely historical and have a history with limbaugh. Not sure about the ratings vs. timing of the show but the syndication schedule was definitely an issue with the show. It may have been a chicken and egg thing where lousy ratings manipulated show time and vice versa. It may need a citation but no reason to remove as it's not a BLP issue. --Tbeatty 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cigar and tie references are not encyclopedic. And the TV show cancellation needs to be sourced. Eleemosynary 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Heused to make and sell the ties and they were available at stores. He is also responsible for an increased interest in Cigars. They are notable not because they are ties and cigars but because they are relevant historical episodes in his life. They are biographical events in his life, Significant enough to be mentioned. --Tbeatty 06:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Appropriate for a fan club newsletter. Not an encyclopedia. Eleemosynary 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The cited references show the clothing line had over US$5 million in annual sales and were carried by multiple major U.S. retailers in over 1500 stores. This is not a trivial level of influence and would justify an article about Limbaugh in and of itself. As such, the information is clearly notable and deserves to be included. So unless you are arguing that the New York Times and Denver Post do not qualify as reliable sources, your position that the clothing line is non encyclopedic does not hold water. As for the cigar information, I can see an argument that an entire section dedicated to this is overkill but I can not see how no mention at all is appropriate. --Allen3 talk 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A clothing line that had a short-lived success over a decade ago and was discontinued is not encyclopedic, and not worthy of mention in this article. Johnny Carson had a successful clothing line at Sears many years ago, netting much more than Limbaugh's ties ever did. Yet Carson's Wikipedia page is mercifully free of it.
I agree that entire cigar section is overkill, and I'll be shortening it. Eleemosynary 03:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also no evidence that Johnny Carson's clothing line has generated any type of independent news coverage (I have run appropriate searches to try and find a reference). Limbaugh's clothing line was generating non-trivial news coverage as demonstrated by the cited sources. It is the fact that multiple independent news agencies decided that Limbaugh's ties were important enough to publish news articles about the clothing line that demonstrates their notability, not the opinion of any single Wikipedian. --Allen3 talk 04:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. Carson's clothing line was in the 1970s. It's not going to show up on a Google search. Have you checked the archives of all newspapers in the 1970s to buttress your claim? Of course not.
By your reasoning, if something is reported about Limbaugh in enough newspapers, it merits inclusion. When he was stopped at the Palm Beach Airport for carrying Viagra, it was reported in hundreds of news sources. Will you be re-adding the incident to the article, or should I? Eleemosynary 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would anyone use Google to find historical news references? I have on-line access to the Thomson Gale and ProQuest databases via my local library. These are a more efficient search method and provide access to newspaper articles as far back as 1851. --Allen3 talk 05:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a simple Google search turns up plenty of articles like The Seattle Times' "Carson ... sponsored a clothing line carried in hundreds of stores" [21], USA Today's "he set a style standard with his own sporty clothing line, which was sold in hundreds of department stores," [22], The Washington Post's "He launched into other business ventures, including a successful clothing line -- his turtlenecks became a fashion trend," [23], etc. WillyWonty 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, WillyWonty for the research. Allen3, I suggest you expand your definition of "efficient" searches at your local library, as we now see a Google search does indeed confirm the opposite of what you're proclaiming about Carson's clothing line not being covered by "independent news coverage."
You haven't addressed the meat of my question. Does that mean you now agree with me? If not, please address why Limbaugh's fondness for cigars and his discontinued necktie line is, by your standards, encyclopedic, and why his insulting Chelsea Clinton, and being stopped at the Palm Beach Airport Incident are not? All events were covered by "notable news sources," by your definition.
But why continue the charade? Simply put: Anything that casts Limbaugh as anything less than heroic is immediately deemed unencyclopedic by his supporters here, no matter how well sourced the claim. This page has become, of late, the equivalent of an "I Love Rush" pamphlet in certain sections. The Neutrality Tag is well deserved.Eleemosynary 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ex-wife's profession

Rush has stated many on the air that his ex-wife Marta was NOT an aerobics instructor. This matter was apparently misreported several times when there were married.

Do you have a source that confirms that? Caper13 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Leukemia and lymphoma telethon

I'd like to add to the Leukemia and lymphoma telethon section that Rush Limbaugh donated $250K to LLS in 2006 and over 15 years the cure-a-thon has raised $15 million.[24] However, I suspect some parties here may object to the Newsmax source. The information is factual, but I can't find a source that is not WND or Newsmax. Maybe someone could find an alternative source or make a recommendation for inclusion / exclusion of the material. Also the telethon language probably should be reworded as it doesn't involve television anymore. --Dual Freq 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Newsmax and Drudge are definitly two sources to *not* trust. For every time they do have either a story that isn't slanted or outright wrong, there are at least a hundred that are. I would check with the charities who the money was donated/raised for. Rsm99833 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with Newsmax or WND. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while they may concentrate on stories that are of interest to more conservative readers, I don't think they have been accused of fabricating them. A media outlet which specializes in a particular market segment (Conservatives (FOX News, WND), Liberals (NY Times, TIME), Pet Owners (Cat Fancy) isnt automatically considered untrustworthy. If I am not mistaken, the Limbaugh telethon raises money specifically for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of New York. At least that was what was on the credit card receipt I received. I think the addition of the amount of money raised would be a worthwhile addition to the article if we can verify it. Caper13 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You are revealing, perhaps unintentionally, a very pronounced bias when you claim that the NYTimes and Time magazine "specialize" in marketing to liberals. Do you have a source for this besides your own opinion? The Times has a liberal editorial page, true. But balanced reporting. As does Time Magazine. You appear to making your edits based on a particularly subjective worldview espoused by Limbaugh and others. It's fine for you to hold that view. But it's unacceptable for you to demand Wikipedia accede to your opinion, no matter how full-throated you make it.
You asked to be corrected if you were wrong. Consider it done. Eleemosynary 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Newsmax making this particular story up, but I'm coming up empty on other searches as well as searching the LLS website. LLS has annual reports that list personal donations for Rush Limbaugh, but don't give exact numbers. For example, in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Limbaugh personally donated between $100,000 — $499,999.[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] That's at least $600,000 just from himself and does not include the money he raised via the cure-a-thons, and I didn't look back beyond 2000. I searched the NYT article database, but surprisingly they had nothing to say about these donations. Other sources include Limbaugh himself, "Over $1.7 million raised for leukemia and lymphoma on Friday (April 28, 2006)"[31] and a passing mention in Newsweek saying he thanked "his listeners for helping surpass the $15 million mark on the talk-show host's annual fund-raising campaign for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society." [32] Any opinion on these sources? --Dual Freq 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As for reliable sources, check out ref #17, it's "Kimberley's David Letterman Page", a personal homepage, and we are trusting its copy of the transcript of a Letterman show. I wish I had seen that when we were discussing the Free Republic Limbaugh transcript earlier. --Dual Freq 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My post above covers this. There has been a lot of discussion on the topic of biased yet reliable sources. For example here is the discussion on using Media Matters for America as a reliable source. The general consensus as far as I can tell is that it is ok to use biased but reliable sources as long as you are careful in selecting only facts from the source and making sure not to include opinion. --Rtrev 02:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on this page

The level of personal attacks and false charges being made on this page have become ridiculous. I will be posting a warning on Eleemosyndary's talk page about them, and if they continue I will file a complaint. You may blank the NPA warning as you did with the 3RR warning (which you referred to as "troll bait" and that is your right, just as it is my right to bring your actions before the proper people. This is unnacceptable and it isnt just me being slimed. I have been called a liar, unobjective, dishonest, and in a final irony, accused of making personal attacks. On the 3RR violation report I filed against Eleemosyndary for the 12 odd edits and reverts that were done to the page by their account yesterday, Eleemosynary accused me of either being a sock puppet of tbeatty, or he was accused of being a sock puppet of me, I'm not sure which, but here is the latest smear [33]. This has gotten over the top and has to stop. It is unacceptable. Caper13 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your behavior on this page is what is unacceptable. When your edits are countered with valid criticism, you either ignore it, change the subject, or scream "personal attack." Personally, I'm sure you're a fine chap. But your editing (and your baldfaced distortions of Wiki policies in order to change the subject) has been disgraceful. You have also been curt, dismissive, bombastic, threatening, and insulting to editors besides me here [34][35] [36] and seem to have elected yourself arbiter of Wiki Acceptability. I will gladly provide more diffs upon request, in any proceeding you wish to file.
I encourage you to file a complaint. I think it would be very beneficial for the Wikipidia Arbcomm to take a good, long, look at what's been happening on this page of late, with special attention to your edits, and those of about three other editors who seem to specialize on ganging up on anyone who tries to bring balance to the page. What transpires is usually four (and almost always the same four) versus one. Cogent arguments are dismissed out of hand, sources providing anything that could remotely be seen as critical of Limbaugh are dismissed as biased, and the four pro-Limbaugh editors either play a reversion war with any editor they disagree with, or try to force him to go away. If that fails, the 3RR game begins, with the four pro-Limbaugh editors covering for each other after each one makes his allotted three reversions. It's transparent bullying, anti-consensus, and dishonest gaming. It would be a great thing for all of it to come to light in an arbitration.
Your high dudgeon is fooling no one. Eleemosynary 09:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. You got your wish. Caper13 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I sure did. And you got your response right here[37]. Hopefully, you will refrain from labelling honest criticism of your edits as "personal attacks," now that an admin has weighed in on your misconception.
Elee I am sorry that you feel this way. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "pro-Limbaugh" partisan is not constructive. Please stop. --Rtrev 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Rtrev, you are misstating my position. I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a "pro-Limbaugh" partisan. I have simply stated a handful of editors on this page (yourself included) have engaged in "ganging up" on editors who wish to add balance to the page. It does not help your argument to misstate my position. And I'll be stopping as soon as the "ganging up" ceases. Eleemosynary 03:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Eeleesomery, As to the Admin's response, I disagreed with her opinion that they weren't personal attacks, but I decided not to pursue it because she was right in that there was quite a bit of unpleasantness on the board in general and I hoped there could be a fresh start rather than trying to get you blocked for an extra day or two. In the end, all I wanted was for the personal attacks to stop.Caper13 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not buying it. You have engaged in much unpleasantness of your own, and the reason you couldn't get me "blocked for an extra day or two" is because your argument to do so was faulty, and the admin realized that. I do welcome a change in tone, though. Eleemosynary 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on disputed content concerning hearing loss/drug abuse

Specifically, this section:[38], providing sourced medical commetary on the likely cause of Limbaugh's deafness.

In Caper13's edit summary, he gave the entire reason for his unilateral deletion as "If Limbaugh's doctors said that his hearing loss was caused by an autoimmune disease, they are the authority. Anyone who hasnt examined him is simply giving POV."

Nonsense. For one thing, no source is provided for Limbaugh's "doctors" saying anything. Secondly, doctors (who are indeed sourced here) with scientific training and medical knowledge are not "simply giving POV" by factually stating that there is a proven link between between oxycontin abuse and deafness.

To remove this is simply an attempt to (yet again) remove balance from the page. Caper13 has given no good argument for it besides his own opinion. Really, these edits are getting shameful.Eleemosynary 14:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point to consider is Rush's own comments on this subject. Shortly after his drug problem came to light people started asking about a possible connection between it and his deafness. On his radio show he indicated that there might possibly be a connection, but he and his doctor's weren't sure. To suggest in this article that an autoimmune disease was definitely the cause would not be consistent with what Rush's doctor's have said. Gregmg 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a fundamental disgreement about WP:NPOV involved here and in the many other recent discussions on this page. Perhaps discussing that big-picture disagreement would be more helpful than discussing each individual instance of that disagreement cropping up. For example, my understanding is that in order to provide a neutral point of view, we must provide sourced analysis from multiple points of view. That is, if there is debate over an issue, we describe the multiple conflicting sides of the debate. Could some of the editors removing sourced analysis explain why? Keep in mind that a neutral point of view is "not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." WillyWonty 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The statement from Limbaugh's doctors saying that his hearing loss was caused by an autoimmune disease was already present in the article. I didn't add it but I havent seen any sources that contradict that. The other sources were from people who hadnt examined Limbaugh, and simply speculated that certain drugs could have an effect on hearing. Well, unless they have examined Limbaugh they really aren't in a position to say what caused his hearing loss. There are many things that could cause hearing loss and no shortage of people willing to speculate about it. Unless they have actual proof as opposed to just a shot in the dark opinion, it shouldnt be listed. In the end, what difference does it make anyway. It is no secret that Limbaugh had a drug problem. Its no descret he went deaf. If his deafness was caused by drugs, then so what? Why are we having a knock down drag out over something so meaningless? About NPOV, NPOV does not require space be made available for every critic with something negative to say about the subject of the article (or every person who has something positive to say). The idea of inclusion of alternate viewpoints is especially critical when it comes to articles that deal in opinion, or unsettled issues. For example, Global Warming. It would be incorrect to write an article about global warming without including both the competing theories. Likewise, The Rationale for the War on Iraq, etc. If we were editing an article talking about evolution and some scholar came forward wanting his theory that man was seeded from aliens visiting the earth, we as a group would be within our rights to decide to ignore it. Not every viewpoint has a right to inclusion. Generally, we should aim to write articles that deal only in facts and leave the interpretation of these facts up to the reader. This is the best way to be NPOV. When dealing with an article about a Living (or even a dead) person, the aim of NPOV is not to stack positive and negative opinions up on each side of the ledger so that in general they will balance each other out. In this instance is is even less appropriate. A bio exists on Limbaugh because he is a successful broadcaster and entertainer. If Limbaugh was a nutjob nobody he wouldnt even have an article. SO due to that, the purpose of the article is to go over the things that made him successful (because Limbaugh is successful by any measure), not to provide a forum for every critic who has an opinion of why they find him objectionable in some way. The article should cover Why Rush Limbaugh is notable. We do this by providing facts. his successful radio show. His Television show. His Drug Problem (which was notable and should be put into perspective). Limbaugh wasnt Satan. Not to take the comparison too far, but Hitler's entry in Wikipedia doesnt include a critics section. It is mostly a recitation of facts presented in an unemotional manner. Peter Jenning's bio, or Eric Alterman's or even Barbara Streisands bios are examples of what I am talking about. We should avoid both extremes in this article. The "I love Rush Limbaugh and here's why" and the "I think Rush Limbaugh is a scumbag and here is why". Any prominent person is going to have pissed off people along the way. If we applied this standard, every bio would end up half full of complaints from people with an axe to grind. That is a blog, not an encyclopedia. Stick mainly to facts and let them speak for themselves. Caper13 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, so by sticking to facts, it seems to me that we should include widely reported, verifiable facts such as that, for example, some medical experts believe that Limbaugh's chronic drug abuse could have been a factor in his hearing loss. That this has been widely reported and discussed by major news media suggests that it is of importance, rather than, use you suggest, "meaningless." I disagree that "the purpose of the article is to go over the things that made him successful," as only discussing a person's successes would hardly be a neutral encyclopedia article. Also, I'm not sure why you're characterizing this conversation as "a knock down drag out," or why you are comparing the inclusion of widely reported experts' opinions with "I think Rush Limbaugh is a scumbag and here is why," but I think we should try to carry on a calm, polite conversation. WillyWonty 22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A fact is a truth. Limbaugh went deaf. Limbaugh had a drug problem. Limbaugh has the highest rated talk radio show in America. These are all hard facts. Getting a little softer is when we state it is a fact that some people believe something. If we are trying to state whether the drug use has any connection to his hearing loss we need to look at the relavance of the people who hold certain beliefs, to the situation itself. If Limbaugh's doctors have examined him, know his medical history and have made a determination that the drug use was not connected, that is getting close to being a hard fact. Why, because they are medical experts, have examined the patient, and utilized their expert knowledge in coming to the conclusion that they did. If some other medical experts believe that the drug use 'could' have been a factor, then yes it is a fact that they believe it, but it is far from being a fact that they are correct. Given that they have not examined the patient, their speculation is just that. Speculation. And given that we do have an expert opinion from the doctors who examined him, the two positions arent even close when it comes to credibility. Yes, drug use could have an effect on hearing. So does listening to loud music. When the medical experts who have examined him state that the drug use was not a factor, we have no legitimate reason to assume they are incorrect or lieing.
Dont misunderstand my statement about discussing Limbaugh's successes. I don't think that the purpose of every article is to discuss someone's successes (or even the purpose of this article). What I meant was that the article should discuss the reason the person is notable and Limbaugh is notable because he is a success. If he was a nobody ranting and raving on a 1000 watt station in Shreveport, there wouldnt be an article about him. There is an article about him because he is a successful broadcaster. Lets again use the Hitler example (again, not to take this too far) but the point of Hitler's article is obviously not to discuss how successful he was. Hitler is notable because he became head of state of Germany and proceeded to wage one of the bloodiest wars the world has ever seen. The article focuses on the things that made him notable. His rise to power. His control of Germany. The War he launched. The article does not preface a mention of the holocaust by saying "Critics fault Hitler for killing x million Jews" or even follow up with a conclusion. The article doesnt say Hitler is bad or good. Describing his (is achievements the right word here?) conveys all the message the reader needs.
Discussing why someone is notable means covering the things that make them notable. In Limbaugh's case, it has mostly to do with the success he has achieved. There article's purpose isnt to try to make Limbaugh look good, but it isnt there to give a forumn to every critic who has said something negative about him and didnt like something he said. Those critics comments are usually not notable.
I didnt mean to imply that you and I are having a "knock down drag out". I was talking about the conversation about this issue in general seemed to have raised to a point far beyond its importance which has caused a lot of personal attacks and has lead to a user being blocked. To me it seems like there has been quite a bit of unpleasantness over an issue (inserting a statement suggesting the drugs could have affected his hearing, despite his doctors statement that they didnt) that really isn't that important in the general scheme of things.
It is my hope that this point can be the beginning of a more civil discourse in this article and an end to personal attacks. Caper13 00:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you wish "civil discouse," you're going to need to stop dissembling. Regarding your above comments, I was blocked for 3RR, not personal attacks. When you reported me for "personal attacks," an admin dismissed your report and gave you ample reason for it after you protested [39]. If you don't wish to be called a liar, don't lie. Eleemosynary 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I didnt say you were blocked for making personal attacks. I didnt even say it was YOU who got blocked. But personal attacks were part of the unpleasantness which led to edit warring and you getting blocked. I really didnt want to dwell on the unpleasant. I was hoping to help improve the tone here. I hope you will help in this endevour. Caper13 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to help change the tone. To that end, I'll hope you'll help restore the Chelsea Clinton incident until the discussion on it is concluded. It would go a long way to restoring good faith if you'd help keep the section there until consensus is reached, one way or the other. Eleemosynary 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Give me your sources for the Chelsea Clinton incident. I'll examine them and make up my mind. In the meantime though, this was determined by consensus to be not notable and you appear to be edit warring to reinsert it. That isn't good faith. Caper13 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Washington Post link above (under the heading "Chelsea Clinton incident." Please also know that consensus was NOT reached about the section. Though you, DualFreq, and Rtrev feel its not notable, there are several editors on this page who feel that it is. To suggest there is consensus is not good faith by you. Eleemosynary 04:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, I disagree with your assessment that expert analysis covered by multiple major news organizations is "not notable." Also, I'm not following your comparisons to the Hitler article. My reading of the Hitler article is at odds with your assertions that "The article doesnt say Hitler is bad or good," as the current version of the article says pretty clearly right up in the introduction that "Hitler has been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil, and portrayals of him have been nearly universally condemnatory." Are there any other opinions on this neutrality issue? Again, briefly, my view is that if there are controversies that are important enough to be covered by multiple publications, then we need to provide sourced analysis from the multiple sides of those controversies. Presenting just a single side is not writing from a neutral point of view. WillyWonty 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
On this issue I think that it is acceptable to present both sides. Something like "reliable source A suspects that his hearing loss was due to painkiller addiction. However, Limbaugh's doctors attribute the problem to X." As long as it is not used as a pro/anti Limbaugh point and is worded in a way that simply states fact then I am certainly ok with it. --Rtrev 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Made a go at a compromise solution adding in suggested type of verbiage. Caper13 04:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Your compromise edit looks constructive to me. I hope that contributes to peace.--RattBoy 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On another note: I think it is acceptable to change the title of this talk section. It is not constructive and adds an air of attack against Caper. Anyone opposed to it? --Rtrev 03:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Change it. I suggest it be changed to RattBoy is a Big Fat Idiot "Paragraph about Rush's Deafness and Drug Abuse" or some such.--RattBoy 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh gripes

Limbaugh utilizes attempts to spark controversy or create notable criticism as a signifigant part of his radio program. He also focuses on significant political controversies and notable figures (and he himself is one). The tone and character of his discussions can often lead to sensationalism. Part of his success and fame can be attributed to his use of sensationalism surrounding discussions of public figures and pertinent political debates. Some of what he says may not be subjectively evaluated as "notable" (there seems to be no objective standard for deciding notability), however sensational coverage of public figures, surrounding historically signifigant political issues, that becomes saturated throughout a wide swath of media and subsequently re-insterted into the discussion of the historically signifigant political issue originally mentioned can indeed be successfully argued as maintaining "notability." I understand the desire to keep this page from becoming a bash-Limbaugh page but the frequency of controversies can be effectively attributed to Limbaugh's own style of commentary that invites and even flourishes with controversy. Not everything someone takes offense to should be considered notable but you also have to ask how widely addressed, reported, debated, and discussed must an instance be in order to reach this "notability"? The proposal that Limbaugh may have many of instances of controversial discussions does not make them less "notable." A brief statement might be all that is required to reference the controversial comments. If we didn't allow controversial political commentary to be considered notable in Wikipedia context then Limbaugh would not be on here in the first place. -Johnyluv1 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Do we need some? Do we have a live dispute here? The discussion above is TLDR, so I'd like people to respond here briefly on the first question. Thx. - crz crztalk 04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I feel we do. It regards the Chelsea Clinton Incident. Several editors feel it is non-notable. Several others feel that it is. Both sides are claiming consensus. Eleemosynary 04:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article to stop the war cold and bring the reverters to the consensusing table. And you cannot tell me there's no such word. - crz crztalk 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue at hand is whether some mention of this incident[40] edit belongs in the article:
    • On November 6, 1992, three days after the presidential election, Limbaugh made a reference to Chelsea Clinton, daughter of President-elect Bill Clinton, Limbaugh stated: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" — a picture of Chelsea then appeared onscreen. Although Limbaugh has claimed it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, the show was on a tape delay, so if truly a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to the show's airing. Limbaugh countered that the television show was a big drain on his time and did not include retakes. Limbaugh apologized on his show, claiming fatigue. A few days later, he said, "I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, [Chelsea] can't control the way she looks."

I think this belongs, because:

It passes sourcing muster because, among thousands of Google returns, it is sourced to the Washington Post.[41]
It is significant in that it is one of the most controversial things Limbaugh ever did (attack the looks of an adolescent girl), and still causes debate among his fans and detractors. The incident is also used in a primary criticism of Limbaugh in Al Franken's bestslling book Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat Idiot (which I think may one of the reasons Limbaugh's most ardent supporters want it off this page).
There is precedent for this type of section in Wikipedia, specifically regarding Paul Hume's scathing review of Margaret Truman [42]
One particularly troublesome tactic some have been using is employing an unverified transcript originating from the right-wing site Free Republic as some sort of proof that Limbaugh said nothing to attack Chelsea Clinton. Please note that hyperpartisan sites such as Free Republic and Democratic Underground are generally not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia.

Eleemosynary 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with the FR link in this case is it is a copy vio. It is a direct quote of the copyrighted Limbaugh transcript available using Lexis Nexis Academic. This "incident" was an accident as stated by Limbaugh in the transcript and as such it is non-notable, a real biography would not include the text. The WA Post link used above is over 10 years old and mis-quotes Limbaugh per the transcript. He does not "hold up" a photo. If someone wants to make this into a biography instead of a list of reasons to hate Limbaugh, please fix this article. As for posting the actual transcript, I can't violate copyright, but I can say the FR link matches the transcript from Limbaugh's program via Lexis. You can argue with yourself from now on as it is much too late for me to argue with you any longer. --Dual Freq 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The above by Dual Freq is the general argument made by Limbaugh's supporters on this page. It boils down to "Limbaugh was joking. He said he was joking in the transcript, so he couldn't have really meant to insult Chelsea." This argument strikes me as pretty thin gruel. Limbaugh got (and gets) many years of mileage out of attacking the Clinton family. To narrate that the audience would next see the "white house dog" and to then show a picture of Chelsea Clinton speaks for itself. That he used a hoary dodge along the lines of "My goodness, ladies and germs, I have no idea how that could have happened" is just typical Limbaugh sarcasm. To use it as a defense of Limbaugh is disingenuous. But as the attack on Chelsea Clinton makes Limbaugh look bullying and shameless, many of his fans seek to remove it from this article for that reason alone. Eleemosynary 05:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the WaPo story is four years after the fact. Can anyone point to contemporaneous newspaper coverage that would help us assess whether this is a blip or a significant detail in the bio? - crz crztalk 05:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting website (fair.org) reports the following from Molly Ivins' column in the Arizona Republic in 1993:
  • "Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--'Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?' And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old."
It's true that Ivins is a liberal columnist. But no one is claiming she made the story up. Eleemosynary 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
News story would be better than an op-ed. I'll run a query in Westlaw... hold on. - crz crztalk 05:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Searching Westlaw database "nyt" for ("chelsea clinton" /p dog) produces three unrelated hits and ("chelsea clinton" /p limbaugh) produces nothing. The story is either misreported or a blip on the radar. I think it's right to exclude the episode completely. - crz crztalk 05:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Our findings indicate the story was misreported as well. Thanks for your help.Caper13 05:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please. Eleemosynary 05:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No need for that. Caper13 05:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of need for it, actually. For you to state "our findings" have indicated anything is untrue, and seeks to bolster your argument through dishonesty. You have not provided one single instance of a reliable source saying that the story was misreported, but have clung to an unverifiable transcript showing up on the notoriously unreliable "Free Republic" website. And even that doesn't show that Limbaugh didn't attack Chelsea. Eleemosynary 10:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Searching the gargantuan ridiculously expensive (thank God for law student accounts) "allnews" database for ("chelsea clinton" /p dog) produces only letter from some crazy dude to the editor of the Lancaster Intelligencer alleging the above. Definitely should not be included. - crz crztalk 05:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Crzrussian, I respect your opinion. Thanks for bringing some sorely needed civility to this page. Eleemosynary 05:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry I did not mean to do that... simply to add my own comment. For some reason the rendering for me has been really wonky
No problem. Apology accepted. Eleemosynary 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the mediation. I am certainly glad to have it and only wish I had access to better sources. --Rtrev 05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
CRZRussian? Are you still around. We might need more mediation. This sort of thing [43] is fairly typical. Rtrev made an editing mistake and accidentally wiped out another person's comment (including a sarcastic comment directed toward me) and Eleemosynary immediately accused him of vandalism. It was obvious to anyone he made a mistake. This is just like when we were immediately accused of trying to sanitize this page by purging anything negative. Can anything be done about this? We have a serious civility problem at the moment. Caper13 06:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Caper13 received an unfavorable (to him) ruling in a complaint he filed against me and is still evidently smarting from it. [44] I've accepted Rtrev's apology and have moved on. Eleemosynary 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I am quite serious. I think we need continued mediation. Rtrev apologized to you for a mistake, but you didnt apologise to him for your comments which were intentional. (revert vandalism by Rtrev. Changing others' quotes on a Talk Page? Typical.) It would be nice if we had a little bit more WP:AGF. The complaint I filed was for WP:NPA violations. You are providing examples of that now. Caper13 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lookit, ladies, I am here to mediate content disputes, not to babysit all of you. All you Americans go to sleep. All you non-Americans, call your grandma - she hasn't heard from you in weeks! All you who no longer have a grandma, call your local ASPCA chapter and volunteer your services for the afternoon. I'll unlock the article in the morning, when everyone has had a chance to cool down. Thanks. - crz crztalk 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Sleep well, and thanks again. Eleemosynary 06:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Lock it up for two days. I could use a weekend off. Haha Caper13 06:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. A mediation should not be ended after a few hours, because many editors with legit points may not be accessing the site within such a short timeframe.--RattBoy 11:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, RattBoy, that wasn't mediation. That was just talking. Mediation is a lot more compehensive, with parties, positions, proposed decisions, and formal input from all. - crz crztalk 13:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully this article will remain semi-protected after full protection is removed. See Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive4#A_case_for_semi-protection for diffs from before semi-protection. --Dual Freq 12:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I disagree with the idea that the Chelsea Clinton/dog photo incident is "not notable." A brief search shows that this incident from 14 years ago is still being dicussed within the last five years on CNN and CBS News, and in the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Denver Post, etc. Clearly multiple, well-respected news organizations believe this incident is notable. WillyWonty 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide specific citations to news articles. - crz crztalk 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, here are the stories I am refering to: The CNN source is from the transcript of the November 14, 2002 edition of CNN Crossfire. The CBS News source is from the transcript of the October 5, 2003 Sunday Morning show with Charles Osgood. The Los Angeles Times story is "Are liberals really ready for their own Limbaugh?" by David Shaw from Page 16 of one of their March 2, 2003 entertainment sections. It is also mentioned in the L.A. Times story "Recent Conservative Outcry Reeks of Liberal Leanings" from page B3 of their October 14, 2003 Metro section. The Washington Post story is "ESPN Provides Unexpected Rush" on page D12 of their September 8, 2003 Sports Section. The Chicago Tribune story is "Chelsea Clinton: You gotta love her" from their Page 1 of their March 20, 2003 Tempo Section. The Denver Post story is "Franken, O'Reilly duke it out" from Page 3 of their October 5, 2003 Books section. It's also been mentioned on several newspaper editorial pages, both in columns and in letters to the editor, within the past five years. So again, when an incident is still being discussed by multiple news oranizations a decade after it happened, it's an important event. Is their sanyone who still believes that this widely-reported, long-rememebred topic is not important enough to be mentioned in this article? WillyWonty 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I found this link of people discussing the Chelsea Clinton/Limbaugh topic with a copy of the relevent part of the transcript of the show pasted near the bottom. It gives the date and time of the show so someone can look it up who has access to verify. It is different from the paragraph currently in the article. http://www.sportsfilter.com/column.cfm/56 --PTR 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on the research of WillyWonty and PTR, I am now inclined to vote to restore the incident to the page. Thanks to both. Eleemosynary 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll check these sources out after Shabbat. Good day to all. - crz crztalk 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The sports filter forum is no more reliable a source than the www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032838/posts source provided earlier which someone has deleted from this talk page.[45] Both forums are copyright violations, the FR link provides a transcript from November 10, 1992 in addition to the first transcript. I've looked these transcripts up on Lexis Nexis Academic and the FR link has not been altered, as far as I can tell it is a true copy of the copyrighted transcript. I still don't think the incident is notable. --Dual Freq 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The "someone has deleted from this talk page" comment from you is not, I hope, deliberate obtuseness. After I pasted in the quote, I removed the link as it is not verifiable. Perfectly acceptable under the standards of Wikipedia. As for the rest of your comment: "as far as I can tell it is a true copy" is not an acceptable standard for verifiability. We are under no obligation to believe that an anonymous account of a search for an unverified transcript is proof positive Limbaugh did not insult Chelsea Clinton. As far as notability goes, WillyWonty has provided more information and links that the incident is still being widely discussed, and is notable. Eleemosynary 09:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how sports filter, free republic and "Kimberley's David Letterman Page" are different and how one is more verifiable than another. You remove FR, from this talk page, as unverifiable but you laud someone else for posting the sports filter link which is exactly the same. I consider obtuse a personal attack, this is the second time I've warned you on that. Would it be an insult to call you a WP:SPA? --Dual Freq 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is this more deliberate obtuseness on your part? I referred to Willywonty's sourcing in my comment directly above, not the ones you mention. Therefore, I need not respond to your first question, which is based on a straw man argument. Why do you wish to construct a straw man argument so obviously flimsy? Well, it appears you're coming around in admitting that Free Republic is an unreliable source. Good on you for that. But you're also dissembling in your accusation of "you remove FR, from this Talk page." Nope. I chose to delete it from my comment, because it is not worthy of inclusion, and is hearsay. I also see that you're reverting to "I consider XXX a personal attack," when your arguments start to collapse. It's a hoary dodge, and it won't wash. Eleemosynary 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As for reliable sources, check out ref #17, it's "Kimberley's David Letterman Page", a personal homepage, and we are trusting its copy of the transcript of a Letterman show. I don't see that page as more or less reliable than the sports filter or free republic links above. --Dual Freq 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. You know, the most interesting thing about that transcript? It is offered as a citation for the audience booing Limbaugh when he made a reference to hillary vs a pontiac hood ornament, but the transcript indicates laughter when he made the statement. I think we need to do a thorough recheck of a lot of the 'citations' here vs what they are supposed to be supporting. There has been a tendency here for people (especially inserting negative items about Limbaugh) to load up their charges with citations, most of which are either biased sources or factually wrong.Caper13 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that it didn't match the statements near the ref. I'm not sure how the Letterman exchange is notable. I see nothing notable about the visit, and I can't imagine that some members of a New York studio audience would not boo Limbaugh at some point. Maybe it's notable that they laughed? --Dual Freq 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The exchange with Letterman isn't notable IMHO (except as an example of how this article needs cleaning up to remove incorrectly sourced statements supporting POV). Perhaps we could rewrite the entire area which discusses Limbaugh's guest appearances on various shows to simply make it a short list of tv guest appearances he has made and to mention that his persona has been imitated often on shows with Conservative Talk Show host characters being being modeled after him under different names. Being imitated on the resurrected WKRP in Cincinati show is more an indication of Limbaugh's fame, than that show's importance to Limbaugh's career. Also, I remember Limbaugh appearing on Letterman, and while it was interesting, it wasn't historical. Caper13 19:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added sources from The Chicago Sun Times and Dallas Morning News to the article confirming the Limbaugh and Letterman quotes. This event was also covered by the L.A. Daily News, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Oregonian, etc. This event is well-documented, well-sourced, and numerous news organizations believe it is notable. WillyWonty 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because something got mentioned in a newspaper or on tv, doesn't mean it is notable. I was on tv a couple of weeks ago commenting about a current event in the news, and when it comes time to edit my encyclopedia entry, that wont be a notable part of my life. You have the concepts of "documented" and "notable" confused. TO be notable, something should be documented, but just because it is documented, doesn't mean its notable. Caper13 03:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And, right on schedule, more dissembling and bluster from the pro-Limbaugh partisans, trying once again to excise notable info about their hero. Thanks, WillyWonty, for providing solid sources on Limbaugh once again insulting the looks of a woman in the Clinton family. Please note Caper13's violation of WP:DICK ("You have the concepts of 'documented' and 'notable' confused.") When national political broadcasters make personal attacks and smears on the physical characteristics of families of American presidents, it goes to the heart of who they are. Were Franken to attack Laura Bush or the twins in such a manner, it would be notable. Just as it is with Limbaugh. Eleemosynary 09:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either the Letterman quote or his TV show (regarding Chelsea) are notable. In addition, I'm not sure if people are reading other articles describing the event but if we're going with the transcript the quote was, Here are her photos, which I think one of them looks like a Pontiac hood ornament, to tell you the truth, if you look at it. and later in the transcript, That was not a comment on her appearance. It was a comment on the lay-out of the photos. You take a look at one of them. You're a big car buff. You look at a Pontiac hood ornament and you'll see what I mean.
The sentence in the article, where he compared Hillary Clinton, in a photo in Vogue magazine, to "a Pontiac hood ornament." is a misstatement of the quote.--PTR 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Letterman interview and Chelsea Clinton statement are both non-notable. Someone goes on a comedy late night program and makes a joke, that doesn't seem notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It may be notable for Hillary Clinton as a google search shows several articles about her controversial December 1993 Vogue magazine article and the accompanying photos by Annie Leibovitz. The article title is "Hillary's Moment" by Julia Reed. Here's a sample of news hits just from Google:[46]. Limbaugh is one critic but it looks like there were others.[47] HILLARY STRIKES AN UNSETTLING POSE Not notable for Limbaugh. --Dual Freq 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The original Mediation (the reason for this section's title) is for a paragraph referring to Limbaugh commenting on Chelsea Clinton. The paragraph in question is a misstatement of the transcript found on FP (link above), the sports filter link and Lexis Nexis Academic and includes editorial comment that makes it sound like WP is questioning his not using tape delay. The paragraph, in my opinion, is not notable but if included should be edited to reflect what actually was said/shown and to remove or better reference editorial comments. --PTR 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A few people in this discussion have expressed their view that topics discussed by multiple major news organizations, in some cases for well over a decade, are "not notable." Could some of these people explain what they mean by "not notable"? WillyWonty 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Chelsea Clinton incident is not notable by any reasonable standard. However, based on what is considered notable by Wikipedia standards, it merits at least a mention. Sadly. Bjsiders 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hint: if 141,000 websites take note of something, it's pretty much defined as notable. Gzuckier 16:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, it's not notable by a reasonable standard. If you happen to think a Google popularity contest is "reasonable," God bless you. I don't. It is, however, relevant to Wikipedia's "notability" requirement. Bjsiders 05:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what definition of notable trumps the concept that it was noted by a very many people. Gzuckier 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Play nice! - crz crztalk 13:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourced information being removed

I've restored the sourced information about the ACT UP confrontation on Pat Sajak's show. Changing, for example, "ACT UP activists" to "some gay activists" makes the article less informative. Why was this sourced info removed? WillyWonty 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to add the sourced info about the televised confrontation between ACT UP and Limbaugh back into the article. Dual Freq appears to be confused, believing that this info was sourced to The New York Times, when it is sourced to Newsday (one of the four sources for this sentence). Dual Freq also seems to believe that this is not notable; Newday disagrees calling this "one of television's most memorable fracases." WillyWonty 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One of your sources is a blog. Per WP:RS I have removed it. I can't seem to find the Newsday article full text on Lexis, but I'll check again, I was searching a tighter date range than 6 months for news on this subject. The Newsday article is 6 months after the incident, if this is such a notable event/fracus where is the NYT article about it for the week after?[48]? There is an article about the Sajak show being canceled April 10, 1990 so maybe you or some other WP:SPA can accuse Limbaugh of getting Sajak's show canceled. I would also like to see a reliable source that says they were ACT UP activists vs some other group and what their motives were. If the blog is your source on this, its gone and it goes back to a citable NYT article. You're not going to find it in the NYT, except in "The Rush Hours" article I was citing. They only have 2 articles with Limbaugh and Sajak in it since 1990.[49] --Dual Freq 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources I have used or added to this article have been blogs. The Newsday source for the Act Up info is already in the article. Do you need more? WillyWonty 00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You've re-added http://www.panopticist.com several times, its a blog and is now gone per WP:RS. As for the Newsday article, what does it actually say? I can't verify what it says since there is no link to the article. Since there were two sources, I have no way of knowing where this ACT UP and other stuff comes from. A link to the newsday source might clarify this. --Dual Freq 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as that blog source goes, that was soemone else's. If you had mentioned that it was a blog any of the many times you had you removed it, then I would have known what it was and I wouldn't have put it back in with the well-sourced information you have repeatedly been removing. As far as ACT UP goes, the Newsday article includes "AIDS activists belonging to the Los Angeles ACT-UP chapter created one of television's most memorable fracases when they disrupted Limbaugh's one-night stint as guest host on 'The Pat Sajak Show' last March." Also, the August 28, 1990 Chicago Tribune, in the Dan Kening article "Motormouth" on page 2C describes "members of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, who heckled him [Limbaugh] at a taping of 'The Pat Sajak Show.'" I'll add that source in a moment. No, I don't have links to these -- newspapers didn't have web sites in 1990 and if they do have these online somewhere I'm unaware of them. WillyWonty 01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Which source says the reason was: "stances on abortion and affirmative action"? The one you just added says Newsday, I'm assuming you meant Trib, but I don't see a verifiable link to that article either. Where is a source that wasn't 6 months later? Is there one from early April 1990? If not, did anyone care / notice this when it happened? --Dual Freq 01:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The source for the topics of the show and the ensuing heckling being abortion and affirmative action is from the show itself. I'm not sure how to cite that. My addition of this info was to correct the previous incorrect assertion that the show and heckling was about "protesting what they perceived as anti-gay hate speech." I'm not sure if this video is on the internet for me to link to. Thanks for the tip on the Trib/Newsday typo; I just corrected it. Again, no, I don't have links to these -- newspapers didn't have web sites in 1990 and if they do have these online somewhere I'm unaware of them. As far as sources right after the event, you could try the L.A. Times from April 3, 1990, "We sat in a CBS screening room Friday night watching arch-conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh sub for 'The Pat Sajak Show.' Hecklers a-plenty, as expected ..." Or the letter about "Limbaugh's Hecklers" from the April 7, 1990, L.A. Times. I find the later coverage -- such as on the 2001 Pat Sajak guest-hosted Larry King show on CNN or in a 1995 Washington Post article -- to be a better testament to the lasting impact and importance of this event. WillyWonty 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
For something which is supposedly so well documented and so notable that it is still being discussed in major newspapers today, it has a definite lack of actual news sources to cite. The event certainly did happen, but it seems to have been long forgotten except for die hard anti-limbaugh partisans (not implying you are one, just noting that it is mostly blogs where you find a reference to it today, and usually of the more extreme "Limbaugh is Satan" sort.). Given that we can't verify the content of the sources and the lack of verifiable sources (unless Dual Freq is able to verify using Lexis Nexis (which I don't have or I would do it myself), I'd say we delete the details on the event or alternately delete all reference to it entirely. Personally, I'd keep the reference to the guest hosting itself since it was his first tv appearance, but get rid of the details bringing into line with the other appearances. The fact that there was hecklers there isnt notable by itself. Any controversial figure is going to attract hecklers on occasion.Caper13 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Since both sources say nothing about the affirmative action / abortion protest, I'm requesting a citation, and failing that, I'm removing it. They may have said on air that they were protesting those two things, but what stake does an activist homosexual group have in reproductive rights since they can not reproduce and why would they care about affirmative action, which didn't include sexual orientation in the US. I suspect they claimed that was the motivation on air, but in reality they hated Limbaugh for his stances on AIDS and other homosexual issues and that was what they protested. --Dual Freq 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The protest group may have just been a gathering of the usual suspects or a rent-a-mob who are there to protest anything because they don't like the speaker or want attention. Limbaugh has attracted lots of protesters over the years. There is nothing notable about this incident in particular and the fact that we can't even determine what the people were specifically protesting, with verifiable sources, indicates its less than noteworthy status. It may have even been organized by one specific group, but its obvious from the tape that the disrupters there all had their own pet gripes. If it happened today you would have people simultaneously yelling about Tibet, The Patriot Act, Iraq, Haliburton, and the Trilateral Commission, all fighting members of wacko Fred Phelps God Hates Fags crazies for shouting rights.Caper13 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the word "protesting" to "heckling" in the article in an attempt to make it more clear that we are not specualting at the possible motivations for the studio audience's behavior but instead describing their observable behaviour itself. What happened during the show was that Limbaugh tried to talk about an abortion ban that wasn't passed, and then members of the crowd cheered that the ban had failed and heckled Limbaugh for his position on abortion. Later he tried to talk about affirmative action, and some in the crowd shouted support for affirmative action and continued to heckle him. Do you want a citation other than the show itself? If so, finding a newspaper citation for the abortion-related heckling shouldn't be difficult, as that was the most confrontational portion (it was during that portion that Limbaugh went into the audience). If I can find a direct quote, I'll include that. As far as the issue of whether this is a notable event or not, I'll see if I can add some sourced quotes from people discussing this as an important event. There are probably quite a few more things like Newsday calling this "one of television's most memorable fracases." WillyWonty 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added The Boston Globe as a source for the topic of the heckling per request. I've also added the Newsday quote to show the incident is notable, as requested. I'll add a few more later. Sajak has described the incident as "legendary," among others. WillyWonty 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Willy, so far none of your sources are readily verifiable. If the best that is available to show the segment was memorable is a 16 year old opinion piece from right after it happened, then that proves our point more than it does yours. Caper13 21:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm not sure why you think a TV show getting heckled to the point that the entire audience has to be cleared isn't a notable event (this is the only time I'm ever seen it happen) but, per your request, since the Newsday article is from the early nineties, I'll see if I can add sources from the mid nineties as well as the 2000s that say that this was unique, legendary, memorable, etc. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by these sources not being readily verifiable. I don't think my footnotes can be any more explicit then including the publication, the date, the author, the title, and the page number. WillyWonty 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
What I meant is that your sources are so old they are not available on the web without specialized accounts. I think we have been more than fair in allowing you a chance to prove your point. Its time to draw this to a close. Caper13 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A memorable fracas? See Geraldo#Talk_show_and_Satanism_special, Geraldo had his nose broken in a brawl, now that's a memorable fracus, but apparently only worthy of one sentence on Wikipedia. --Dual Freq 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Any episode of the Jerry Springer show? Caper13 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Per request, I've added references from 1995 and 2001 showing that a CBS executive had never seen anything quite like the heckling/audience clearing and that Pat Sajak calls it legendary. Regarding the Geraldo incident, it looks like it needs to have some sources cited. As does much of the rest of this article. WillyWonty 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, we now have 125 words for an incident that merits only a sentence or two at most. --Dual Freq 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Summarized, removed POV and reduced to 55 words. I retained a point Willy inserted as a compromise which quotes Pat Sajak as saying the event was legendary around CBS. This is undoubtedly POV, but if it is enough of a compromise to put this issue to bed, then so be it. Dual, I can't pass judgement on most of his cites since I can't access them, but if any of them are opinion based, or are unneeded, feel free to edit them out. There are plenty of citations for this event already and we could probably lose a few of the less valuable ones for readability sake if they don't belong. If this compromise isnt acceptable, I would go with a complete removal of the detail for this event altogether since I still question its notability and Willy has been unable to provide verifiable news sources that prove its notability and enduring newsworthyness (eg...15 year old news stores prove my point that this issue has been long forgotten by most mainstream news sources)Caper13 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sourced information being removed Part 2

I've restored the sourced information regarding the heckling Rush Limbaugh recieved while hosting the Pat Sajak show. This sourced information was specifically requested to make the paragraph more clear and correct its previous innacuracies. If anyone thinks they have a good reason for removing these sourced improvements, let's discuss it. Thank you. WillyWonty 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We did. See above. None of the new information you provided corrected any of the previous deficiencies. They were either unverifablie sources, old sources which didnt prove the events notability over time, or were non news sources providing only POV statements. I did include a reference you included as an attempted compromise but in short, your new sources added nothing new.Caper13 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Every single one of the sources is verifiable. You may have to use google or your local library. Every new source was specifically asked for (sources that attest that the incident is notable, sources that show the topic of the heckling, sources within the last 15 years, etc.). By removing this sourced information, you now leave the paragraph in the state it was before -- where readers like Dual Freeq might incorrectly assume what the topic of the heckling was, that it doesn't make sense that it was about abortion, that no one remmebers th eincident since it happened, etc. I've improved the paragraph to address each of your concerns, deleting those improvements harms the article. Maybe you should move on and try to find sources for the completely unsourced paragraph immediately after that.WillyWonty 23:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The NEW WKRP in Cincinnati basing a character on Rush Limbaugh called "Lash Rambo" isnt in much need of a source in my opinion, because I saw the episode. If you want to remove the entire section though, I have no problems with it. The Lash Rambo episode is about as notable as the Sajak one. In the end your additional sources were just more of the same, and they were insufficient to begin with. 10 weak sources doesnt equal 1 good one.Caper13 23:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "I saw the episode" should count as a good source. Examples of good sources would be the ones I've used, like USA Today or the Boston Globe. Your personal view that the WKRP episode is as notable as the "legendary" show that is "one of the most memorable TV fracases of all time" isn't supported by any sources. Are you trying to edit this article based on your personal point of view, or based on good sources? WillyWonty 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This information might fit better in the article about the Pat Sajak Show. Oh wait, The Sajak show isn't even notable enough to have its own article. Condense this down to a sentence or two and I think everyone will be satisfied. Did you know that there are 1,500,278 articles on wikipedia? Maybe we all should hit Special:Random and edit another article. --Dual Freq 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you two have made your personal points of view clear that for whatever reason you don't want this event mentioned in the article at all. However, multiple news organizations disagree with your personal assessment of this topic's importance. Also, I think I missed the point where either of you two said "Thanks for providing more sources, Willy, I'm sorry, I guess you were right about that abortion thing and I was wrong" or "Thanks, for providing more sources Willy, I'm sorry, I guess you were right about that ACT UP thing and I was wrong," or "Thanks for providing more sources, Willy, I'm sorry, I guess you were right about this being discussed on national news media in recent years and I was wrong," etc. Maybe of those 1,500,278 articles you two can find one to edit where you know the subject matter a little better? Or where you're willing to do a little more research? WillyWonty 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I did congratulate you above and I'll say it again. Congratulations, we now have 125 words for an incident that merits only a sentence or two at most. --Dual Freq 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The incident is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNK4byQkn7w. "Heckled" is not the right word. Nor is "activist." Some audience members (at least one wearing an ACT UP t-shirt) repeatedly shouted down Limbaugh and called him a murderer and totally disrupted the show until they were finally removed. --Herb West 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Herb for finding that youtube video. "Heckled" and "activist" are from the newspaper sources, but you're right they really don't completely describe the nature incident, which is why I added the sourced quote and analysis. I'll add that back in. I'll also remove the latest efforts to introduce personal points of view in to the article (changing "called" to "claimed," "responded" to "responded in kind," etc.) Several edits to sourced paragraphs have been mande over the weekend that don't seem to be backed up by those sources. WillyWonty 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Do the sources you have included in the paragraph use those quotes or are you getting those quotes from the video?--PTR 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Willy. I noticed you created a redirect for Pat Sajak Show to go to the Pat Sajak page. At the risk of actually having you do it, wouldnt it be more accurate to redirect Pat Sajak Show to Rush Limbaugh since after your edit, the Limbaugh page contains more information about the Sajak show, than Sajak's page does. Caper13 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that really makes sense. I think the shows hosted by Limbaugh belong on the Limbaugh page and the shows hosted by Sajak belong on Sajak's page. Or, if enough people can find some sourced info to write a decent page just on Sajak's talk show, that might be a good idea, too. WillyWonty 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
And, yes, PTR, if I understand what you're asking, those sources do contain those quotes. Is there a specific quote you have a question about? WillyWonty 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This quote, "Women are dying every day all over the world because of people like you." Since I can't look up the articles. --PTR 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that quote is in the Boston Globe article: "A shaken Limbaugh is verbally attacked after wandering out into an audience in 1990, when he was a substitute host on a late-night CBS show. 'Why am I mad?' says a woman being cheered on by others in the audience. 'Because women are dying every day all over the world because of people like you. You understand that? People with your attitude.'" I think that quote gives readers a pretty good sense of the type of heated exchange this was, beyond what they might assume when they see it described as "heckling." WillyWonty 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Also, I'm removing Caper13s POV edits again. He's repeatedly said he finds these sources "unverifiable," so now he's clearly editing this paragraph to conform to his personal point of view without any knowledge of what its sources actually say. WillyWonty 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the reason people can't find enough sourced info to write an article on the Sajak show, is because the Sajak show was not notable enough to have attracted enough attention. That still begs the question about why there should be more info on the Sajak show on Limbaugh's page, than there is on Sajak's page. Perhaps this entire section should be moved to Sajak's page. No more than a footnote about it belongs here. Rather than edit warring, would you answer the pertinent questions we have posed? Additionally, what about our last edit was POV? Caper13 22:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you looked for Pat Sajak Show sources? Or are you editing purely from your personal point of view? My understanding is that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it's possible there are still topics that it may need articles on, and that many of its current articles could use improvements. Signs that your latest edit is pushing your personal point of view include: 1) Your saying you can't find the sources for the paragraph yet you edit it anyway. Without sources, what are you basing your editds on? 2) Removal of the CBS execs comments from USA Today and The Plain Dealer, because these show that it's a notable incident covered by multiple major newspapers and your POV seems to be that this is not a notable event and that it hasn't been covered by multiple major news organizations. 3) The removal of the sourced quote from The Boston Globe which shows that the topic of most heated exchange was over abortion law, not gay rights as Dual Freq seems to want to believe or suggest. 4) The inclusion of unsourced spin which seems to take sides, for example "forcing the clearance of the sound stage so taping could continue" seems to take the side of those who cleared the studio (they were forced to, they had no choice). Our sources instead use the type of neutral language we should use, such as "the studio was cleared." 5) Your previous assertions that the purpose of this article should be to celebrate Limbaugh's achivements suggests you're goals are less than neutrality, and your attempts to edit out anything that's less than glowing in his career seem to bear that out. WillyWonty 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It is probably worth mentioning that dedicating roughly three times the verbiage to a one-night guest host appearance as is spent on Limbaugh's own television show strongly suggests that WP:NPOV#Undue weight is being given to this particular event. --Allen3 talk 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Or that those pushing their personal point of view need to let this well-sourced paragraph be, and move on to improving the rest of the article. It seems to me that wikipedia is a work in progress, and if we try to judge everything based on whether soemthing else has an article or how long another paragraph is nobody ever would write anything. WillyWonty 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am taking your word for it that the sources are real and refer to the incident in question even though you have been unable to come up with any news sources on this incident that are accessible on the web. If you wanted to change the word 'forcing' to 'resulting in' I wouldn't quibble about it if you feel forced is not NPOV. I disagree with your assessment, but I wouldnt quibble. I chose 'forcing' because it was one word as opposed to two, in a section that was already too long. I kept the primary source (sajak) saying that the event was legendary (though I don't believe it to be) as a compromise. we dont need two or three people saying the same thing in a section which is already too long. Look up the word 'editing'. One of the goals of editing is brevity.Caper13 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, you removed the CBS exec statement sourced to two newspapers that states why the incident was legendary (he's never seen anyone sweat so much in his life) and kept the Sajak quote that simply says the incident was legendary. Readers like yourself who seem to be wondering why this incident is legendary are therefor deprived of the two newspaper sources telling them why. Then Dual Freeq changed the neutral " Sajak stated" to the non-neutral "Sajak claimed," because his personal point of view is that the incident is not legendary, so he wants to make that a "claim." And then you, Caper13, edited the sentence again, without any idea what the references even say, to "Sajak said Limbaugh's confrontation with the activists was 'legendary around CBS.'" Of course, the source says nothing of the sort. WillyWonty 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Letterman show

i added back the letterman show appearance. it is a cited example of a tv appearance by rush limbaugh. it is in the tv appearance section. what else is supposed to be there if not this? lets not edit out of existence those things which help illuminate mr. limbaughs personality and past. this is what happened. this is the section where it belongs. Brendan19 10:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Letterman interview is not notable. It may be notable for Hillary Clinton as a google search shows several articles about her controversial appearance in the December 1993 Vogue magazine and the accompanying photos by Annie Leibovitz. The article title was "Hillary's Moment" by Julia Reed. Here's a sample of news hits just from Google:[50]. Limbaugh talks for over two and a half hours a day on his own show and you want to point to a 10 minute interview on a late-night talk show in 1993 as a window into his personality and past? --Dual Freq 14:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, just because something is documented, does not make it notable. If we listed every appearance and statement by Rush Limbaugh, the article would be the size of an encyclopedia volume all by itself. This article doesnt even mention the Rush to Excellence Tour, which is FAR more notable than a one time appearance on Letterman or a week long appearance on Sajak (a show so notable in itself it doesnt even deserve an article)Caper13 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Just so we're all on the same page, Limbaugh only hosted the Pat Sajak show one night, March 30, 1990. Apparently the show was retooled in February 1990 and they had a series of guest hosts on Friday nights, (Mario Van Peebles, Elayne Bossler, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, and Limbaugh) until the show was canceled April 10 last airing April 13, 1990 (it began airing January 9, 1989). It was a last ditch attempt to save the failing talk show. I can see how the amount of material here on this talk page makes it look like Limbaugh hosted more, but it was only 1 night. Having said all this here, this talk page now has more information about the Pat Sajak Show than the rest of wikipedia. --Dual Freq 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I was under the impression he guest hosted for a week. Thats how well known this event is in the public consciousness. I think that it is safe to say that Limbaugh's guest host night was probably the most exciting moment in the history of the Pat Sajak show, but that ain't saying much. I think a major trimming is in order, by at least a factor of 50% (if not all).

Letterman Transcript

Since the Letterman transcript is no longer in the article, since it may or may not have been accurate, do the current sources say the Letterman Quote? If they don't, the quote should go. --Dual Freq 00:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the the Limbaugh and Letterman quotes that precede the footnotes to the Dallas Morning News and the Chicago Sun Times are included in those sources. The unsourced sentence is the one with the words "citation needed" after it. WillyWonty 00:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I just found the Roeper article, it also says "Limbaugh smiled nervously and looked as if he wanted to cry, "Mommy!"" That doesn't sound like an editorial to me. It also says "The comedic epeeist Letterman leaned back and smiled, and then observed that Limbaugh has every right to make fun of someone else's looks -- seeing as how Rush is the ultimate male specimen." but doesn't show it as a quote. The "Mommy!" line is enough for me to discount this source as biased beyond usability. --Dual Freq 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He also says of Limbaugh, "Wearing the orangest makeup since Mickey Rourke in "Wild Orchid," sweating like Albert Brooks in "Broadcast News" and tapping his foot like a nervous first-grader who has to go to the bathroom, Limbaugh was the most uncomfortable guest of the modern Letterman era." No bias there either. --Dual Freq 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that Roeper's assessment of the color of Limbaughs' makeup is based on some sort of bias, rather than being an assessment of the make-up? I'm also not sure what impact this has on that paragraph -- are you questioning Roeper's reporting of the exchange? Or are you also suggesting we include the sourced analysis from Roeper on how poorly Limbaugh looked? Also, I've chnaged your use of the non-neutral "claimed" back to the neutral "stated" in the Sajak paragraph. Try not to introduce your own biases into attributions. WillyWonty 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Dual. Is the Roeper article a news article or an opinion piece. No news article would have something like that in it. As I said above, I can not verify these sources and am trusting Willy that these are actual news articles (not just published in a newspaper) and are valid to use as citations. If not. They should be removed. Caper13 01:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It says SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 11. But reads like an opinion to me. He says, "For nearly two hours, I played talk show tennis with my remote control, with the volleys coming so fast and furious during Limbaugh's and Stern's simultaneous appearances that smoke started seeping from the clicker." --Dual Freq 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying the trib article is biased as evidenced by the above Mommy line and the crass comment on his appearance. As for this entire Letterman, Clinton thing, I still think this incident is not notable for Limbaugh, but rather notable for Hillary. Her Vogue appearance was commented on in December 1993, people criticized her for it and Limbaugh was one. As an example, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), published an article by MIKE LITTWIN; BALTIMORE SUN, December 14, 1993 in its fashion section. He described "a picture where Hillary looks like she's posing to be on the bow of a ship." Littwin's problem appears to be more with Liebovitz's photos and less with the subject, Clinton, similar to Limbaugh. Are we going to include every time Limbaugh made a comment about a political opponent? What makes this notable for Limbaugh? Having sources does not prove notability. --Dual Freq 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a Vogue photo shoot does sound notable for Hillary. I believe what made this notable for Limbaugh, according to the sources, was that the exchange was with Letterman. It was seen as an important battle in the 90s talk show wars. What are you proposing based on your Roeper "bias" claim? That facts reported in opinion columns can't be used? That opinion columns can never be used as sources? Neither of those sound right to me. -- WillyWonty 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What I've said for the last week is that this is notable for Hillary, but not included in her article, but not-notable for Limbaugh. He's a political commentator, he made an observation about a photo layout while on Letterman, so what. What else did he say? I can't even find the full transcript on Lexis, just December 17, 1993 Radio TV Reports, Late Show With David Letterman; KDFW-TV; Dallas. Limbaugh talks for 2.5 hours plus per day, how is one sentence on a 10 minute interview in 1993 notable? Answer, its not. As for Roeper, his bias in that article removes its credibility, it's mute though because the whole thing is non-notable. As for the Dallas one, I can't even find that on Lexis Academic. --Dual Freq 01:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how you decide whether something somebody says is notable: If multiple well-respected news organizations decide it's worth covering. If Limbaugh talks ten hours a day and no decent sources notice, then he didn't say anything notable. If he talks for 30 seconds and multiple well-respected news organizations decide it's notable, then it's notable. That's editing based on sources rather than your own personal point of view about what you personally find "notable." WillyWonty 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Willy, I disagree that Notability is the relevant criteria. Notability in the sense that you are referring to is a guideline for which subjects deserve stand-alone articles. That's not the issue in this matter; Rush Limbaugh is obviously deserving of an article. Our job now is deciding what content should be included in the Rush Limbaugh article. The relevant criteria for Good Articles and Featured Articles is that the content be broad in coverage and stay "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia)." Limbaugh's appearance on Letterman is trivia. It may be interesting to devoted Dittoheads but probably is unnecessary detail to the average Wikipedia user. I don't think it is consistent with Good Article criteria to update biography pages with late night talk show appearances. There are exceptions of course, such as these, but I don't think Limbaugh's appearance is an exception.--Herb West 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, Herb, if I understand you correctly you're saying that Notability says the Limbaugh hosted episode of the Sajak show deserves a stand alone article, but it doesn't deserve more than two sentances in this article? Also, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the idea of notability. WillyWonty 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Both articles are gossipy entertainment "news". The "news" of the Dallas Morning News article is that Limbaugh appeared on Letterman the same night that Howard Stern appeared on Leno. The author uses that coincidence to juxtapose Limbaugh and Stern and argue that they're the same. It's clearly an attack on Limbaugh by attempting to associate him with Howard Stern's immature idiocy. The Chicago Sun Times article uses an identical tactic but goes a little further by noting that Snoop Doggy Dogg appeared on Arsenio Hall the same night as Limbaugh and Stern and therefore there's some vague connection between Limbaugh, Stern, and Snoop Doggy Dog. The Chicago Sun Times article is on Lexis Nexis Academic and both are available through Factiva if you have access to them. --Herb West 01:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, like I said, this was seen as an important moment in the 90s talk show wars between Letterman, Leno, Limbaugh, Stern, Arsenio, etc. I don't share Herb's point of view that comparing two of the top acts in talk radio (Limbaugh and Stern) amounts to "an attack." Also, we're not using these articles to report the opinions in them, but I think it's importnat to remember that we could. Sourced critical analysis is an important part of an encyclopedia article. WillyWonty 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Caper13 editing sections that he hasn't read the sources for so they conform to his POV

Caper13 has repeatedly edited sections that he admits to not reading the sources for. I've brought this to his attention multiple times, but he has not stopped. As can be expected, the sections now attribute misinformation to sources that those sources do not say. For example, he has replaced the neutral "Ultimately the entire audience was removed" with his point of view regarding how the incident ended up "resulting in the clearance of the sound stage so taping could continue," because he apparently believes the show couldn't have possibly continued without clearing the audience. He of course has no source for this idea. He then attributes his point of view to the Boston Globe. The Boston Globe article does not say anything remotely like this. Of course, he deleted the quote from what what the source actually says, when the source contradicts his point of view. He has also attributed the idea that "Limbaugh's confrontation with the activists was 'legendary around CBS'" to an episode of Larry King Live. None of the participants in that episode say that it was Limbaugh's confrontation (rather than the audience's actions, rather than Limbaugh's difficulty in handling the situation, etc.) that was the reason why the incident was "legendary." Why is misinformation from editors who admit they are not using any sources being allowed in this article? People who are writing things without any regard for what sources actually say are just editing the article to try to get it to conform to their personal point of view. I'd remove this information myself, but apparently I'm only allowed to remove totally fabricated misinformation three times? So, anyone want to discuss the pros and cons of having completly unsourced misinformation in this article? I, for one, am against it. I think it would be totally neat-o if we used actual sources rather than just stuff we make up that we wish were true. But maybe my goal of a neutral article based on actual sources is dead wrong, and someone can convince me to instead join them in writing more fan fiction into this article. WillyWonty 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Willy. A majority of your recent sources have been discredited as opinion pieces depite the fact that you described them as legitimate news items. The fact that an opinion piece comes from a major newspaper doesnt make it a news item or a valid source. I am willing to accept the story as a source for the fact that the episode happened, but not for an interpretation of it. You are attempting to use these biased sources as a vehicle for loading up the article with negative quotes and conclusions. No one is disputing that the episode took place, however you can't use biased sources as a vehicle to put a negative spin on every aspect of the story. This episode is AMPLY covered by the two sentences we currently have. The fact that we are even including the Sajak quote is meant as a compromise to your view - that this episode is of monumental historial importance despite the fact that no respected news source appears to have written about it in the 15 years since it happened. If you don't like it, we should remove the Sajak quote altogether since it does nothing to enhance the recounting of this barely notable event. Caper13 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean the event that is "barely notable" according to your insignificant personal point of view, but that is described as "one of television's most memorable fracases," "lengendary at CBS," and that the most read newspaper in America quotes a CBS exec saying he's never seen anything like? Also, if there is some crazy Wikipedia Law that exists somewhere outside of your imagination which says that analysis provided by major media critics is unacceptable, please direct me to it. In other words, stop editing the article to conform to your point of view and start backing things up with sources. I'm not sure what you mean when you describe reported facts as "negative spin." Even though they'd be perfectly acceptabel and quite valuable, I didn't even add any media critic's comments or interpretation to the article, just their reporting of basic facts. Facts which are consistently reported across multiple major news organizations. Facts which are easily observable to anyone now that Herb West has found the video on youtube. Facts which, of course, you then deleted because you think this article is supposed to be only be about Limbaugh's acievements. Making up things you wish Pat Sajak said in a TV show transcript you admit you've never read isn't a compromise, and this really isn't the place for your fan fiction. You should stick to what good sources say, stop changing things that are attributed to sources you haven't read, and stop deleting sourced facts just because they don't conform to your consistently proven wrong point of view. WillyWonty 02:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If you intend to continue, please post on my talk page. I probably wont have anything more to say other than what I have already said above, but that is a more appropriate place for messages like this. Caper13 03:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason this personal discussion / argument is not occurring on one of your talk pages? --Dual Freq 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I may be being slightly naive here, but what is wrong with something along the lines of "a number of commentators have said that this was a paticularly rememberable moment. In paticular, person x said y"? --Robdurbar 11:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start, but while the fact that prominent news organizations find it memorable is important, it is also worth noting why they beleive it is memorable. To do otherwise is like saying that a football game is memorable, and which sports commentators say so, without mentioning why it is memorable (it was high scoring, or there was a brawl, or there was on on-field fatal injury, or whatever). WillyWonty 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Television appearances

Ok, as it appears Willy is unwilling to engage in compromise on this topic, who would be in favour of removing the entire Television appearances section as it is basically just a collection of trivia anyway. the fact that Limbaugh appeared on this talk show or that the New WKRP in Cincinatti named a character (who never appeared onscreen) Birch Barlowe really isnt important. The end result of this article should be that it can be peer reviewed and possibly be a featured article one day, and an article that is nothing more than a collection of trivia that is not important to the subject, will not qualify. The fact that Limbaugh may have riled someone up on one show, or said something controversial on another isnt notable on its own. Limbaugh says controversial things and riles people up every day. Opinions? Caper13 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. In an actual encyclopedia this would not get a mention. --PTR 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One could easily make a case for removing unsourced info of questionable importance like the WKRP thing. On the other hand, it's quite a stretch to compare "Limbaugh may have riled someone up on one show" to a "legendary" event that is "one of the most memorable TV fracases" and that a CBS exec had never seen anything like. If your goal is to make this a featured article, deleting well-sourced information about legendary and memorable events seems like the wrong way to go about it. What is the reason for deleting information on the CBS guest host incident again? Because it seemed like at one time it was because nobody covered it right after it happened, but then I provided two LA Times sources in the days after it happened. Then it had to be deleted bacuse nobody had talked about it in the last 16 years, so I provided major media sources from the mid nineties and early 2000s. Then it needed to be deleted because it just wasn't very important even though it had been covered by numerous prominent news organizatons, so I provided four prominent news sources that expressly talk about how important it is. It seems like people are looking for any reason they can find to delete this. So why does this need to be deleted again? Personal point of view trumps reliable sources? WillyWonty 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What is legendary and memorable for a CBS exec may not be noteworthy in the larger context. I believe the deletion was appropriate. Gregmg 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My $.02 is to keep what we currently have. I don't think we need to go into much more detail than what is already here, but I don't really like the idea of completely removing the section. --Dual Freq 03:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox unsourced para

This paragraph was added with no citations:

It should be noted that the issue of Fox's movement and appearance was not the sole subject of Limbaugh's comments. Limbaugh also attacked Fox's appearance in the commercial as what he called a typical political tactic of offering a sufferer of disease or hardship to give politically oriented opinions in the hopes that potential critics will be dissuaded from opposing the "victim." More central to Limbaugh's argument was that Fox was characterizing the candidates and the ballot initiatives in question as "criminalizing" stem cell research, when the initiative in question dealt with the largely unrelated issue of human cloning. In a television interview Fox stated that he had not actually read the wording of the initiatives in question.

Anyone have a citation for this? --PTR 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At some time we need to take a look at this entire section. It is a mess the way it is now. Caper13 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Arrested?

Where's the information about his arrest? It used to be in the article, but now the word "arrest" appears neither in the main page nor the talk page. A Google search for "limbaugh arrested" yields 12000 hits from CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml , CNN http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/28/sitroom.03.html , etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.185.203.189 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that this is a pretty significant omission. Does anyone want to write it up? It can easily be inserted with a date and a cite into what is already there. --Rtrev 06:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The investigation was concluded in April 2006 with a prearranged settlement in which Limbaugh appeared at the Palm Beach County, Florida Sheriff's Office for processing on a single charge of doctor shopping, filing a "not guilty" plea and posting a $3,000 bond. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charges if Limbaugh paid $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician. The reports that he was "arrested" were misleading and does not accurately describe what happened. If anything, the story should note that the published reports he was "arrested" were misleading. The story already notes the charge was filed against him in a prearranged deal in which he would appear, plead not guilty, pay a "fine" and they would drop the charges. There was no arrest in the traditional sense. Caper13 07:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I knew that he turned himself in and if it was a special arrangement then that should be included. But wasn't he technically arrested? My knowledge of the legal system is not the best here but wouldn't they make out a warrant for his arrest whether he turned himself in or not? He still got fingerprinted and has it on his record and that type of thing correct? --Rtrev 14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
When he appeared as part of that deal, someone leaked a story that he had been "arrested" on doctor shopping charges. That is what appeared in a few news outlets for a short time until the statement detailing the deal was released. It was a smear release intended to distort what happened. Limbaugh appeared voluntarily, in a prearranged theatrical piece where the agreement to drop the charge was already in place before he appeared for processing on it. Additionally, he pleaded not guilty to the charge of "witholding information from a medical practitioner" and the charges were ultimately dismissed. The same result as if he had gone to court and been found not guilty. Any arrest (however technical) is almost considered moot at that point. The whole processing and deal is listed in the story as the conclusion of his legal issues over his drug addiction problem, which it was. Arrest is a loaded term and suggests he was handcuffed and held. None of this happened. Describing the event as a booking or processing is more accurate unless someone wants to deliberately use loaded terms to try to convey a more negative meaning than what appeared to take place. Caper13 16:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rtrev, this is already a long section, but the only way I can think to include something like this without a while new section would be to add that he appeared in response to a warrant, but I almost think adding that is suplerflous. Why else would he show up at the police station for processing. Using the loaded word arrest would almost call for a new section that then talks about whether the use of the term arrest was fair and accurate (many of the google hits on the term are criticising the media for bias for terming it an arrest at first, and they later updated their stories to indicate it was a plea deal once the initial feeding frenzy was over. Caper13 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That Rush Limbaugh was arrested is an easily verified fact which ought to be included in this article. WillyWonty 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

caper13, ptr and allen3 have all removed what i thought to be fairly straightforward changes. i can understand why they did it, but i cant quite see how it can be viewed as nonbiased. there are two issues at hand. the first is what to call the section- 'prescription drug addiction' or 'drug addiction and legal trouble' or some such. the other issue is the removal of my cited information about rush's views on drug addicts/law breakers. see [51]. "Before his own problems became public, Limbaugh had decried drug use and abuse and mocked President Clinton for saying he had not inhaled when he tried marijuana. He often made the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995."

to those who removed the above i ask for an explanation.

as for the section subtitle... it seems to me that rush had an addiction to drugs and subsequently had legal troubles. that would lead a reasonable person to think an appropriate title could be "drug addiction and legal troubles". once you read the subsection it becomes apparent what type of drugs were being abused. to imply a difference between prescription drug addiction and all other drug addiction is just plain wrong, elitist and also ignorant of addiction. addiction to oxycontin (an opiate) is no better than addiction to heroin (an opiate) and it is no better or worse than alcoholism, smoking, etc. when they are being abused it doesnt really matter that they were prescribed (prescriptions can be given for all sorts of drugs). that is the whole reason for the legal part of the title. the prescriptions were illegally obtained.

that certain editors want to edit out his arrest is laughable. limbaugh didnt go down to the palm beach county jail for an autograph signing. he went to jail because he had a warrant out for his arrest. he got fingerprinted, photographed and had to post bail. that is an ARREST and it is not simple semantics as others haved argued.

so, to those who have changed my title... please explain why the arrest or legal trouble should not be in the title. thanks Brendan19 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh wasnt convicted of any crime and has not broken any law. Therefore his views (from ten years earlier) on punishments for people convicted of drug crimes are not necessarily relevant to the topic at hand. Prescription Drug Addiction is a good title because it is specific and clear (and short). His legal issues are a result of the prescription drug addiction (in fact the charges were not for general drug use, but specifically because they were perscription drugs). You may feel that use of oxycontin or heroin is no different than the abuse of alcohol or smoking, and that is certainly your POV, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote that view.
Your last statement is completely false and illustrates the problem with this issue perfectly. He didnt appear at the police station BECAUSE he had a warrant out for his arrest, and that is exactly the false premise that many who want to term this an ARREST want to promote. He appeared at the police station as part of a prearranged deal with the prosecutors that included Limbaugh's agreeing to be booked on a single charge and the prosecutor agreeing the charges would then be dropped. Everything that took place was part of a prearranged deal, and all this is already in the article. Caper13 23:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


oh i get it. it was only a PREARRANGED DEAL. not some sort of plea bargain for breaking the law, but more like a trade in major league baseball. yeah, that makes perfect sense. in fact, i think ive even heard it on the show 'law and order'. "your honor, we wish to drop the charges because we now have a PREARRANGED DEAL." "it turns out the defendant will pay $30,000 and agree to stop using drugs because he is a nice guy and NOT because he broke any law that we could prosecute him for in the future." "also, your honor, to reach this PREARRANGED DEAL we were lucky enough to not have to arrest this guy. he came down to the jail (not the police station) as part of our PREARRANGED DEAL and while there he just so happened to want a photo to remember the occasion."

Booking is the process by which a criminal justice system creates an administrative record of those arrested. This usually involves taking photographs (mugshots) of the suspect, recording physical data, detailing charges against the suspect, and taking fingerprints. [[52]]

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995."

maybe he added something about PREARRANGED DEALS off-camera.

if limbaugh didnt break the law, why is he paying 30 grand and agreeing to stop using drugs? what do you call that (besides a PREARRANGED DEAL)?

Brendan19 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are using your edits to try to push a conclusion that Limbaugh was guilty of breaking the law. That is not supported by the facts. That is part of what is wrong with your edits. Its also considered bad form to make personal attacks on others or solicit support from other editors to engage in an edit war. (from your post this afternoon on a users talk page:)there are obviously at least two different sides to the limbaugh page... caper13 and the fox news version against everyone else. there are enough limbaugh fanatics to thwart any inclusion of bad press by others on his wiki page. if enough of us can keep an eye on this we can keep the page from being a fansite and have it be more unbiased. please keep up the good work you have been doing. Brendan19 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)¶'. More unbiased in your context means pushing as much negative information into the article as possible, I take it? That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and isnt a good definition of unbiased either. This article isnt here to either declare Limbaugh a great guy, or to expose him for the "scum he really is". Read up on the purposes of Wikipedia, and instead of spending your time trying to tilt the Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Rielly articles in a negative direction, you might find articles that you dont have strong personal feelings about that you can constructively edit without POV becoming an issue. The purpose of Wikiepedia is to create NPOV articles. Not to push "Bad Press" into articles of people you dislike politically. The people who have been reverting your POV edits are not fanatics, Limbaugh or otherwise.Caper13 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't usually like to jump into the fray like this, but I figured I'd provide these links in response to the argument that Limbaugh wasn't "arrested" because he turned himself in. [53] [54] [55] [56]
Regardless of whether you believe that Rush committed a crime (I don't) the fact remains that he was in fact arrested on a charge, booked, and released. If you turn yourself in to authorities, they still arrest you. They don't just walk you to prison- they've still gotta inform you of the charges and read you your rights. All that is completely separate from whether the authorities come to you or vice versa. While I agree that Brendan's edits were probably overzealous and biased, whether or not there was a warrant for his arrest, Limbaugh appeared at the police station and was "arrested", and the deliberate ommission of the term from the article (not to mention the current wording of the section) sheds a positive light on Limbaugh's ordeal that borders on POV as well. The term needs to be included in a neutral, accurate section that details Limbaugh's perspective as well as an allegatory perspective, without taking the standpoint of either of those perspectives. Simply omitting a point of view from an article is in and of itself a violation of NPOV- the point of view needs to be explained without being supported. --Moralis 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ok. i tried again to change the drug section. this time i left the title alone. as caper said its good because its short. i wanted to include something about his legal troubles in the title, but as long as its in the section i dont suppose it has to also be in the title. i felt it necessary to include the word arrest because that is what a sheriffs spokeswoman called it. i also think it is just silly to call an arrest an "arrest". call it what it is. i made sure to include the facts and just the facts as supported by the mainstream news articles cited. does this make everyone happy? Brendan19 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hate Speech link removed without discussion

Strike added by User:Rtrev pending deletion per WP:BLP The article used to have a link to the term hate speech in the discussion of Limbaugh's penchant for name-calling and ridicule, this link has been present for at least 2 years, however it has recently been removed, without any discussion apparently. This seems to me to be an example of sanitizing. Similarly to the removal of links to Limbaugh's travel to underage sex tourism destinations with viagra in his luggage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Unless you have support for any of the inferences you are making I will delete this comment as potentially libelous per WP:BLP --Rtrev 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This makes no sense. 1) the [[WP::BLP]] doesn't include the words "potentially libelous" in them -- what are you talking about and why do you refer to that page? Wiki editors throw around the words "potentially libelous" as a justification for removing all sorts of material they do not like. 2) What inferences is the above user making? He states a fact about the page: it used to contain a link. He says removal of this link is sanitization. That comment has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh. That comment has only to do with the editing of articles. Another way to put it is that removal of that link violates the NPOV policies. 3) If you read the actual wiki article on hate speech, it seems relatively clear that it is reasonable to find that Rush Limbaugh's speech falls into the hate speech category. The media matters researcher Eric Boehlert explicitly states that Rush has a history of hate speech: [57] -- So again, why did you decide unilaterally to delete this. Where is the discussion? Why should it not be reverted? What did you do to improve the content to make it not libelous, or did you just delete the content? 71.39.78.68 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why revert an edit and not just edit the edit (Barack Obama)

I added a section on how Rush is referring to Barack Obama on his website. That edit was reverted with the cryptic note (see show page.) Why would a wiki editor REVERT perfectly good content and not just MOVE the content.

When my kid's leave their skateboard at the bottom of the stairs, I do not THROW THEIR SKATEBOARD AWAY and then grumble at them (see closet). I move the skateboard to the closet. And I give them a clear explanation of why I have done so. But most importantly, I DO NOT THROW THEIR SKATEBOARD AWAY. You are being completely disrespectful of me and the wikipedia community by deleting content that you believe should be moved.

I reverted the edit and ask the wiki editor to try remember the first principle of wiki editing, EDIT and do not just destroy -- IMPROVE the wiki and think good thoughts.

Jebus. The wiki has so many power hungry deleters these days.

Don't be a deleta! 71.39.78.68 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a very credible, well reasoned anonymous editor. Makes me wonder when semi-protection was removed from this article. This article is not a collection of names Limbaugh has called various people. --Dual Freq 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI - this article has always been heavily patrolled by Limbaugh PR flaks and sterilized of any information that reveals Limbaugh's demagogue-ic Nazi affinities and behavior. Especially now that his drug-induced delusional disorder has gotten to the point where he self-describes himself as America's Anchorman. Any effort to correct the distorted PR slant of this article is ultimately futile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.37.244.227 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't know why anyone has a problem with these guys. From the post above you can see they are unbiased and only interested in creating a properly vetted NPOV article for the encyclopedia. Caper13 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
75.37... it is a nice subtle cocktail you brew of WP:POV and WP:PA as well as a lack of WP:AGF. Anyway if you would like to join the constructive editing of this article we would be more than happy to have you. --Rtrev 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rush's Views on Drug Addiction

I've added back the quote about Rush's views on drug addiction, where he clearly states that people who use drugs aught to be "convicted and sent up." I removed the reference to Bill Clinton, as it wasn't relevant, but the rest of it certainly is-- if Rush sought to be treated differently than he would have other drug addicts be treated, he's a hypocrit, and that's relevant to a biographical article about him. If anyone objects to it being in the section about his legal trouble, I'll be happy to write up a whole new section with a one-sentence lead in and a block quote, much like his views on homosexuality and abortion. Cheers! GertrudeTheTramp 12:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

M.J. Fox and Parkinson's

I pulled the quote from MJF about not taking his meds before appearing at the Senate. His exacerbated symptoms on the ad is explained elsewhere, and Rush never commented on his performance before the Committee. The quote is irrelevant. The one from the doctor at the end probably is too, but someone else can take care of that. GertrudeTheTramp 12:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)