Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy/Archive 3

Sandra Fluke needs too keep her own page
To merge her with Rush Limbaugh is an insult to this young woman. Merge the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy to her page on Wikipedia.

She is an important and newsworthy person in her own right and I am betting we hear more from her.

Instead of merging everything towards Limbaugh as if he is the important one here is a negative to all women who are outraged by his conduct and who seeks to learn more about this woman. I just Google her today and her bio page is where I went, not his and not the controversy page.

Keep her page and merge the dispute to her page. This is not the end of this I feel and she certainly is news worthy for her advocacy.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The testimony added little to the overall debate, and was full of factual errors, couched in alleged heresay. Ms. Fluke's accomplishments are very modest thus far, and the story, while newsworthy BECAUSE of the controversy, is only newsworthy with it. The hearing was a minor staged event. She may become more significant, as she has political allies now, but that is speculation.216.236.252.234 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with everything this lady says, but to be fair, if "Joe the Plumber" gets his own page this person should too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarski (talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hearsay is allowed in congressional panels. So are factual errors. Not that you prove she did the latter. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed the point of the "testimony" debate. Hearsay, while allowed, must be sourced, if asked for, and is not given the same weight. False testimony in a Congressional Hearing is prosecutable, since "testimony" is always sworn. Factual errors or unchecked hearsay are only without consequence in a media event.209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Joe the Plumber" analogy is probably about right. Not important for any accomplishment or resume (and a list of toilets he fixed would also be irrelevant), but the media frenzy they briefly found themselves in (unless Joe wins his Seat). The coverage SHOULD be of the media coverage, not so much the person. Problem is beginning to be that the media flap (which is the only story) extends beyond Rush Limbaugh. Still nothing of substance added to the debate on either the conscience clause or on free contraceptives, but lots of talk. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems she has had a long career as an activist, which is probably why Democrats picked her over invited speaker Barry Lynn. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor correction; the Democrats didn't choose her over Barry Lynn, who was an excellent choice, and undeniably qualified. Barry Lynn was the only selection Democrats chose to make, is of course, a man, and cancelled at the last minute. Part of the problem with Fluke was that she was put forward after the agenda was set and without the opportunity to find out who she was. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Citation Fluke was suggested at too late a date? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious one is the Congressional testimony; the opening has a back and forth, where Issa gives the blow by blow. Admittedly, that is one version, except that in the testimony, Elanor Norton Smith confirms the chronology, as she does the history of Barry Lynn's testimony. Lynn's nomination and written testimony was submitted 2 days late, the day before the hearing. Norton Smith raises a point of order to support the last-minute inclusion of Fluke, by complaining that a last minute addition has already taken place, that of Lynn (she also confirms that that was late on the afternoon of the day before). Issa rejects the reasoning, agreeing that Lynn really shouldn't have been accepted either, since he was late, but that that was an accomodation to the Democrats. Lynn also later confirms in several places that his unexpected absence was not a mistake, but at the request of House Democrats (obviously, between the afternoon of the 15th when his testimony was submitted, and the morning of the 16th - last minute)to provide an excuse for a last-minute addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point Sandra Fluke's 15 minutes of fame as a 30 year old Georgetown Law Student is only a result of Limbaugh's statements and the reactions to them. She was not noteworthy prior to this flap and has done nothing of note to deserve her own page. Her page should be replaced with Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmgorey (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How many times on this page are you going to say that? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I voted to keep original separate page -- contrary to RmGorey POV "She was not noteworthy prior to this flap"-- since her public televised "ruffering" became fodder for public commentary on conservative and Roman Catholic media sites as soon as she was seen on CSpan (which I had linked to at her original page, when it only had still image no multimedia) -- if needed will provide Citations for relevance. MrsKrishan (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is not the most important person who insulted her or made this a controversy. This page is a farce and whitewashes all the other Republican efforts to slime her 76.21.107.221 (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Article must remain focused on the actual subject of the article
The subject of this article is the "Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy " and the content of the article MUST remain focused on the actual subject of the article namely the controversy about Limbaughs personal attack on Fluke. The fact that others have also made personal attacks on Fluke is irrel to the stated topic of the article and per WP:BLP and the deletion of the article on Fluke as a non-notable means that such irrel content CANNOT be included in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not all reaction to Fluke's comments amounts to "personal attacks", and "focus" does not require tunnel vision. The WP:COAT essay opposes "excessive" content about related content; it doesn't prohibit all such inclusion.  Your section blanking wasn't necessary. —ADavidB 16:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the deleted section, I have to agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. It seems to consist of little beyond personal attacks, and consequently a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely odd statement. We are not going to cover the debate because its participants engage in personal attacks? You want Wikipedia to act as if the personal attacks never happened? Extremely odd. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't all 'personal attack' nor was it all 'coatrack' content. BLP policy concerns unsourced or poorly sourced material, or libellous material, which wasn't present. —ADavidB 18:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are completely wrong about BLP being limited to only content that is not sourced "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages" That other people have made slanderous comments about Fluke, even if recorded in reliable sources, does not mean that they can be mentioned. This article is Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy - not A list of people who have called a student a slut. --  The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly okay, because the removed section was not sensationalitic, was not a vehicle for titillating claims, etc. This has been one of the biggest news stories in the US media for the past week. The idea that Wikipedia is going to damage Fluke's reputation by simply outlining the debate seems overwrought, if not concern trolling. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The section wasn't 'outlining the debate': it was a series of malicious personal attacks, collected together - none of which directly relate to Limbaugh. If there is any 'trolling' involved, it certainly isn't coming from people concerned with maintaining Wikipedia BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was summarizing from the banner atop this page: "... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed...." You continue to insist that only Limbaugh's reaction to Fluke's statements can be mentioned in this article, perhaps back to WP:COAT. Again, that essay argues against excessive tangential content, not all. Just because Limbaugh included personal attacks and slander in his criticism does not mean all other opposition to Fluke's controversial comments is slanderous and in need of removal. —ADavidB 08:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I said, the "unsourced material" qualifier is part of BLP, but by no means all of BLP.
 * When it comes to contentious information about living people, it is entirely the burden of the person wishing to include the content to show that it is actually directly relevent to purported subject of the article.
 * "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.";
 * "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. "
 * "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. "
 * "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
 * Even if you cannot bother to read the whole BLP, you should be aware of these "nutshells" as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom  13:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what BLP and COAT include, and still believe your blanking a whole section, and removing all but Limbaugh's criticism of Fluke's comments regarding contraception coverage, was not warranted. 'Relevance' wasn't absent, inclusion wasn't 'disproportionate', 'every detail' wasn't included, and others' disagreement with the content of Fluke's statement is not 'prolonged victimization'. —ADavidB 18:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the instruction/insights/wisdom. FYI: Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said he added four sponsors. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there third party sources? and do we know that they joined because of his statements re:Fluke or the response of others leaving because of Fluke? Because otherwise, new sponsors join shows all the time and their joining may just be coincidence. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's also the possibility that for popular shows, advertisers are on a waiting list because there are only a finite quantity of ad slots in any program. If some top-paying sponsors drop out, those waiting might come on board at a lower price, perhaps? If that's the case, the number of sponsors doesn't mean as much as the revenue they generate. It's possible that Limbaugh doesn't command as high a price anymore. Without an authoritative source, who knows? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with TheRedPenOfDoom. Exclusion of the widespread criticism of what Fluke actually said (none were irrelevant ad hominems - and if they were, should be edited out) implies
 * 1) that no media events (and that is what we are talking about) occurred between the speech and Limbaugh's words
 * 2) implies that there was no broader debate
 * 3) implies that Limbaugh simply yelled "slut" in the middle of something else, instead of taking up 3 days commenting on the media flap (which is what was described)209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * we are not talking about any "broader debate" - the article is about the "Rush Limbaugh - Sandra Fluke controversy". Were any of the others who called her a slut or a liar influenced to do so by Limbaugh's comments or the reaction to Limbaugh's comments? If so, their actions would need to be presented in that context ("Attempting to secure some of RL's listeners, Y also called her a slut (source) and X said that public support for Fluke was inappropriate because she was a liar(source)") Note that such claims would need to be supported by sources that make that analysis. --  The Red Pen of Doom  22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is so much commentary on this that we should be looking only to add tertiary sources at this point. Speciate (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with TheRedPenOfDoom. The section was a collection of strategically selected quotes by Republican commentators calling a non-public person names ("femme-a-gogue", "extortionist"...) and expounding on the cost of contraception, "religious freedom" etc. Classic COATRACK and BLP violations. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. The article is too narrow and lets other insults that were in the media, plus elected officials, off the hook.  Rush Limbaugh isn't an elected official, and while important, wasn't the only one nor the most important one.  76.21.107.221 (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * NOT at all. The "femme-a-gogue" and "extortionist" quotes are both from sources taking Limbaugh's actual argument, and stating that in addition to being inappropriate, the "prostitute" label was not the logical one, rather the ones they added......... Directly related to the controversy, but OK to leave out IF we agree this is NOT about any larger debate209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The twice-made section removals are here and here. Only O'Reilly's quote approached Limbaugh's 'slut' remark; the others had no 'slut' or 'liar' inclusion. Reason magazine editor Sullum (a Libertarian) began (in his referenced source) with a tie-in to this controversy and he questions Fluke's logic as it would translate to other freedoms. Staff writer McCormack wrote that Fluke's estimate of birth control cost was misleading; is that what's interpreted here as a 'liar' claim? Malkin's and Landsburg's quotes were rightfully removed. COATRACK opposes excessive inclusion of related matter, not all of it, and BLP also didn't require removal of the whole section's content. —ADavidB 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is liberal spin plain and simple
Why is this article here? Come on, even a few of the left leaning editors here must find this a bit too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.178.41 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is here because liberals think that by writing such useless articles, they can get Limbaugh off the air. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE  01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a horrible, biased, misleading article about an unimportant left driven flap. It is locked to prevent correction. Shameful. It should be deleted. 108.85.232.242 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57


 * No. That would deny the actions of the Republican committee members who denied her testimony before the full committee, who refused to attend the supplemental hearing, and the Republicans (such as Limbaugh) who have lied about her testimony.  It's important to have links to this stuff as it has happened, because later, it'll be harder to record and support with citations.  Maybe it won't be important later, but that's later.  It's still important now.  76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh.... She was never properly submitted as a witness, she did not want to speak on the topic of the Hearing, and Democrats knew she was an inappropriate last-minute submission. The Democratic press conference a week later was closed, by invitation only, since it was a Party event, not a Congressional hearing. Her speech was fairly insubstantial, only notable because of the media furor that was manufactured around it, and because it provoked debate.209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 209.6.69.227, are you being paid for your work here on behalf of the Republican party? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * People, focus, this page is for discussion of how to improve the article. Address content not contributor. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It sure is shaping up that way. I practically had to edit war just to get something simple changed to be more accurate (re: reason magazine). The article is turning into an out of control beast. I don't even want to touch it now. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the point, to wear an editor down so they quit. Then opposing views can be introduced unchallenged. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 19:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work; those that read can consider the Liberal or Truthful source. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive quotes
The entire article is one massive quote farm with simply one person or group after another say "Me too!!! I think its awful that he called her a slut."

The article needs more third party analysis of the actual impact and less of Wikipedia stringing together first party reactions. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work. I think it is very helpful to journalists, researchers, and the general public to have here a solid record of the first-hand remarks made by the various parties, all in one place. A media service does not do that kind of thing, so millions of people, when they want that information, can find it at their fingertips with Wikipedia. I think it has great value to simply provide all this information. If we have third party analysis that's fine, too. But I like the slightly awkward first-hand statements. Someone has to do this, and Wikipedia seems to be best suited to do so in the interests of providing information to and educating the public. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a quote compiling service. If "Someone has to do this, " it would be WikiQuotes and not Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I don't think that providing the full quotes of Limbaugh's statements and Fluke's response turns us into a quote compiling service. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if your statement is true, the quotes from RL and SF are only a very few of the gazillion quotes that comprise the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

First, quotefarm is not a policy or guideline. Second, Red's gonna have to get busy with editing out the quotes since he is casting stones. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this whole "article" is hogwash. I have little incentive to try to consoldate quotes for an article that shouldnt even exist. Everything of note is covered perfectly adequately in the lead. The rest is just lips flapping in the wind and can pretty much all be tossed.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, then report it then to the WP hogwash article police. This is all sounding conflicted. Since you have no interest besides getting rid of the article in "whole". Is this an attempted induced death buy a thousand cuts? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If thats the only way to get rid of the blubber- by applying each and every policy, guideline and good writing technique and encyclopedic focus over and over and over, then so be it. "I have made this [article] longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter." -- Blaise Pascal. I have the time. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well try the novel approach of applying an actual policy or guideline, and Pascal, please. Take the time devoted to wiki lawyering and get the editing, not bossing or whining. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * With that logic, why don't we just delete every page that we don't find personally engaging or important? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AGREE that this is a quotefarm. HOWEVER, the better solution, a short grouping and selective quotes, with a description of the type/context of i) Limbaugh statement ii) type of denunciation (PS - omit quotes aimed at someone other than Limbaugh) iii) new use of social media to promote Advocacy campaigns (which is actually the notable new aspect of the flap, not anything Fluke or Limbaugh said), though it SHOULD be easy, is going to run into partisan edit wars, regardless of how NPOV it is. Perhaps better to start on Talk page rather than editing 209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Limbaugh's and Fluke's quotes are fine. I think there needs to be some summarizing of the others.  Casprings (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The quotes are much more important than what one or another 'news' sources (often biased) say about the quotes. If the article becomes too long, reduce the 'news', not the original quotes! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have mistaken this for Wikiquotes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a place that records the importance and impact of items and places them in context. That requires analysis (which requires thirds parties to have done so) and not mere a random collection of "he said this" and "she said that" and "they said X in response". Thats NOT an encyclopedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom  13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you. However, in some cases quotations are preferred.  As per Quotations
 * In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example:
 * When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia".
 * I think for Fluke's and Limbaugh's comments this is what applies. Present what happened in full quotation and don't make opinion look like it comes form Wikipedia.  Casprings (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:QUOTATIONS is primarily about quoting sources and not specifically about quoting people, but even so, the section following the one you quote is as follows "'While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit. Overuse happens when: a quotation is used without pertinence. This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere."
 * This article is quote after quote witout any explanations. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red, your policy of complaining without offering solutions is becoming tendentious. We need some actual proposals from you. -- Ja Ga  talk 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree somewhat. There should be less quotes in the background and the responses.  Those can and should be summarized with the use of third parties.  I also think that you could do the same thing with Fluke's comments.  I just think that any summery of Limbaugh's comments will have bias.  That the best means to eliminate that is to simply provide the reader with what he said by using quotations. Casprings (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we at least agree to FIRST clean up the mess of an article by PROPERLY categorizing the responses. Social media and loss of sponsors is repeated in two categories. "Responses" is problematic, as most but not all either are duplicated in "Democratic responses" or are of people or orgs that SHOULD be under Democratic responses. After several stabs at editing down, got no constructive response, just editors hitting "undo" like an online voting machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that a reorg would help the article. But I'd like to propose first picking the lowest-hanging fruit; the Democratic comments by Maloney and Whitmer seem unremarkable, unlike the others that generated media attention. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think the article would be harmed by removing these two quotes. (Note: I don't think doing this "fixes" all problems with the article, I just think it could be a start.) The Gillbrand remark also seems unimportant unless its purpose is to point out that Democrats are using the controversy to help fundraising. -- Ja Ga  talk 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE go for it. Just a word of caution; hyper-partisans are out there; LABEL your removals, and it is probably best to do them one at a time (certain editors love to do massive reverts, easier to fix for legitimate reasons as well)209.6.69.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Gave an edit for the background section. I think it works but will see what you all think. Can move to other sections later. Casprings (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive Quote tag taken off today. Hope the quotefarm war is over, not just a truce.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluke is not just a random college student, or the financially strapped person that she claims to be.
So I added this to the article:

Fluke's fiance's father is Democratic stalwart William Mutterperl, who has made at least 56 donations to Democratic candidates or organizations, is a partner in Reed Smith's Financial Industry Group, and served as Executive Director of the Independent Oversight Board for Arthur Andersen, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

284rckq (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the article. Just to explain the deletion; you would have to show that this connection to a Democrat activist is actually RELEVANT to the whole Limbaugh-Fluke controversy, not just that it exists. Sure, there are connections to Hilary Rosen, Anita Dunn and the whole SDK crowd, plus several connections elsewhere, and there has been much political theater, but this article is really JUST about the inappropriate use of sexualized comments.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, your edits about how THIS use of sexualized commentary fits in the context of other such attacks on women politicians or advocates is, I THINK, productive, and have argued they should be in before. However, I should warn you; the Kirsten Powers and comparison material has been the subject of debate already. You might want to look at the Talk archives for previous discussions. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How does the information above matter? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Media drops - sponsors, stations, numbers - MAJOR cleanup due
First, good news. Looking at the article now and comparing to a few weeks ago, pretty good progress (though slow and hard) on collaboratively or contentiously cutting back the quotefarm on most sections. The Media section, even with "me too" quotes cut back still is rambling and unfocused. Think it needs major reduction through starting over, not an edit here and an edit there. Problems include

Media petitions were initiated BY SOMEONE. Specifically, ThinkProgress, Media Matters, Democratic Underground, Kos, etc... I would argue that a list of who INITIATED these is more important than partial random mentions of which advertisers. Particularly becomes important, as reports of numbers are SELFSOURCE ; no problem with mentioning the numbers war, but should give background of source.

Loss of sponsors. I know, it's been MUCH worse, particularly with the various waves of editors directed by campaigns to post initiatives on Wikipedia, but still, I think it is time to replace partial lists with summaries. The using WP to promote campaigns has subsided as well. The spotty and random listings of advertisers obscures the arc of the losses. Yes, I know the numbers war does as well, and we will have to deal with that, but basically, there was a VERY significant and rapid loss of sponsors from March 1-8, then a tailing off March 8-15, with little motion after that.

Loss of stations. Basically, when the dust has settled, two, on in HI and one in MA. All the rest need to be summarized, with a note as to what effects they produced, or edited out. Otherwise, need to explain larger issues (if we agree there SHOULD be a discussion of larger issues) brought up, such as censorship, public airwaves, etc., and the effect of this controversy ON the larger issues. If none, not notable.

Starting conversation HERE, instead of by BOLD editing (and fights which have ensued)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you have chosen to edit war your preferred version rather than following Wikipedia policy, hopefully another editor will come along and undo your unilateral blanking of large sections of the article which are not sufficiently obsequious to your ideology. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD no longer applies, since this has repeatedly been done. B is in Bold edits? yup, several editors have, and it is DESPERATELY needed. R as in Revert? yup, always by you and without any attempt to improve, just undo, plus usually accompanied by a gratuitous personal attack. D as in discuss? by everyone ELSE, yes, lots of editors have been willing to productively argue. See above TEN DAY OLD item in Talk that you DID NOT participate in. At this stage, the onus is on YOU to provide an argument, any argument to the above or other voluminous discussions on Talk or Talk archives, something which you do not do. Complaining (as you have done) that I extensively use Talk pages before editing really does not cut it.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

NUMBERS problem. Hsve a certain problem with getting this section to encyclopedic and NPOV standards. Much like the problem with giving the "number" of times Limbaugh insulted Fluke, there is a general description that I would assume consensus would agree needs to be in there, but a problem that there are competing numbers, and all from unreliable sources. In this case, the success of the concerted campaigns has been greater and better coordinated that previous efforts, and that needs to be noted. Finding a RELIABLE SOURCE that objectively can be said to have reviewed it is another matter. Mainstream media seems to have just moved on and forgotten the whole thing, and partisan parties on either side are the only place you get reports. Pretty easy in theory to sum up and give an overview, but without secondary source, no matter how NPOV, will get WP:OR tag. Any suggestions?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

FIZZLE problem. Clearly, Media Matters began spending significant amounts of money on March 22, to keep their advocacy campaign going, and these ad buys produced no results. If you wanted to choose "Waste of money or coup de grace", you'd have to take "waste". Problem is, sourcing the negative. If they had had any success, it would have been endlessly reported in all the partisan blogs, and it wasn't. If you want to check that nothing happened, you can easily google search. Problem is, this gets either WP:OR, though it is pretty easy to confirm, or WP:RS , since a dead campaign isn't usually considered news. Any suggestions of how to put this in?--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No updates, loss over--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"29 year old" [30] "and activist" [GLTBQ]
On 17 April 2012, a series of edits/reversions were made to add/remove the phrases "29 year old" + "and activist" as describing Sandra Fluke: "29 year old" was added/reverted three times, "and activist" twice. At present, both phrases are still removed. I don't understand the reasons for reversion; both phrases appear to be accurate from the material available, both seem sufficiently relevant to the topic (and brief enough not to "overweigh"), and neither is in any way defamatory. "29 year old" is surely NPOV; "and activist" is not detailed in the article, but seems to fairly and neutrally describe Ms. Fluke's known advocacies prior to her appearance at the U.S. House of Representatives. What is the objection to including these phrases? --Raven (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, being a 29 year old law student is completely unremarkable, but this fact was used by apologists for Rush's behavior as some sort of proof that the controversy was cooked up. Only a very ignorant person would be surprised that a 29 year old would be in her third year of graduate school. "Activist" is better applied to people like James O'Keefe who have a record of activities prior to their first national exposure. Speciate (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever arguments were based on her age, surely the mere mention of her age is NPOV. As for "activist," Ms. Fluke likewise had "a record of activities prior to {her} first national exposure" -- which probably is what got her picked to speak at the House, since it's unlikely any random "Georgetown law student" would have had so much to say to the point. --Raven (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have really strong feelings toward mention of her age, but I don't really see how it matters to include it. As for the activist thing, I think you have a better point there.  I agree it likely played a role in her selection to speak.  If there were a RS suggesting or speculating on it, it may be worth including a mention. - Xcal68 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually 29 isn't NPOV, but just wrong. She is 30. Wouldn't say that is necessarily RELEVANT, but if consensus grows, will dig out ref. Ditto for "activist". Seems innocuous, but filling out her biography becomes contentious quickly, so urge caution. Good luck.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * On a quick Google, found a birthdate for her of April 17, 1981... which means she "is" 31 now :) to be accurate :) ... but indeed was 30 at the time under discussion. Accordingly, please consider the phrase "30 year old" to be the edit in question. --Raven (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI; remember, there WAS contention about her age when Dems initially reported it as 23. Don't really want to get into that again.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was probably just a mistake. Ya, lets not get in to that.  :)  - Xcal68 (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No real point in discussing the confusion (not a major issue, is it?), but the fact that confusion existed or may still exist on that point makes mentioning her age all the more useful, to answer the question. --Raven (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Over 24 hours passed allowing for comment, and I don't see any actual objection to adding "30 year old" or "and activist." Since Ms. Fluke has no separate article on herself, this appears to be the one place those details can be given -- as distinct from Rush Limbaugh, who has his own article, where the first detail given after his name is his birthdate. (Twice, actually, in the text body and in the photo box, which also gives his current age of 61.) We give his age, we should give hers. Adding age and activism as two separate edits, for the convenience of anyone who still insists on reverting "and activist" but not necessarily "30 year old." --Raven (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Go for it. Only problem is, once you put in "activist", then the qualifier; and she is mostly a LGBT activist, at least according to every source referring to actual activism in her past. Feel free to discuss here first. Personally, I like it because it is more accurate, and makes Limbaugh look more ridiculous, but pro-Fluke partisans seem to object. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the examples you can already find on Talk or Talk;Archives, []--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First, you should have a minimal comprehension of WP policies by now; sourcing is required in the article itself, per WP:V. Biographical assertions require high-quality sources, per WP:BLP. And you must not synthesize material, per WP:SYNTH. The Georgetown source does not say that she was an "LGBT activist"; it says she was a former Vice President of the Law Center's LGBT student group. (Would you conclude that the editor of the school newspaper is a "journalism activist"?) Reverted per stated policies and WP:BRD; obtain consensus before re-adding. AV3000 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with taking down the whole "activist" phrase. On the other hand, "activist", without ANY qualifier is OK, but leads to POV push. Your stretch of what her Chair_ship of Outlaw MIGHT not mean is a little silly, but as to Reliability, yes, Georgetown publications are reliable as to what a student IS, AT GEORGETOWN. For instance, PIRG Scholar needs no other source than Georgetown, student activities, ditto (though usually not very Relevant) while reports of pre-Georgetown activities have a sourcing problem when from University non-scholarly sources. You are mixing up the two. Similarly, you are ignoring that the nature of her activism has come up MANY times in Talk page discussion, not just in the previous paragraph. LGBTQ is perfectly consistent, and the most accurate, as is feminist. Women's rights moniker is only really by Democrats who want to make her something other than she is. I don't think she should regard LGBTQ or feminist as an insult, unless YOU are saying there is something WRONG with that.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes, Outlaw at Georgetown Law Center is different from the Undergrad LGBTQ groups in existing primarily for ADVOCACY. Which makes sense, given that it IS a Law school.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Tend to defer to Raven as to whether this discussion is necessary; how much do you want "activist" in, and in lead or body? --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please confine yourself to facts and policies rather than incorrectly inferring what other editors believe. Of course the Georgetown source is reliable for what it states, which does not include that she's an LGBT activist. As for the rest of your comment, WP:PROVEIT by citing reliable sources in the article. AV3000 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Facts and policies have been EXTENSIVELY discussed in the voluminous Talk (and now, Talk archives) pages; I would (again) strongly suggest you read them; it makes for an informed discussion. We are talking about what Fluke "was" at the time of the Limbaugh insults, and there are much-discussed issues of relevance or notability about "activism" at all. Mostly, she was unknown, and had a thin CV, so the background is a bit of a cobble. However, if you allow the "activism" part, pretty much all of it is GLBTQ activism, going back to Cornell. AGAIN, perfectly happy with leaving the whole thing out, perfectly happy with re-hashing past arguments, but FIRST want to know if people really want "activist" in at all, and if editors want a tag to that. Otherwise, re-hashing arguments seems a waste of time.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to mention she was a 29 year old activist, for what it's worth. It has been mentioned extensively in media reports already--that shows notability. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't have a problem either, as long as it stays there. VERY few refs pre-Limbaugh, lots after, and they reflect competing POV narratives people want to attach to her, after the fact, not what she was  at the time. Hopefully, in a month, she will no longer be a student, but article will still refer to her as such. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated page to reflect new age (aka FORMER 30yr old)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sub-article, BLP, & NPOV
Given that this article is a sub-article of the article Rush Limbaugh and is about events regarding two living persons and about a highly controversial subject I am nominating this article be checked for adherence to WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think is the most troublesome POV issue? – Lionel (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what prompted this? What is biased about the article? What was it that you saw as biased that led you to place a tag on it and ask for it to be checked? I think the piece is mostly fine. I generally find tags like this to be annoying, so let's please wrap this up. The check, I think, could have been carried out very simply without a tag being placed on the page. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost too many to mention. For instance, there seems to be a complete divergence in the partisan pro-Fluke editors' stance on what should be included. The Limbaugh commentary was over 3 days and included mocking many aspects of Fluke's speech.

Agreement and consistency on scope of controversy
IF there is consensus that it is the "slut" and "prostitute" comments and the $3000 contraception bill and the advocacy of "free" contraception that are the PRIMARY parts of the controversy, fine, let's edit on that basis. Problem is, certain editors want to use that as a basis to limit explanation of what Limbaugh said, (which on its own is fine), but then want to expand the various "Fluke" sections to go into areas that they are simultaneously limiting elsewhere. For instance, the Fluke speech is not notable on its own; if the controversy is limited to the above possible consensus, then the biography is irrelevant, as is the description of parts of the speech that are NOT part of the primary controversy, such as P.[c].O.S. (polycystic ovary syndrome - clearly not part of the controversy). Fluke's own characterization of her own speech at the end is just silly as an inclusion.


 * I see, you want readers to be completely ignorant of the subject matter that resulted in Limbaugh's tirade. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Trying to be more sympathetic, I guess that your argument is that Republicans should be the ones to define what the controversy was about. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and WP:VANDALISM are not constructive editing. If you want to show WHERE Limbaugh commented on polycystic ovary syndrome, and the reaction or controversy over it, be my guest. Otherwise, WIKIPEDIA editors have reached consensus that though interesting, most of those commentaries were by persons OTHER than Limbaugh, and the CONSENSUS on Wikipedia (mostly argued by hyper-partisan Fluke supporters such as yourself) has been that criticisms of Fluke's lack of understanding of medicine, logical flaws, misrepresentation of the Georgetown insurance rules, etc, which used to be a whole section, should be deleted as not RELEVANT to the ACTUAL subject, the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy. Personally, could have gone either way on the previous discussions of RELEVANCE, but IF that is the decision of WIKIPEDIA editors, and is logical and defensible (which there is no doubt it is, even if differences of opinion can exist), then will ABIDE BY THE DECISION. Arguing opposite sides depending on whether it suits your partisan bias AT THE TIME make and editor a HYPOCRITE, which has no business on WP. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you type one sentence without faithfully spouting GOP talking points like a paid PR hack? Your comments on this talk page have been at least as partisan as anyone's, so I assume that based on your own arguments that you will recuse yourself from future edits OMG VANDALISM. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The "controversy" is over the fact that RL repeatedly over a 3 day period called someone a slut. Details about the hearing etc. etc. are at best tangential and do nothing to help the reader understand why he called her a slut or the fact that people reacted strongly to the slander. In fact they distract from that issue. If in fact the actual topic of this article is the House oversight committee hearings on mandatory contraception, then we have an entirely different article to write, and one in my opinion that is far more encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fluke's testimony is central to the topic. Limbaugh called Fluke a slut because Fluke wants contraception covered. A summary of Fluke's testimony shows that Limbaugh's point is nonsense. It is completely understandable that Limbaugh's anonymous supporter INSISTS that this information be removed from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That Fluke made comments at the session, yes, that is obviously central to the "controversy". Everything else about the conference? How does that impact or shine light on the fact that RL called someone a slut and that people were upset at the slander? -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my reversion of one of 209's edits, in response to which he has been aggressively spamming this talk page with nonsense. Apart from that, I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't think that 290 should continue his campaign to remove relevant material from the article in order to make Rush Limbaugh look better, if that's what you're asking. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This entire section Rush_Limbaugh_–_Sandra_Fluke_controversy is essentially meaningless to the purported actual topic of the article - the controversy over RL calling someone a slut and the public reaction to the slander. (any potentially relevant items are covered again in the subsequent section) -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that section can go. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And now I ask you to consider the encyclopedic value of "John called Mary a slut and people were upset about that." vs details about a hearing about a law that will fundamentally change the health care system in the US. This article is FUBAR. 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then stop wasting everyone's time and nominate it for deletion again. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The section on the real Congressional Hearing IS overlong, true, but it is so because of the partisan warring; to get it to some semblance of NPOV, you have to put in lots of facts, instead of summary, unfortunately, so that partisan arguments are not given too much weight, and that still doesn't work. HOWEVER, without the staged walkout, the manufactured outrage at witnesses, and the attempt to change the subject, we wouldn't know who SF is, and no Limbaugh commentary. The discussion of the real Hearing should be in "Conscience Clause" or "Free Exercise Clause", since the topic has little to do with RL-SF. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gothean; wow. just wow. Have to admit, your response (I don't think your irony was intended) elicited a spit-take. The whole SF flap is nothing but an attempt (a VERY successful attempt) to change the subject. In true SF fashion, you did not answer any question, but changed the subject. To REPEAT
 * How is polycystic ovary syndrome part of the RL-SF controversy.
 * Is the subject of "RL-SF controversy", by consensus (BTW ; please READ before revert) narrowly confined to the "RL-SF controversy" in need of expansion into other areas as you advocate, and if so, why?

You are welcome to find a Republican politician who is championing these issues, from whom I obviously get talking points. Wow. Just Wow.


 * Every single one of your edits have been to water down this article and to put Limbaugh in a better light. It is telling, unsurprising, and predictable that you want to remove all information about the content of Fluke's speech, since her speech shows Limbaugh's tirade to be based on a lie. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole SF flap is nothing but an attempt (a VERY successful attempt) to change the subject.
 * Thank you for yet again exemplifying my contention that you are incapable of commenting without spouting GOP talking points like a paid PR hack. Your political beliefs are at odds with the mainstream media coverage of the article and your attempts to enshrine these beliefs in this article are at odds with Wikipedia NPOV policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If we could return to the Republican all-male plot to get Gothean back to the point, To REPEAT
 * How is polycystic ovary syndrome part of the RL-SF controversy.
 * Is the subject of "RL-SF controversy", by consensus (BTW ; please READ before revert) narrowly confined to the "RL-SF controversy" in need of expansion into other areas as you advocate, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments by typing four tildes. I have already explained how summarizing Fluke's speech is central to the topic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for again answering a real question with an interjection on the unrelated subject of Wikipedia markup language. You really "Fluked" that question. What was the subject? Oh yes. To REPEAT
 * How is polycystic ovary syndrome part of the RL-SF controversy.
 * Is the subject of "RL-SF controversy", by consensus (BTW ; please READ before revert) narrowly confined to the "RL-SF controversy" in need of expansion into other areas as you advocate, and if so, why? 209.6.69.227 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information about polycystic ovary syndrome

Okay, we have three editors persistently removing the information about the content of Fluke's speech.  This is the speech which sent Limbaugh into a three-day frenzy of defamation. Remember: this article exists because the contents of Fluke's speech made Limbaugh attack Fluke as a slut and a whore. However, Fluke's speech undermined Limbaugh's attack because Fluke was talking about students who are prescribed contraception due to a disease, not because they want to have sex. Limbaugh deliberately ignored this part of Fluke's speech. That is why it is absolutely essential that this information be in the article. Because this is what Limbaugh lied about. This information cannot be removed from the article, as its removal completely distorts the narrative. This information is absolutely central to the article. Do not remove the information. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so at least you admit that polycystic ovary syndrome was NOT a significant part of RL's commentary, that he did NOT call her a slut because of her story on POS. So according to you, the most significant parts of SF's speech are the ones that RL did NOT mention, that he did NOT use sexist language to dispute, that did NOT become part of the RL-SF controversy, which, according to your reasoning are therefore critical to be included in the RL-SF controversy, because they do NOT relate to it. I don't think a snarky punchline is necessary. It writes itself.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, what about the Fluke dismissal of the Title X federally funded free contraception outlets that are as common in Washington as convenience stores? In her Kennedy-Townsend speech she elaborates that it is the ORDEAL of a 20minute bus ride to get out of the expensive, exclusive, wealthy neighborhood of Georgetown that OBVIOUSLY makes Title X untenable. It's a laughable assertion, much mocked by all, including RL, BUT not one that elicited sexist language. Therefore, by consensus, NOT in this article. On the other hand if you want to talk about the LOGIC of RL's comments, that opens up to inevitable inclusion of all the legitimate, reasonable, and utterly withering mainstream panning of the poor quality of Fluke's argument. As has been said, there used to be a whole section, which WP consensus agreed would be left OUT of this article. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not modify my talk page comments as you did here. It is a violation of WP:TALK. Anonymous editors can be and have been blocked for repeated violations of Wikipedia policy. Do not remove the information on polycystic ovary syndrome. There is no consensus for the removal. To remove the information gives credence to Rush Limbaugh's thoroughly dishonest argument that Fluke is a slut and a whore and needs contraception in order to have sex. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you are now arguing that there should be a substantive, factually sourced section on whether Sandra Fluke ACTUALLY IS a slut or prostitute, presumably citing evidence of sexual practice?? Seriously????? NOBODY, even including Limbaugh, even when he was speculating that the content of her speech might be taken to have "outed" her as a slut ACTUALLY implied or stated that he or they knew anything about her ACTUAL sex life. At least you are finally on point with regards to this section, but I don't think any other editors will agree that is within the scope or editorial consistency of this article. Wow. Again. Just Wow.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps time to get back to the point. There are TWO defensible editorial positions to take on the scope of this article
 * 1)That a slut-off fight sparked a debate on contraception which no-one was prominently engaged in at the time, (drowning out the debate on conscience clause that WAS happening) and the broader issues brought up should be discussed. This is opposed mainly because Fluke really didn't add much to the debate, and that means this article has to include substantive criticisms of her REALLY REALLY bad speech, BTW, including parts of the 99% of Limbaugh's shows that did NOT involve bad words. Problem is, a few paragraphs of the many dissections of the Fluke speeches, and she pretty much looks like a ill-informed simpleton.
 * 2) dissection of Fluke's speech or support for the non-slut parts of Limbaugh's shows are IRRELEVANT. The article is ONLY about the inappropriate sexualization of the debate. No matter HOW sophomoric her speech, by working "blue", Limbaugh shuts down debate in an unfair way and should be criticised, and was by people of all political stripes. If that is the editorial focus, then side discussions of POS, other commentators, etc, are outside the scope of this article. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing the information about the content of Fluke's speech gives readers a false impression regarding the intended use of the contraceptives, a false impression which gives credence to Limbaugh's dishonest tirade. Do not remove the material about polycystic ovary syndrome. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Goethean is right. That part needs to stay. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Gothean; You are getting stranger and stranger. NOW you are telling us that contraceptives are NEVER used for contraception???????? I'm pretty sure that Fluke admits, and even mentioned in her speeches, that contraceptives CAN be used for contraception. You are saying that the lead is unclear in that Limbaugh, WITH CERTAINTY was referring to use of contraceptives ONLY for non-contraceptive uses, and somehow a sane person might be confused into thinking that he was referring to use of contraceptives FOR contraception. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * IP209, your last few comments appear to be written under the influence of alcohol or something else. I think it's time to back off and take a breather. You're getting too emotional and are creating multiple straw man arguments that don't contribute to a decent discussion. You simply are not making sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal insults and hitting the undo button like an online voting machine add little. To repeat an consistent pattern (hoping that with BullRangifer it will have a more rational effect that is clearly beyond Goethean), I will make a reasoned argument, hoping that you will make one as well, where these SHOULD be made, on the Talk page. Limbaugh did not mention (much) POS. It was NOT the source of the "slut" remarks. It is not a major part of the RL-SF controversy, nor mentioned in secondary sources. If you think it is, please explain below, but bear in mind that you are advocating an expansion of this article BEYOND the consensus scope of the article. This is not a question of whether you agree or "like", we have already gotten that simpleminded response.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1 Month later; BullRangifer / Brangifer has STILL not made any argument on Talk pages.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * THe point is that he called her a slut and he mischarterised her comments. If you look at the totality of his comments, it is clear what he was suggesting she said to Democratic members. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0 .  To give some context to the testimony, including providing the reader with that one central story is important.  I think it stays.  Casprings (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IP 209, There's really no consensus going on on this talk page. The only thing that even comes close is the debate over Fluke's biographical information/own article, which still has numerous editors fighting for both sides. However, that debate lead to the exclusion of Fluke's biographical information, not the exclusion of the content of her remarks. Also, the info under debate does pertain directly to this controversy as part of the controversy is that he mischaracterized Fluke's comments. (Jonathanfu (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC))


 * AGAIN; We don't have all of Limbaugh's remarks. In addition to the really nasty comments, he also made many good critiques of mandates. We don't care. They are not nor should be in this article IF we are sticking to the editorial consensus that this is ONLY about the RL-SF controversy, since those analyses did NOT provoke or add to the controversy. Similarly, we don't have ALL of the sayings of Fluke, just the ones RELEVANT to this article. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

removal of POV characterizations to "commentary"
Editor keeps pasting "all-male" all over the Congressional Hearing page. True, this was the Democratic talking point, and needs to be mentioned as such, but is a secondary property of the panel, and NOT a property of the hearing as implied. The primary characteristic of the first and second panels were based on subject matter, and therefore clergy/theologian/need for conscience clause and lay/interested party/effects of conscience clause. To put "all-male" everywhere, and FIRST is to imply that the panel was chosen TO BE all-male, blatant POV. Furthermore, this editor keeps putting "all-male" next to Rep Cummings remarks, which is just simply FALSE information. Cummings' speech was at the end of the second panel, and his complaint that the "hearing" did not include women (factually untrue - only one panel) was delivered to a pair of bewildered WOMEN panelists.

To put this more clearly. Would it be NPOV to describe the Democrat press conference as "convened a panel excluding Jews, blacks, Hispanics, men, and any non-leftist feminist witnesses"? So why is it NPOV to primarily describe a clergy panel as "all-male". Both are equally POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation of quotes, sorting of relevance
Reaction to RL or loss of Advertisers repeatedly becomes an announcement page, not a reporting/encyclopedia page. An initiative is not notable. If it SUCCEEDS, and ONLY then, does it become notable. resume this thread later
 * There are plenty of "initiatives" that dont succeed (or havent yet succeeded) that are notable. This incident, however has not produced any impact outside of the media frenzy around the RL show. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion itself is indicative. Many things "happen" that don't really "happen." The exposition of various viewpoints on a contentious topic, and media events that catalyze them, is sufficient material for an article. At least that is my reading of this. We're not concerned with judging the objective validity of disputative politics, merely that reliable sources carry the claims and counter-claims. The hijacking of public debate for a period of time is a definition of notability. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that is not already / cannot be adequately covered in the RL article itself. There are no sources that I have seen the cover the "media frenzy/hijacking of public debate" itself to show that it has a notabilty. If the article was actually sourced to third party meta analysis and covering that, we would be having a different conversation. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

,, and several others cover to some degree the "change the subject" significance of the controversy, that Limbaugh made into a less minor, month-long gab fest. HOWEVER, I was talking about the notices in among the quotes that are actually notices that someone is "beginning" a campaign. These are not significant unless they work, and thus far only coordinated social media campaigns in combination with Democrat/Liberal messaging have produced a single effect, namely a 3 week lacuna in advertisers and a small decrease in the number of stations. For instance, Media Matters posting the paid-for ad campaign in the form of a Wikipedia entry in this article probably had more effect than the media campaign itself.209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps time to consider further trims--209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Or an afd and merge a summary to RL main article. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Try it again on Thursday, probably easiest.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

dinner
why is this not a big issue anymore?184.98.125.243 (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would be able to provide some more detail on what you are referring to? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

yes
sorry, i was just wondering why this isnt locked anymore after it has faded, who locks and unlocks the pages, is it only admins?184.98.125.243 (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Loss of sponsors and stations
I would suggest that this would be a far better edit to the current section. As written now, it badly need summery.

In response to Limbaugh's remarks an online and social media campaign was started to encourage Limbaugh's radio sponsors to stop advertising on his show. Many liberal groups took part in the campaign. For example, Media Matters, a "liberal watchdog group," began a paid ad campaign on March 22 to sustain the online campaign against Limbaugh. The group spent over $100,000 in various markets, to encourage more stations to drop the Limbaugh show. After Limbaugh's apology, the exodus slowed but did not stop, with competing number counts in the dozens. Several advertisers also clarified that they "did not intentionally advertise" on the show, either running ads in news segments next to the Limbaugh show or being held responsible for local affiliates' local buys. Two Stations KPUA, a talk radio station serving Hilo, Hawaii, and broadcaster WBEC in Pittsfield, Massachusetts discontinued Rush Limbaugh show. However, Clear Channel Communications, the owner of Premiere Networks and a large number of Limbaugh's affiliates, has reaffirmed its support for Limbaugh, whose contract runs through 2016,.

The cost of the boycott is difficult to determine. Lew Dickey, the CEO of Cumulus,stated that it cost his company "a couple of million bucks in the first quarter and a couple of million bucks in quarter two." He claimed that the losses accounted for one percent of the 3.5 percent loss in revenue that Cumulus suffered over this period. Cumulus airs his show on 38 stations around the country.

Casprings (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lots of effort went into cutting the article down to a reasonable size, and the time might be right to condense the sectio to a 2-paragraph summary, just not THAT one. It mixes up chronology, or leaves it out (the paid campaign produced no effect, and was basically after everything was over). The "cost" quote is probably one of the parts that needs trimming, since it is a bit questionable (even says so in the report), since Cumulus only carries Limbaugh on a few stations, and is promoting a competing program. No support for including Limbaugh's contract details, unless they are related to the RL-SF controversy.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternate version of the edits needed to condense this section
In response to Limbaugh's remarks several online and social media campaigns were created by left-leaning advocacy sites, such as Democratic Underground, Media Matters for America, Daily Kos, Think Progress, and The Huffington Post, to encourage Limbaugh's radio sponsors to stop advertising on his show. As a result, by March 3, over a dozen advertisers  had discontinued their sponsorship. After Limbaugh's apology, the exodus slowed but did not stop, with competing number counts in the dozens. Several advertisers also clarified that they "did not intentionally advertise" on the show, either running ads in news segments next to the Limbaugh show or being held responsible for local affiliates' local buys. Two stations, KPUA, a talk radio station serving Hilo, Hawaii, and broadcaster WBEC in Pittsfield, Massachusetts discontinued airing the Rush Limbaugh show.

A March 28 post-mortem on the end of the campaign by The Washington Post concluded

"Exactly one month after the conservative radio host sparked outrage ... stations are standing by him, advertisers are trickling back to his program and the news media have moved on ... Angelo Carusone, who has been leading the anti-Limbaugh efforts for Media Matters for America, a Washington organization ... acknowledged that outrage is hard to sustain."

What other sections could also be trimmed?
Looking at the various "Reaction" sections, large parts are nothing but lists of adjectives with quote marks around them. Since we are talking about trimming the "Losses" section, probably the "Reactions" should be next. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Defense of Limbaugh
The article as currently written includes multiple remarks made by those critical of Rush Limbaugh during the controversy but very little about those who came to his defense, such as fellow talk show host Mark Levin. The article should do more than just catalog opposition. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past, this article HAS had sections on support for Limbaugh. Problem is, that support was usually partial, most commonly supporting his critique on substance, but condemning his choice of words. There weren't all that many major figures that simply said the use of words were OK; Bill Maher, Ed Scultz, Levn, Malkin were the only ones I remember. Since the "slut" controversy was not really about any substantive issue beyond the inappropriate nature of using sexist language during public debate, most of the substantive debate has been excluded (therefore deleting all the Limbaugh-supportive commentary).


 * I would also add that on the issue of use of "slut" language, I don't think the slant that there was overwhelming condemnation from all sides is unfair. When we also include the substantive issues underlying Limbaugh's critique, Fluke looks like a bit of a simpleton, and that detracts from the limited subject of THIS article. On the other hand, there IS a Sandra Fluke page where critiques of her very bad speech might be appropriate.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women see also link
My opinion is that having the link there is a WP:POV issue, especially since having the link could & will be construed as Wikipedia saying that this case is an example of the war on women. If you want to include a link to the article then there will need to be a discussion (here, then in the article) about the link and how the war on women relates to the subject with reliable sources. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording should not state that this is part of the war on women. However, I would also state that the page is related to the war on women, as a large percentage of people see this as part of it.  So wording that adknowledges that fact, but also does state that it in fact part of the war on women.  Casprings (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources to support "a large percentage of people" seeing the connection? —ADavidB 05:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pages of them. Google Search "Sandra Fluke" "War on Women" . Casprings (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the Sandra Fluke article. Specific reliable sources (not necessarily a general list of Google search results) need to support linkage of this article's controversy with what is known as the war on women. —ADavidB 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Casprings have a read through Verifability it will give some more info on what User:Adavidb and I are looking for. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Taken awhile to get back to this.  Looking for sources that show that some people see this as a war on women, right?


 * WP: Limbaugh, Fluke and the GOP’s 'war on women’


 * CBS: GOP Shows True Priorities With War On Women


 * I can show more, but I am not sure what you are looking for. I think it is clear that the some on the left see this as part of the "war on women"  One should at least adknowledge that fact.  Casprings (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You had written above that "a large percentage of people see this [Limbaugh–Fluke Controversy] as part of [a war on women]". Here, you're writing that "some people see this as a war on women".  While some people have linked the issues, emphasizing political differences, I don't know that it warrants inclusion of a "See also" link. —ADavidB 17:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How about a sentence that acknowledges that some see it as part of the war on women? Casprings (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Come up with a neutral sentence/paragraph which has or more reliable sources and I'll take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really necessary; already have Democrats in the "Democratic" Response section using the catch phrase. If you selected Democrat responses arbitrarily, instead of picking and choosing, probably 80% would have said "Republican War on Women" at some point, or "leader of the Republican party". If we are condensing and summarizing the Response sections, I would emphatically endorse saying something along the lines of "Democrats responded by condemning Limbaugh as sexist or misogynistic, and trying to link his comments to the Republican Party and an alleged "War on Women", to replace the uninstructive random quote words.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Some" is considered a "weasel word" so specific attribution is needed. —ADavidB 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, with reference to the Article's edit history; the Democrat Response used to be a whole page(s) long, and almost every response had the phrase "war on women" in it AND (correcting the "or" above) "leader of the Republican party". Finding WP:RS for that is no problem, it is in the edit history. The apparent current variety in response is a result of massive trimming; redundant comments by Democrats were edited out, what little variety there was was left in. Probably better to summarize, which would be easy, and would involve those two phrases, plus maybe a list of Democrats.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Does This Work?

Many public figures and organizations rejected Limbaugh's comments as sexist. Some considered it part of the war on women.  Georgetown University president John DeGioia said Limbaugh's description of Fluke was "misogynistic, vitriolic"; 130 members of the faculty signed a letter supporting Fluke. The National Organization for Women called Limbaugh a "bigoted bully" using "hate-filled speech" to "shame a young woman" for her views. They also called on Clear Channel to drop his show. Rachel Maddow said Limbaugh was trying to fan outrage, and his attacks seemed to be based on the idea that the cost of birth control pills is proportional to the amount of sexual activity.


 * Casprings (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not even close. Putting "War on Women" in the section lede represents that this was a non-partisan response. Yes, I know NOW and Maddow arguably should also be under "Democrat", but compromises are messy, and we have left it as is. The phrase was already in the selection of quotes, though the editing process has resulted in something of a misrepresentation on how universal the "war on women"'s use by Democrats was. Again, condensing the whole "Response" section by summarizing Democrat responses, summarizing Republican responses (both very easy), and perhaps cutting down the ones outside of those sections would be productive, not adding non-specifically-attributed talking points.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Casprings added the sentence to the article, and I expanded it to identify NARAL and Sally Quinn as holding a belief that this controversy was part of a 'war on woman'. 209.6.69.227 reverted my edit. On re-reading the references, I see why.  While Quinn wrote that she understood why the Obama administration would say Limbaugh's action was part of a 'war on women', and later wrote that she's convinced conservatives are conducting a 'war on women', there's no direct statement that she believes Limbaugh's remarks were part of it. Similarly, while NARAL protests for an end to the 'war on women' and it's clear they don't like Limbaugh and want to 'bring him down', the reference does not provide a direct linkage between this controversy and the 'war'. —ADavidB 01:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Summary reference to "War on Women" added to the Democrat response section; have no objection, as it WAS an occasion to roll out the catch phrase. You would have a hard time finding a Democrat that week that DIDN'T use the phrase.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)