Talk:Rush Limbaugh Information & Talk:Rush Limbaugh Links at HealthHaven.com
advertise
add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
Bookmark and Share

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 
about
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
Featured Results:
Rush Nails,Surgical Rush Nails,Medical Rush Nails,Orthopedic Rush Nails
Rush Nails,Surgical Rush Nails,Medical Rush Nails,Orthopedic Rush Nails
indianorthopaedic.com		 Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking...
independentliving.com		 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Spain traffic signal p4.svg Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments and look in the archives before starting a discussion. New topics for discussion are always welcome.
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Former good article Rush Limbaugh was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rush Limbaugh:
Priority 1 (top)
Peace dove.svg Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Green question mark icon. This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Unbalanced scales.svg Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

Contents

[edit] Conservative?

It is an insult to old-style Conservatives such as Barry Goldwater to describe Rush Limbaugh as one of them. I understand that he is what US Conservatism has turned into recently, but I believe that we need to be much more specific.--75.25.130.215 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is worrisome to think what conservatism would be without Rush Limbaugh. Time and time again, he has pointed out the dangers of pandering to the ideas of the Democrats and Liberals. Congressmen and Senators appeared to not listen and now those that based the ideals of the conservative party on pandering to the ideals of others are suffering politically for general lack of ideology. Real conservatism is based on personal responsibility - something long forgotten by the liberal left. Rush uses puffed up words like "excellence" and "right" to convey his all too correct insight on today's political events and people are glad (as shown by his ratings) to hear someone who isn't ashamed to be right "99.1% of the time". 72.54.93.138 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
^LOL74.140.210.223 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how reliable a broadcast's ratings are as a determinant of correctness (or even relevance). So You Think You Can Dance is watched by an incredible amount of people. It got an Emmy. And it's about dance crews. The number of people who think he's correct is completely irrelevant- A massive swath of the population thinks this planet was created in six days by a magical man several millenia ago, who took care to make sure the planet looked much, much older for some reason. Wait, that's a good part of Limbaugh's audience, actually. --King Öomie 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Painting with a broad brush, there. Either way, you're welcome to disprove what's said. Most people can't because it's true. Just because someone has different views than you, that does not make them incorrect (or more inclined to be incorrect). That's a huge problem, because most people write him off as being 100% wrong, simply because they don't like him. Do they make the effort to actually listen to what's said and consider that "Hm, this could be true..." rather than jumping to "Hm, well he used to be fat and had a drug problem... so obviously what he says carries no validity. My argument is done, I win." Gpia7r (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
^LOL again199.76.188.51 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Limbaugh says a lot of things that are factually in error. For example, "It's that there is no man-made global warming." (11-30-09 and plenty of other times). Statements like this contradict science, but he builds upon such errors with more errors. PashaNatanovich (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In error according to whom? Have you not been following the news for the past two weeks? The claim that man-made global warming exists has long rested on flimsy evidence, and some of the best of that evidence just went kaboom. Anything emanating from CRU, or relying on their data or research, must now be discarded, and the record re-examined without it. Are you still so sure of your position that you feel comfortable calling Limbaugh a liar for taking the opposite view? -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about his substance abuse or his weight. His views on science (and scientists) disgust me. Directly from the article- [1]. He doesn't think too highly of scientific consensus, either. --King Öomie 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to your connecting religious people to his viewership, and in turn to the correctness of him. I'm not religious, you're not religious, and religion is irrelevant to the discussion. The "massive swath" of people have to go somewhere to get truth (even if it's 99.3% accurate). The biggest disappointment is the media's lack of reporting, and blaitant lies. So, the passive-aggresive comparison of the type of person that listens to his show to the type of person that believes in a magical man (which only implies you believing they are complete dolts) isn't all that neutral and isn't really needed in a discussion you aren't required to take part in if you can't do it in a neutral way. The last lines in my previous comment were referring to the typical actions of media, not you personally. Gpia7r (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 That percentage keeps going up... =P Lies according to who? I mean, who has the facts? According to who? I feel like that second part is FAR more important. And I never said I regarded the fundamentally religious as 'dolts'. If that's what comes from being demonstrably incorrect (and unapologetic about it), though, then I suppose it goes beyond my opinion. But according to who? =D --King Öomie 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...Or should that be 'whom'? --King Öomie 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Science specifically does not allow for consensus. reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. Next I thought this was to discuss whether Mr. Limbaugh is a conservative. To that end: 1. Conservative - (Definition) a member of a British political party promoting free enterprise and private ownership. (Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, Copyright 1996, Oxford University Press, Pg 298-299). 2. By the definition provided on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism, The opinions expressed by Mr. Limbaugh seem to fall into the category of "Classical conservatism and economic liberalism".

    Sethklinefelter (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in prior discussions on articles like this one, the consensus has seemed to be to identify the subject as they label themselves. For example, Sean Hannity is labeled a conservative, even though some people feel he's a neo-con. Political definition is quite a grey area in some cases, so many editors allow the category to be self-defined. Otherwise, we're doing original research in analyzing the subject's views.
Please note I'm not saying consensus can't change here, I'm just clarifying for other editors how this discussion has wound up before. Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta Rush has apparently had some sort of heart event and is hospitalized in serious condition. But even though Google news lists 30 articles they all use a local TV station KITV as the source - its would be good if we could get another primary source before people descend on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfromatlanta (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No Rams or quote controversy?

Is there really no mention of the St. Louis Rams bid or the false quote controversy? All politics aside, these are pretty substantial news stories. If people want to make the argument that they aren't significant enough to warrant mention, fine, but the article currently mentions that Rush once appeared on Letterman (as has every celebrity on the planet), appeared for about 10 seconds on Family Guy, was on the cover of Cigar Aficionado, etc. How are those more significant? There is also a very long section on painkiller addiction, and a whole separate article on Barack the Magic Negro (which I realize is about more than just his show, but is still pretty Rush-centered). Doesn't a national, widely discussed news story like this get at least a few sentences? -R. fiend (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of inclusion, however, since Wikipedia/Wikiquote is kind of up to its neck in this thing, we have to be extremely careful. No self-sourcing of WMF, extremely neutral treatment, the most solid sources only, no original research. Basically, by the BLP book in the extreme. It's also a still-unfolding saga, so it wouldn't hurt to let the dust settle a few more days. - Crockspot (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I think much of that goes without saying, or should, at least. I see no reason why we can't have a brief paragraph covering the basic facts neutrally. I think the main problem is once we start people often wiki it up and turn a concise paragraph into a rambling, long-winded treatise attempting to cover every single aspect of the incident. I think we can probably prevent that, if we try. -R. fiend (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree this should be mentioned somewhere in the article, if only to make a point of debunking the false quotes that were attributed to Rush. People are going to look this up after hearing about the story, and our article should present a brief but clear and neutral summary. Now... who wants to be the one to try to write it? :) Robofish (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a story I've really been following, so I may not be the ideal person to write it, but I can give it a shot when I have a little more time. As I said, I'm just looking for a short paragraph of the basic facts, so it really shouldn't take too much expertise. The trickiest part I guess will be covering the false quotes, as where they originated will be pretty important to the section, and from my brief examination of the issue it seems that matter is still somewhat up in the air. -R. fiend (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed this page which is about the book from which the quotes in question apparently originated. It seems to cover the situation decently and fairly, though perhaps a bit more in depth than this article warrants, although much of it seems to me to be out of the scope of that article as well. I don't want to do a cut/paste, but perhaps a summary of that here, using the same sources (assuming they're good; I haven't really looked) would be a quick and easy way to cover the incident without doing a bunch of research. -R. fiend (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Missouri State University should be changed to Southeast Missouri State College, which is what it was called when Rush attended there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Missouri_State_University —Preceding unsigned comment added by PashaNatanovich (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Leader of the Republican Party

Why is this under "Controversial incidents". He did nothing. Rahm Emanuel made this statement. And what does the sentence "On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Emanuel" have to do with anything?Rlbarton (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who knows anymore? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that the dust has settled we can place it in the proper location. Soxwon (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, now that we've moved past them a little...

I think that the "Barack the Magic Negro" section, the "Operation Chaos" section, and the "Fail" section should all be re-evaluated for relevance. They're all really one shot incidents that generated little buzz afterwords. Perhaps the Barack the magic negro and Op chaos could be subheaded under "2008 election" and the Fail section could be combined with leader of Republican party? Soxwon (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

as a person who isn't really involved with this page, that makes sense.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the current division is fine. They're all noteworthy occurances that are well sourced. The "Barack the Magic Negro" and "I hope he fails" controversies are well sourced and occurred before the 2008 election and "Leader of the Republican Party" repsectively. -- User:Chelydramat This cursed Ograbme! 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Soxwon and Balloonman. Both sections need to be shortened and merged into a larger section. UnitAnode 06:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Content

In the paragraph: "Barack the Magic Negro" parody, is that really have anything to do with Limbaugh? I was just wondering because its in the Controversial Incidents. And quite frankly, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Mr. Limbaugh.Prettyflowers1 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes, of course it has to do with him! He plays it all the time. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but there's no question that it's his. -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion is a clear case of WP:Undue weight. Barack the Magic Negro is a Paul Shanklin song inspired by a March 19, 2007 Los Angeles Times column by David Ehrenstein. Limbaugh's association with the song is as a disc jockey and there are two other people and one newspaper that are more directly linked to this song. The argument that this needs to be included in Limbaugh's biography is comparable to an argument that every pop song from 1970 to 1988 needs to be documented in Casey Kasem's biography. --Allen3 talk 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Except that Shanklin is closely associated with Limbaugh. "Shanklin writes most of, and voices the characters for, the songs and satirical comedy segments used by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh." That doesn't make it clear exactly what their relationship is: does he work under contract for Limbaugh, does he write for the purpose of selling to Limbaugh, does Limbaugh give him the ideas he wants developed, or does he work entirely for himself and Limbaugh is merely a really big fan? -- Zsero (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the Paul Shanklin article, the idea for the parody was Shanklin's. If you have a source that says he works for RL, then it might be relevant. Otherwise, I would have to agree with Allen3. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't a fan of this: "Some groups and individuals have criticized Limbaugh's accuracy. The July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, a publication of the progressive group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), alleges 50 different inaccuracies and distortions in Limbaugh's commentary.[74][75] ". Progressive is marketing spin/a buzzword. Can we just say "liberal"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Liberal" is more than marketing spin, it's the outright hijacking of a term that used to mean (and still does in some countries) a generally libertarian/conservative policy. I think the modern use of "progressive" by the hard left harks back to the Progressive movement, which is at least honest of them. Anyone can look at the first "progressives'" record and judge for themselves whether it was benign or not. -- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Good point Zsero, but I would go one step further and say that instead of liberal and conservative, the labels should be progressive and libertarian. I think that that is more accurate, IMHO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Heart Attack Today?

Just saw on cnn.com he was in a hospital in hawaii with chest pains, listed in serious condition. someone want to add this?98.117.145.168 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Limbaugh Rushed To Hospital

http://www.khon2.com/content/news/developingstories/story/Rush-Limbaugh-in-Serious-Condition-at-Honolulu/sBGSbb4mO0q1VdQdEe4goA.cspx


paulfromatlanta I've added the heart even but we still only have one primary source - KITV a local station. The CNN report even sound a little skeptical saying that its a coincidence that it would happen while he is vacationing at the same time in Hawaii as "his nemesis"(CNN's words) We could still really use a second primary source as everything I can find right now leads back to KITV - specifically to http://www.kitv.com/politics/22094469/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulfromatlanta (talk • contribs) 03:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

paulfromatlanta Reuters, The NY Times and CNN allreport trying unsuccessfully trying to get a statement the hospital and from Rush's people with no success. I'm watching the DirecTV news mix and none of the news channels are covering it as more than a heart event and serious condition. I don't see how we can conclude he has died with current data. God rest his soul if he has passed. But this is an encyclopedia and we don't have a primary source. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

Paulfromatlanta CNN just went live to a reporter at the hospital who had an unidentified source saying Rush would be staying the night but that there would be nothing official tonight. So it looks like things are stable for the night unless something unexpected happens. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta

From RushLimbaugh.com, apparently an official "release""
ALERT: Rush was admitted to a Honolulu hospital today and is resting comfortably after suffering chest pains. Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes. He will keep you updated via RushLimbaugh.com and on Thursday's radio program.
Looks like he's going to be okay, so that's good. UnitAnode 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another Shiny Example of How Wikipedia is a Joke

[edit] Current event template

just added it, Article might need few "Reliably Sourced" statements Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • We're not a news website, so there's no need for that template, unless the situation either turns very grave, or (God forbid!) he dies. UnitAnode 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a for quick reporters glance source i have readded a reliably sourced neutral sourced non crystal ball statement Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
ok dont want edit war here i am dropping it Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
These post are almost incoherent. UnitAnode 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
i know i need to slow down when writing Weaponbb7 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is in the wrong section, anyway. "Recent events" is under the "Other media appearances section." Look for "Hospitalization for chest pains" in the "Personal life" section. Eegorr (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual

Rush worked on the Mutual radio network as the news reader on the Larry King radio program around 1981, beginning I don't know when and lasting I'm not sure how long. If someone has the correct dates it would be good material for Rush's work history. Rainbow-five (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed copy edit

This article is pretty rough in places, would anyone be opposed to me giving it a fair copy edit. I know alot of editors watch the article, but no one seems particularly dedicated to raising its quality. I am going to go ahead and start. It won't hurt my feelings if anyone wants to revert it all once I am done. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Unless you truly know what happened, DO NOT write facts about the hospitalization. Thanks, Old Al (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Radar online and Fark.com all just picked up WP's false announcement of Limbaugh's death.... C'mon you guys we have policies about verification of facts and increased level of scrutiny for biographical articles of living people for a reason...Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the false information was reverted within 6 minutes the first time, and within 11 minutes the second time. Compare that to how long it takes a newspaper to correct its errors, if it ever bothers to do so. Frankly I do not believe that the proprietors of either of those web sites actually saw the article during the two brief windows in which it was vandalised, unless they were behind the vandalism. If they went trawling through the history, then you can do the same on any article and find even worse things. Big whoop. -- Zsero (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked CNN or the New York Times didn't have a reputation for regularly declaring premature deaths of public figures. The whole point is one of verifiability. There should never have been a mistake to begin with vandalism aside. The "Big Whoop" is Wikipedia losing credibility as a source of information which in my opinion is a pretty damn big deal.Nefariousski (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It may not have been intentional vandalism. They cited this blog http://www.blancadebree.com/index.php/2009/12/rush-limbaugh-dead-at-age-58/comment-page-2/#comment-1038 - instead of punishment or limits on editors, it may require more education about what constitutes a valid encyclopedic source. Now its true there was an explanation as to why this was not a good source in Talk but lots of editors ignore Talk, unfortunately. Paulfromatlanta (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)paulfromatlanta
Anybody with the intelligence to know how to edit WP is intelligent enough to realise that that blog is not even on the same planet as a reliable source. -- Zsero (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I speak for many here when I say that I would appreciate it deeply if everyone cared as much for the integrity of Wikipedia as I do and not post their hate-filled wishful thinking as facts. -- TodKarlson 09:58, 1 January 2010 (Happy Ney Year!!!)
There's no indication that anybody did that. -- Zsero (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rush_Limbaugh"



Product Results (view all...)

search wiki for    ?
web dir firms image gallery news pdf wiki shop video 



↑ top of page ↑about thumbshots