Talk:Rio Linda, California

I do believe Rush started using Rio Linda because he drove thru the town and saw what a wreck it was while he had a show in Sacramento.
 * Correct. Rio Linda is between Sacramento and the transmitter site of KFBK, the station where Rush's show grew up.  There was no cancellation.  One day Rush drove through Rio Linda, which used to have, well, an image problem&mdash; he saw cars up on cinder blocks and used appliances and other trash in front yards, and chickens and dogs wandering the streets.  Rush's sarcastic sense of humor kicked in and the stereotype of Rio Linda residents as ignorant hillbillies was born.  Therefore the phrase "For those of you in Rio Linda…" is a euphamism for "To put this in terms so simple that even stupid people can figure it out…".  &mdash;RandallJones 01:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Limbaugh drove the length of Rio Linda Blvd., which travels through the slums of Del Paso Heights. It was here that he saw cars on blocks, abandoned appliances, etc. He's relayed the story many times, and it's painfully obvious to those who live in Sacramento that he's confused Rio Linda Blvd. with the physical town of Rio Linda.- 71.137.216.92 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a citation, I'll let your comment and edit (and similar edits) go unchallenged. I have lived in or near Sacramento since 1960, had friends in Rio Linda at the time Rush started using that phrase and visited there often, and listened to Limbaugh's show on KFBK from the third day it was on the air back in the 1980s.  Perhaps Rush changed his story in the intervening years, but I'm not speaking out of ignorance and it's not "painfully obvious".  —RandallJones 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush re-explained the story (30 November 2007) and said that people at the time told him that he just happened to go through the bad part. He also said that "Property values have since risen out there." It other words, he admitted that it never was bombed out in all places, and it's better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.176.224 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that Rio Linda is nationally famous for the ongoing reference by Limbaugh. This should be noted in the article. 75.3.224.153 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Limbaugh's comments are derogatory to the citizens of Rio Linda. I would take no issue with a comment similar to "Rush Limbaugh frequently refers to Rio Linda on his daily radio show." His direct quotations should be kept on Limbaugh's own Wikipedia page, if at all.

It doesn't mention Rush anywhere in this article. The only reason I looked it up was to see what he was talking about. By the way, guy above, you didn't sign your post. (BTW I fixed it) 174.51.88.115 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There, FIFY. There are a plethora of pages on Wikipedia that a plethora of people find offensive. This alone doesn't provide grounds for the POV omission of relevant and factual content. If you can show an example of where this is deemed acceptable elsewhere on Wikipedia, we might have something to talk about. Geeze, just look up a Wiki entry for any pejorative term. Also, if you could provide a reference for your assertion that the people of Rio Linda find Rush Limbaugh's mention on the Rio Linda wiki entry, it'd be worthy of note on the page. Still, not exactly grounds for removal. Ciao 75.171.160.103 (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere on Wikipedia will you find information that exists solely because of it's distinctly derogatory nature. Limbaugh's reference is both derogatory and offensive to the subject matter, and thus should not be noted in the wiki entry. It's used as a common technique of Limbaugh's however, and SHOULD be listed on his page. 69.108.1.73 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nowhere on Wikipedia" Wrong. Riverside Plaza. It's a redirect from "Crack stacks" BTW. You have no argument. 75.171.151.16 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're a fool. The Riverside Plaza article states that 50% of the complex is designated as low-income housing, and "A string of homicides in the early 1990s also contributed to a negative image." Citing the facts surrounding a subject is one thing. Citing a racist, drug addicted talk show host's opinions is another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.1.73 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you've made this debate personal but it's rather distasteful. You should know that your personal attack is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy.  You should review the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia", especially 2 (Wiki is NPoV), 4 (Interact in a CIVIL manner), and 5 (Wiki does not have firm rules).  You should also sign your posts.  Oh, and relax, it isn't personal.  Life is too short to come unraveled over a disagreement on Wiki. 76.25.25.109 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out the irony in your trying to remove Limbaugh's reference because you find it "offensive" and then coming into the talk page and write highly offensive remarks. Watch out y'all, the thought police are on patrol.  174.51.97.71 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Limbaugh reference is notable, sourced, and NPOV. I just got done digging through Wiki policy and no where do I see anything that would lead me to suspect that it's in violation. As such, until you can show me where it is, I will continue to maintain the page. 174.51.97.71 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How can it possibly be NPOV when you're referencing Limbaugh's personal POV? The article should contain factual details about the subject matter. Not the personal opinions of a celebrity. How does any content that Limbaugh has generated contribute to the source material? --75.48.14.15 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your revision is an acceptable compromise. 174.51.97.71 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Added reference for Limbaugh to make it easier for those whose query is directly related to Limbaugh's use of Rio Linda to find what they're looking for. 174.51.99.30 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Not relevant to this article, and appears to be WP:OR anyway" "same reasons. Discuss on talk before adding again, please." - Notes left on Article Edit by user who removed content without participating in discussion.

1) "Not relevant to this article" - This discussion is full of evidence to the contrary. If user wishes to create a separate section such as "References in Media" "In Pop Culture" etc. it is open for discussion.

2) "appears to be WP:OR" - Content referenced to a primary source. That the user did not bother to check suggests dubious intent.

3) "Discuss on talk before adding again" - This entire discussion board is about this issue. There is not a single comment here that does not relate to Rush Limbaugh.  That this argument even appears on the edits page for the article when the user who posted it has not commented in this discussion is disingenuous and further suggests user has dubious intentions.

Clearly, he neither bothered to check the reference or the discussion page before removing content. That is not how Wikipedia is intended to work and I have and will continue to revert any related edits by said user unless the community can reach consensus on the validity of his claims in this discourse. Aphek (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Using a primary source that has not been published in a reliable source is WP:OR. You would need a reliable source that this is an issue for the city.  This is an article about the city, and while a running gag on his show might be interesting to fans of his show, but has nothing to do with this article.  If you can find reliable sources that indicate this is important to the city of Rio Linda (not Rush Limbaugh), then please provide them here.  And finally, I would remind you that it is up to the editor seeking to add or restore material to get consensus before adding it again (it is not up to other editors to justify the removal).  Adding it without consensus or while discussion continues constitutes edit-warring.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This entire discussion page illustrates a dialogue that has progressed to consensus. Hence, I have reinserted the reference.  Here's why it's an issue for the city: The Rush references are mentioned at Rio Linda Online and Rio Linda Our Town (both external links from this page), and MyRioLinda.com.  There is a Facebook group called "Admitting you're from Rio Linda CA" with nearly 500 members.  A Google search of Rio Linda has mention of the joke in second, fourth, and fifth place on the first page alone.  Reading further shows that many people on the web, when mentioning they're from Rio Linda, add that "yes, it's the place Limbaugh talks about".  Rush' mentioning Rio Linda on air brings nationwide recognition to Rio Linda that it would not achieve otherwise. And as far as WP:OR, if that's the measure then we should probably remove the history section since it contains no references whatsoever.174.51.89.57 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposing views
I suppose that confronting opposing arguments is correct when no really neutral wording can be found. I added the following quotes in the reference section.

"I love the people of Rio Linda and I want to make sure they understand what's being discussed on the program, so I always will change or expand certain words' definition so they are not left out. It's an act of true compassion by a broadcast specialist."

- Rush Limbaugh

"He routinely mocked Rio Linda for its white-trash, trailer park ways - cars up on blocks, laziness and unemployment all around - or so he thought."

- Dwight Lang, lecturer in the sociology department at the University of Michigan, Rio Lindan and the son of a plumber.

Turesable (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice, although I don't see how "son of a plumber" is relevant but it doesn't seem to appear in the article so w/e. 67.6.129.142 (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right, "son of a plumber" is not relevant to Wikipedia, but it appears clearly in the article. "In 2005 I traveled home to bury my Dad - a World War II veteran, plumber and union organizer". Turesable (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Average salary...
...does not go in the lead. Work it into the Demographics section, in conformity with every other municipality-related article. PenitentWhaler (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really not know how to spell "salary?" How is this page legit? This is more like a blog than a factual page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.240.240 (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of salary has been corrected.