Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 6

Abortion and Homosexuality
I've been bold and removed the section that was just a Limbaugh quote. That's what his web-site is for. He's said many bizzare things, but that alone doesn't justify their placement in an encyclopedia. The context and public reactions to the remark might be encyclopedic, but just "something he said" isn't. PTR, I'm here on the talk page-- if you've got a problem with my edits, let's discuss them. Wholesale reversions don't help. GertrudeTheTramp 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the recent edits you've made. A lot of the material in the article is unnecessary in an encyclopedia.  It is not, however, our job to try to say - by inference or any other means - that we feel he is a hypocrit.  Our feelings about him are not important.  --PTR 17:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, our feelings aren't important, and they're not in the article. That said, his views on drug addiction are relevent to his drug addiction (much more so than, say, previous cases in the county he was charged in) and if his actions and his words don't match up, he *is* a hypocrite. Definitionally. We don't have to call names in the article, but we can (and must!) present the facts in the article, and let the reader draw hir own conclusions. I hold that the quote where he says we need to lock up drug abusers shoud go back in-- and I'm going to put it back soon, unless I see a consensus against it. GertrudeTheTramp 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of that stuff has been fought over for months if not years, look in the page history and archives of the talk page. I guarantee someone else with 100 edits will re-add the Abortion and Homosexuality stuff and scream censorship or bias or some such thing. As for the the hypocrite drug thing, looks like at least two editors have reverted that material. --Dual Freq 02:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of Limbaugh's quotation about drug abuse to demonstrate hypocrisy is inappropriate because it depends upon an apples and oranges comparison to infer guilt (see Avoid weasel words and Words to avoid). While Limbaugh has publicly admitted to drug addiction, no reliable sources showing that he has either misused his prescribed medications or committed a drug related crime have yet been provided.  Without such a source any inference or accusation that Limbaugh has acted inappropriately is original research and subject to immediate removal under Wikipedia's policy regarding living persons. --Allen3 talk 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that he got rehab for his addiction (voluntarily) sure does seem to suggest 'abuse,' and Limbaugh said that abusers should be locked up, not criminals. Plus that whole doctor-shopping bit... Looks like apples and apples to me, and the people below. The only reason I'm not putting the statement back right now is because of the discussion below to find a better way of phrasing it. I see consensus *for* inclusion. And removal from living person biographies applies to unsourced libel-- the quote's very well documented, and hence not subject to removal under WP:Biographies of living persons. Oh, and I'm removing the line about other doctor-shopping cases in Limbaugh's county. It's still irrelevant to Limbaugh himself. GertrudeTheTramp 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gertrude's statements on this instance. A fair portrayal would include properly cited sources regarding the situation around his drug use, including his statements regarding drug use in general.Vassyana 10:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has never been a problem with the quote, only the thinly veiled and unsourced accusations of criminal wrongdoing that have accompanied the quotation. I agree that the facts suggest the possibility that Limbaugh has acted improperly.  Using this possibility to jump to the conclusion that Limbaugh acted criminally however is original research and clearly falls under WP:Biographies of living persons.  Use of the quote is fine, use of the quote as a method to introduce unsourced insinuations of wrongdoing however is not. --Allen3 talk 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not the ones that were sloppy about differentiating between legal and illegal drug abuse; that was Rush. If the quote appears to be a veiled accusation of criminal wrongdoing, it's because in his 1995 blanket condemnation of drug abuse, he forgot to envision a situation where one could legally abuse drugs. (Which isn't to say that he didn't act illegally- it's likely, and should be given the perpoderance of weight in the article, but NPOV requires we present his assertions of innocence also.) Wikipedia is not resposible for cleaning up his past; it's responsible for reporting it in context, and if the past in context makes him look bad, I'm sorry for the guy, but it doesn't change what we came here to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gertrudethetramp (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I believe it's a bit overzealous to call Rush a hypocrite for these comments. Has Rush made any blanket comments lately condemning all drug abusers?  IMO, Rush was simply unaware of the difference between recreational drug abusers and people who fall into a pattern of drug abuse through prescribed painkillers. Sure, it's easy for critics to say "Ha ha, look what you said and now look what you did," but ignorance is not hypocrisy. Applejuicefool 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why were these facts removed?
The following facts were removed from this article: ''Some contrasted this deal to what Limbaugh said other drug offenders' punishments should be. "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995. '' Why was this removed? - KimmyChanga 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look up about one inch . Caper13 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you be more helpful and polite and less snarky? About the only thing I can see above looks like somebody saying that a quote sourced to cbsnews.com and msnbc.msn.com is "original research." As the quote and comparison is reported by others and sourced to them, it is clearly not original research by Wikipedia editors. - KimmyChanga 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Libelous accusations must be removed from Wikipedia articles due to Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons. The comparison of Limbaugh to "other drug offenders" is a direct inference of criminal behavior that is unsupported by the cited sources.  As a result the material is being removed to comply with Wikipedia policy. --Allen3 talk 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I see your point, thank you for taking the time to try to explain it clearly. So, I'll change the word "offender," which you are worried is libelous, to the word "user," since there is no debate (is there?) that Limbagh has been a drug user, and that phrasing is consistent with our sources. Does the word "user" sound accurate to everyone? - KimmyChanga 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I took some pseudoephedrine this morning. Does that make me a drug user? You are still making a comparison between illegal drug users and limbaugh and limbaugh has not been found guilty of any crime. What do you think that this passage is going to add to the article? Why is it important that it be included? Caper13 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the use of the pronoun "you" is appropriate as, again, "we" (all of us) are not making a comparison -- we are documenting a comparison made by several prominent cited sources. In general, I think we need to make sure that encyclopedia articles accurately reflect the differing sources about a topic, and that editors should not confuse those sources with the viewpoints of the editors quoting those sources. Does that makes sense? If we write a section and source information from Limbaugh, Limbaugh's attorney, the prosecutor's office, and news coverage, it doesn't mean that we personally agree with all or even any of the sourced material, and therefore suggesting that other wikipedia editors hold the views that they source to others is innapropriate. Let's try not to take this as or make this into a personal feelings thing, and rather talk about the article. Let's just include what the top sources have to say on a topic. Like, for example, the passage we are discussing. - KimmyChanga 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt use "you" in an accusatory sense. Only in the sense that I was responding to what "you" had said. The passage isn't appropriate given WP:BLP for the reasons stated twice above.Caper13 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "You are still making a comparison between illegal drug users and limbaugh." You were wrong, as we are making no such comparison; we are documenting a comparison which several top-notch sources have made between Limbaugh's drug use and his statements regarding drug use. There is nothing libelous about documenting that Some contrasted this deal to what Limbaugh said other drug users' punishments should be. "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.  - KimmyChanga 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Some contrasted" is vague and weasely. Let's be specific: "Mainstream media organizations CBS News and MSNBC have contrasted this deal to what Limbaugh said other drug users' punishments should be."--Herb West 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The man turned himself into authorities for a crime he was accused of, went into court and entered a plea, paid a huge fine and submitted to state-mandated treatment. The crime was not addiction; the crime was illegally gaming the doctor/client relationship to procure unwarranted substances. This is not independent research. This is information widely available in the article linked to here and elsewhere: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801692.html This is silly and tedious.Brrryan 21:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hawking homeopathy
Several Rush fans have removed the information that he personally endorses a homeopathic remedy on his program, claiming it's not "relevant". This is nonsensical. Of course it's relevant when a commentator on scientific issues claims that homeopathy "works". And that he's paid to say so makes it more relevant, not less. The specific nostrum in question, invented and promoted by someone touting his doctorate from a diploma mill, has been the cause of many lawsuits alleging it has caused the loss of the senses of smell and taste in those who use it--lawsuits which have been settled by the company in an agreement which cost them several millions of dollars, but which admitted nothing. - Nunh-huh 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Ok, now I get it. I mistook you for a homeopathy advocate. This is just a anti Limbaugh POV edit. If limbaugh did a commericial for these guys, it isnt notable. Celebrities and commentators do commercials all the time. I even read your reference, and from what I can tell, there have been no findings of fact that the company that made the product was at fault. Many people seem to believe that Zinc type remedies do help colds (I don't personally hold a position on it) and Limbaugh may believe so himself. Whether he does or not however, is not notable, and no one who does a commercial for a product is expected to conduct independant tests on the product in order to establish the efficacy of claims. Caper13 21:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no "if". Limbaugh did a personal endorsement, and it can be heard every day on his program. Not notable? Why did it make it into Time magazine, then? And the Washington Post? Again, his quote is "It's homeopathic, and it works." Product fault is not an issue, as I have not suggested putting anything in the article mentioning it. And the fact that "Limbaugh may believe so himself" (he says he does, so if you don't think so, you are saying he's lying) is precisely what makes it notable. Limbaugh frequently opines on scientific subjects; the reader is entitled to the information that he believes in homeopathic medication, as that reflects on his other scientific opinions.  - Nunh-huh 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of the stories were about Limbaugh. They were stories primarily about the company that produces Zicam and people who claim they suffered some loss of smell from the product, a claim your source indicates they have been unable to prove. Limbaugh may or may not believe that Zinc helps cure colds. If he says he does, then I'd take him at his word but one statement gives no indication of the strength of his beliefs especially if he hasnt commented on the product outside of a commercial endorsement. But for lack of a better term, unless you are trying to tie him to the product liability issues (which you claim you arent and would be difficult at best to do), who really cares whether he thinks zinc will help lessen the severity of a cold. Caper13 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Limbaugh is mentioned by name in both stories. And once again you misstate the issue: it's not about zinc, it's about homeopathy. Not all zinc treatments are homeopathic, and those which are homeopathic don't work. If you think homeopathy "works", you're scientifically illiterate. Rush states he thinks homeopathy "works", and those who read this article are entitled to know it. - Nunh-huh 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Caper13 in that you have not established the notability of this particular fact. Why should in be in this encyclopedia article?  What evidence do you have, other than your own opinion, that this is particularly noteworthy?  --ElKevbo 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been noted by Time magazine and the Washington Post, among others. - Nunh-huh 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide specific references? --ElKevbo 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. One was added to the article itself, and you removed it. And the other is in the first statement in the section you are currently writing. - Nunh-huh 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nunh- From your quote of Limbaugh, it not clear that Ruth either thinks or has said that homeopathy "works". From my reading of your quote, he identifies that particular product (Zicam) as being homeopathic and then says "It works". He could very well be referring only to that product (Zicam) when he says "it works" and there is no indication that he believes it works because it is homeopathic, or that he believes that all homeopathic products work. Caper13 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly clear, unless you want to debate what the meaning of "is" is. (Apparently you do.) By the way, the Washington Post article is quoted on the website of the National Center for Homeopathy. "In recent months Matrixx has embarked on an expensive national advertising campaign featuring testimonials from consumers, including radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh." Apparently the National Center for Homeopathy doesn't share your concerns about Rush's meaning. - Nunh-huh 22:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me this edit can not only be reverted for notability issues, but for WP:BLP issues (though its nonexistant notability sort of trumps the BLP angle from my perspective) but if you wish to claim that he is issuing a blanket endorsement of homeopathy, and that shows him to be scientifically illiterate, you will need to do a whole lot better to source his beliefs on homeopathy than you have done, in order to satisfy BLP rules. Perhaps Limbaugh has written papers on the subject of his perported beliefs in homeopathy that you can cite. At least we have conclusively determined that you are not a homeopathy advocate. Caper13 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BLP says that possibly defamatory accusations should be accompanied by citations. Not relevant here, as quoting someone's statement of belief that a homeopathic remedy is effective isn't defamatory, and it's accompanied by citations. It can also be heard by anyone who cares to listen to his show. And the statement is at least as "notable" as many other facts in the article (like whether he was handcuffed or not when booked, for example.) - Nunh-huh 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on. At least debate sincerely. Let me quote YOU If you think homeopathy "works", you're scientifically illiterate. Rush states he thinks homeopathy "works", and those who read this article are entitled to know it. Furthermore, your cites do not prove that Limbaugh believes that homeopathy works. Only that he believes Zicam does which is not the same as endorsing the field of homeopathy. (which, while I don't believe in it either, doesnt make one who does a scientific illiterate as you claim) Caper13 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to respond to the question at hand, which is what goes in the article, not what goes on the talk page. What you removed repeatedly from the article is "He endorses a homeopathic cold remedy, saying "it works." ". It's neutrally stated, true, verifiable and relevant. - Nunh-huh 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already stated why I believe it is not noteworthy on the surface. Your reason for thinking it is relevant (you believe it displays scientific ignorance) is not adaquately sourced. No doubt Limbaugh endorses the product (or has endorsed it), but that is not noteworthy. According to the article Larry King also endorses it. Have you put that into his bio yet? Caper13 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the Washington Post link but I am still not seeing the other source (which is why I removed the assertion the first time). Can you please be explicit?  I'm sorry if it appears that I'm purposely being difficult - I assure that I am not!  --ElKevbo 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The citation that you deleted was - Nunh-huh 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevbo. His link was in the article and is here Caper13 22:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha - thanks folks! I was looking for a citation that *I* had personally deleted (as inferred from Nunh-huh's postings) but there weren't any citations when I deleted the statement in question.  I hope you can understand my confusion!  --ElKevbo 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Now that I've read the two references provided (thanks so much for bearing with me as I flailed about looking for them!), I still don't think the notability of this assertion has been established. It's certainly true that Limbaugh has stumped for these products and he may even believe in them but two brief mentions in otherwise lengthy articles does not necessarily make this notable for inclusion in this article. As stated by another editor, it may be appropriate for the homeopathy article to list celebrity endorsers but I don't think that a list of endorsements will be very useful or helpful in this article.

Are there any other sources we are overlooking or missing that may contribute to this discussion or analysis? --ElKevbo 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a list of endorsements, it's a statement of belief that a homeopathic remedy "works". It's verifiable, and ought to be included. That you you don't find it particularly important isn't particularly important. Obviously other people do, and it's at least as relevant as much that is still in the article. - Nunh-huh 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are constantly forced to make informed judgment calls as to what should be included in an article and what should not. That's the entire concept of both "due weight" and "notability."  We simply can not and should not allow every verifiable statement to be added to an article without considering if it is appropriate and noteworthy.  This is particularly important (and challenging) in articles about controversial subjects.
 * Until you can present a novel argument or additional source, I remain unconvinced that this is notable enough to be placed into this encyclopedia article. I agree with Caper13's assertion that it's not completely clear that Limbaugh endorses all homepathic remedies or just this particular one.  I also understand (and agree) that attributing belief in homeopathy is an underhanded way of labeling someone as "stupid" and that crosses a line that offends me and violated Wikipedia policy.  --ElKevbo 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, two people agreeing is not a concensus. There's no "attributing" going on here: its a quotation. I take it with one more source you'd accept the inclusion of this information (rather than censoring it because you think it makes Rush look bad?) Because I'm quite certain other sources could be found. There's nothing underhanded here, and you're wrong to suggest there is. If someone who advises me that the scientific evidence for global warning is lacking tells me he believes that the scientific evidence for homeopathy supports the idea that "it works", that's something that quite rightly should be taken into account in evaluating the worth of his opinion. - Nunh-huh 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a quotation with the indefinite pronoun "it" left undefined and unspecified. It's pretty important to know what that "it" is as it changes the meaning of the sentence.
 * If you can provide a source that states that (a) Limbaugh believes in homeopathy and (b) this belief has garnered attention or is otherwise notable then I'll likely change my stance.
 * Finally, I am completely sympathetic to the belief that belief in homeopathy is ridiculous and is a signal to me that calls into question the believer's beliefs and level of scientific literacy. However, to use our reasoning along this line to include this minor fact in an encyclopedic biography is wrong and a complete violation of WP:NPOV.  --ElKevbo 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a statement that a homeopathic remedy "works". We're not here to rephrase Rush's chosen way of stating it. There's no interpretation going on, and nothing that violates NPOV in the slightest.. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The real issue is that its not notable and you seem to be the only supporter of its inclusion. I agree with Kev's argument and would be inclined to change my mind as well given his (a) and (b). --Rtrev 23:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * His (a) is a statement that has never been proposed as going in the article. It's a strawman argument. The statement in question is that he has stated that a homeopathic remedy "works", not that the "believes in homeopathy" (though I think that the former implies the latter). And (b) has been demonstrated by the interest of Time magazine, and the Washington Post, and others, though you choose not to take them into account. - Nunh-huh 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you can make the argument that it is a bit of a straw man. However it is the notability that I question.  It is not made notable by a single mention in Time.  It has not generated serious public interest and I do not believe it would be found in an encyclopedia article about Limbaugh after he died.  It is simply not a notable feature of his life and has not become a serious matter of public discussion.  Also, there is no consensus for adding it.  Convince me otherwise and I will agree with you but as it stands it is completely out of place to add it. --Rtrev 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This boils down to a difference of opinion on what is important. What's completely out of place is to remove it in the face of opposition to its removal in the absence of concensus for its removal. - Nunh-huh 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Friend. Consensus doesn't exist to add it. Consensus believes the item it trivial. I for one, cant believe how much time I have wasted debating this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caper13 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Hawking homeopathy 2
This is clearly trivia and should be removed. If his sponsors need to be mentioned they should be covered in the show article, not the biography article. The article from 1995 mentions him in passing along with a couple other celebrities. Don't mix that one cursory mention with "cold remedy" and "it works" which are not included in the source. I'm sure Limbaugh would love for us to give a comprehensive list of his sponsors. Would a list of sponsors be appropriate here? If not, why is this material included? --Dual Freq 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent matters. It's not a "list of his sponsors", it's his personal endorsement of a scientifically discredited substance, and that's the context in which it's mentioned here, in Time magazine, and in the Washington Post. - Nunh-huh 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's about sponsorship. Radio personalities read commercials, that's their job. --Dual Freq
 * So you believe Rush is insincere in his endorsement, and I don't. In the absence of some reference that suggests he's insincere, I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Radio celebrities are paid to endorse products. They read what they are paid to read. He endorses many products, do we need to list all of those, too? Don't attribute "it works" to a 10 year old source that doesn't say what you claim it says. --Dual Freq 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're the one who wants to list other products. I don't. And you know perfectly well that "it works" is included in his daily commercials for the product. There's another very recent reference you might like, in which the company sings the praises of the value of the Rush endorsement: "continuation of the successful Rush Limbaugh endorsement campaign will carry the Zicam story to more consumers than ever before at higher levels of advertising frequency." .- Nunh-huh 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You want to list one sponsor, I don't see why all of them shouldn't be listed. Bottom line, this material is about his show, not his biography and should not be in this article. If you want to list sponsors, then list them on his show article. --Dual Freq 03:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not about the show. It's a personal endorsement. - Nunh-huh 03:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no source that claims that this is an unpaid, personal endorsement. This is a sponsor and is no different that any other radio endorsement. --Dual Freq 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unpaid is your hangup, no one ever wanted to put that in the article, nor is it particularly relevant. Paid or unpaid, it's an endorsement. Being paid to make a statement doesn't make you less responsible for making it. And if you'd check the reference two lines above, the company itself states it's Rush Limbaughs endorsement'. - Nunh-huh 04:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, its not particularly relevant to a biography. Again, if this is included, I see no reason not to include all his other advertisers. Radio celebrities are paid to endorse products, this is no different. I bet Limbaugh would love it if all his sponsors were listed here. This is only relevant to a list of sponsors for his show, and should be in his show article assuming it is even worth including there. Sponsors pay him to read advertisements, that's what radio hosts do, that's how they make money. What is your problem, you don't like that celebrities endorse products? What about all the other people that are paid by sponsors? What about the other celebrities mentioned by your source, Lauren Hutton, Larry King, and Lindsay Wagner, are you adding this to their articles? If not, why are you adding it here? --Dual Freq 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to add his other personal endorsements I won't stop you. Nor will I stop you from adding information you find relevant in other articles. It's relevant here because it is an indicator of his scientific beliefs, and because he opines on scientific subjects. - Nunh-huh 04:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your saying that Time magazine's statement, "In print ads and TV and radio commercials, such celebrities as Lauren Hutton, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh and Lindsay Wagner testify to their effectiveness." is some deep insight to the soul of Limbaugh and his scientific beliefs and that somehow makes it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia biography? One summary sentence in a 1996 article, and you think that this is encyclopedic? --Dual Freq 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop intentionally mischaracterizing me. I just said why it's relevant: it is an indicator of his scientific beliefs. He believes "It's homeopathy, and it works" is a reasonable statement. His other scientific opinions need to be considered in that light. - Nunh-huh 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no such source backing up that assertion, all you have is a 10 year old article that I've quoted above. Please re-read WP:OR. This has no place in a biography. --Dual Freq 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the article that isn't adequately sourced. - Nunh-huh 04:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard the commerical today I happened to tune into the Rush Limbaugh Show on the way to work today and the Zicam Cold Remedy commercial that you are talking about came on...and the word homeopathy or homeopathic was not uttered in the commercial. Rush's quote, that you claim he utters everyday as "Its homeopathic, and it works" (or something to that effect) was not said. Rather, the only part of the commercial where he said "it works" was in this sentence..."Zicam, its in my medicine cabinet, and you know why? Because it works". Aside from not being notable, aside from forming a false conclusion that being a paid endorser of a cold remedy translates into Limbaugh offering a personal endorsement of the field of homeopathy...it now appears that the quote in question that you were basing this on, was either reported incorrectly, or has changed and is no longer being used...I think we can finally put this to bed. Mention of this topic does not belong in the article for all the reasons mentioned above. Caper13 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, what you say is nonsense. There's more than one Zicam Cold Remedy commercial. Your logic is flawed several ways: furthermore, "it's in my medicine cabinet" is a personal endorsement of a homeopathy product. - Nunh-huh 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not an endorsement of a product "because" it is homeopathic, which is what you are trying to imply. I bought some organic raisins the other day but I think the Organic food craze is a bunch of foolishness...my reasons for buying them had nothing to do with them being organic...just as Limbaugh's presumed use of Zicam may have nothing to do with it being 'homeopathic'. The one thing this commercial does however, is show that when Limbaugh says "it works" he is referring to ZiCam itself, and not any homeopathic claims...as the word homeopathic is not in the commercial. There is no doubt now that the "IT" Limbaugh is referring to when he says "It works", is ZiCam itself, and not homeopathy...and believing ZiCam works (whether it does or not) is neither remarkable, or notable. People believe chicken soup is good for cold's too. Caper13 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing added to the article says it was "because" it was homeopathic. Again, you are attacking a strawman argument of your own devising. If someone personally endorses a homeopathic product, he endorses the idea that homeopathy works. And again: just because you didn't hear the word homeopathy in this particular ad, doesn't mean Rush hasn't used it in his other Zicam commercials. - Nunh-huh 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nunh-huh said:If someone personally endorses a homeopathic product, he endorses the idea that homeopathy works.
 * No. That is completely absurd. Caper13 21:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's completely logical. :) Nunh-huh 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly disintegrating. Paul Harvey has endorsed more products over the years than one can count, but there's no mention of any of them in that article. Whether or not Rush's endorsement of a homeopathic product can be construed as an endorsement of homeopathy in general is irrelevant. This topic is non-notable and need not be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Now if Rush starts talking about homeopathy in his show and becomes a strong advocate for it, then I believe that would make the subject notable and worthy of inclusion. Gregmg 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rush's belief that water cures colds-which is what his endorsement of a homeopathic cold remedy implies-has serious implications for those who would evaluate his other scientific beliefs and pronouncements, including those on global warming, the gaseous output of trees, the usefulness of pleuripotent stem cells for research, etc. - Nunh-huh 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A source please in which Rush asserts that water cures colds? A direct source. Not some tortured logic chain. Caper13 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need for such a source, unless you want to add it to the article. In the meantime, you'll have to try to follow the logic. - Nunh-huh 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought so. Caper13 23:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth a paragraph to note the products he's endorsed, but we shouldn't describe comparisons between his endorsements and his political or scientific views unless some decent publications are making those comparisons. - KimmyChanga 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement that Caper is fighting so desperately against is " Since 1995, he has endorsed a homeopathic cold remedy. ". No one ever added any direct comparisons to the article. - Nunh-huh 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not notable. You've been unable to cite any sources that ascribe notability to this (or any other) endorsement.  That you continue to want to add it to prove a political or social point about your opinion of Limbaugh's intelligence or beliefs is unacceptable.  Find a source that ascribes notability to this endorsement or drop it.  --ElKevbo 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in Time and The Washington Post makes it notable. Being a key point in Matrixx's sales plans makes it notable. - Nunh-huh 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. It would be completely possible that someone could believe in homeopathy and still speak knowledgeably on a vast range of subjects not related to homeopathy.  For instance my doctor believes that wearing his Colts jersey while watching their games brings them luck, however he is still fully qualified to treat people medically. --Rtrev 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A frivolous and silly comparison. If someone believes in something not merely irrational but scientifically disproven, like homeopathy, his ability to weigh scientific evidence is certainly worthy of question. And once again, you are arguing against drawing conclusions, conclusions that were never in the article. All that was ever there was the raw information necessary to draw whatever conclusions one wishes. - Nunh-huh 23:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The only way this homeopathy endorsement is notable is if he turns blue because of it. The 1995 Time article says, "In print ads and TV and radio commercials, such celebrities as Lauren Hutton, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh and Lindsay Wagner testify to their effectiveness." That's it, no "it works", nothing personal or specific about Limbaugh. It's just a sponsorship issue, and if it's notable it could be addressed on the show's article. A quick look at Howard Stern and the Howard Stern show and I'm not seeing much discussion of advertising or sponsorship there. Maybe we should examine the other issues with this article, like the excessive use of block quotes that I mentioned below, or the lack of family details. Obviously his father was Rush Limbaugh II, but was he a ditch digger, politician, radio, rich, poor, etc? Same thing, mother, siblings, the normal stuff that could be found in a biography. Some family background could add some color to this article. There seems to be an overweight to recent, items but very little on past items. --Dual Freq 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If major news outlets have "noted" this endorsement, by definition it is "notable". - Nunh-huh 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should probably review WP:OR. Saying that Time published a one sentence blurb about celebrities endorsing homeopathic products and implying that negates Limbaugh's opinions on other matters of science sounds like a good example of OR Synthesis. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Do you have a reliable source that makes your point? --Dual Freq 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should review what was added to the article, rather than once again setting up a strawman argument. There's no synthesis or analysis in "Since 1995, he has endorsed a homeopathic cold remedy." - Nunh-huh 04:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, here's your WP:OR in case you forgot: It's clearly the reason you are interested in putting this 12 year old thing into the article. Nothing in Time mag said "Since 1995" either, removed from the article was "In 1995, he also endorsed a homeopathic product." which, though sourced by a very weak one line mention summary, is not even remotely notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 12:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again you seek to incorrectly apply a guideline for articles to a comment on a talk page! And if he endorsed it in 1995 (Time) and is still endorsing it in 2006 (a commercial runs daily) "since" is clearly correct. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The other clearly applicable guideline is Notability in which you will find this section (Emphasis mine):
 * "'Non-triviality' is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject."
 * The point is made twice in "The primary notability criterion" section that something must be discussed in depth in a source to be considered non-trivial. Unless someone finds a reliable source discussing in-depth Rush's views on homeopathy or his advertising for ZirCam (or whatever it is called) then this does not qualify as notable. WP:Undue weight may also apply here. --Rtrev 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One mention of a fact is not "undue weight". And the notability criterion you cite applies to the subjects of articles, not to each fact within them. The fact of his endorsement is mentioned in each of the three sources I've cited so far in depth equal to, say, Rush's saying "the only thing cruel about the death penalty is last-minute stays" is discussed in the single source cited for this remark. Yet you object to one and not the other. What source discusses "in depth" the site of his first marriage, "Centenary United Methodist Church"? Facts, when verifiable, belong in the article, even if you don't like them. And I suspect not liking this particular fact plays a greater role in your objection than any actual criteria do, as you keep changing the criterion on which you base your objection. - Nunh-huh 04:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well undue weight was really a side comment. It is not the matter that it has a single source.  Many things are notable and require only a single source.  Citing other examples of poorly sourced material does not make the homeopathy addition more notable.  Please WP:AGF and not accuse editors of bias in "not liking this particular fact..."  My objection has been and always will be primarily that this addition is not notable.  Not all cited facts belong in articles.  There are many other criteria at play including reliability, verifiability, and notability.  This fact does not appear to meet the Wikipedia guideline on notability.  In what way do you think it does?  Do you have a source that discusses it in depth?  Those are the basic questions that need to be answered before including this fact. --Rtrev 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith doesn't mean not noting bad faith when it presents itself. Please stop misapplying the guideline about the notability of subjects of articles as if it applied to individual facts, if you want to discourse in good faith. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Notability, at appears to be about articles. "All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia." I don't think anyone is suggesting an article on Rush Limbuagh endorses orange juice or even the broader topic of Rush Limbaugh's endorsements. Instead, what I have suggested is that his documented endorsements be mentioned in this article. - KimmyChanga 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh on Drugs
I've re- re-added the quote about drug abusers needing to be put in jail. As it is well sourced, verifiable and shows a viewpoint represented in many news articles, it is relevent and not subject to deletion under WP:BLP. I see a consensus in favour of it's inclusion, also. I suggest that if Dual Freq/Caspar13/Alien et al. still have a problem with this quote, we should bring the issue to the WP:BLP/Noticeboard. GertrudeTheTramp 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the triumvirate you name continue deleting referenced information without concensus, I will suggest the article be protected. - Nunh-huh 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is already semi-protected, and I think you'll have trouble finding a justification for completely protecting it. Remeber! WP:AGF!! Also, I just reminded rtrev about the 3rr policy on his talk page, so maybe he'll come back to the discussion now. GertrudeTheTramp 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am still good on 3RR. I won't revet anything else today though.  I am pretty conscious of 3RR as I edit mostly controversial BLPs.  Thanks though. --Rtrev 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe protection isn't the answer, but there's clearly a problem here with people excluding information simply on the basis that it's not hagiographic. Clearly there needs to be discussion, and if the discussion cannot come to concensus for removals, they must stop. - Nunh-huh 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this edit war brewing and finally decided to jump into the fray. The wording of this paragraph was clearly an attempt to discredit Limbaugh, however, I do believe that his previous comments on drug use and punishment is notable. Thus, I revised the paragraph in question to tone down the POV. Gregmg 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I just reverted your edit. I specifically object to your use of "Some" instead of naming the specific critics.  On second thought, it may be even better for us to name the actual, specific critics instead the somewhat-vague "major media outlets x and y" as I doubt that it was the collective bodies of those organizations who made the criticism.  --ElKevbo 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really not that there's much criticism-- it's just that almost *every major media outlet* printed Rush's quote in articles about his arrest and subsequent deal. I think that noting that the comparison was made by the Associated Press and published by MSNBC and CBS is probably the best option here, rather than attributing the comparison to specific critics. GertrudeTheTramp 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (We had an edit conflict but I think my version is there now). The byline for at least one of the articles gives CBS partial credit for the article.  I also changed the references to use the web citation template.  I don't feel strongly about the precise language in the rest of the paragraph so please change it around without discussion or consultation.  If I object, I'll let you know. :)  --ElKevbo 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." AP should be credited since it is basically a copy and paste from their article. Then again, why should we care about a minor thing like copyright. --Dual Freq 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly the material in question is AP copyrighted material. The CBS article is the AP article reprinted with a few CBS details, but the para in question is AP.--Dual Freq 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995." is a direct quote of the copyrighted AP article. --Dual Freq 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I said anything re: quote vs. copy... misunderstanding? Also can we revert back one to Gert's edit (I would but I am on 3RR so I cannot).  "Some" is MOST DEFINITELY a weasel word.
 * "For example, 'Montreal is the best city in the world' is a biased or normative statement. Application of weasel words can give the illusion of neutral point of view: 'Some people say Montreal is the best city in the world.'"
 * That definitely needs to go. Thanks for deep sixing that part of the edit Kev. --Rtrev 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I said rtrev, I meant Dual Freq in my edit summary. That was sloppy. Apologies. GertrudeTheTramp 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As of my latest edit, it is gone. I also maintain that if we're going to credit the AP for the criticism then we must also credit CBS as they share credit in the byline of one of the cited articles.  If someone wants to remove that source and use another one that does not credit CBS then we can remove CBS.
 * With respect to the allegation of copyright infringement: if we copy material directly from a source then we must place it in quotes and give proper attribution. This is not just a matter of copyright but of honesty and integrity.
 * I also object to using the phrase "short-lived." If the assertion that the show lasted four years is true then that doesn't seem to qualify as short-lived. --ElKevbo 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is identical to the one from the AP article on MSNBC, so it has to be the part of the article that came from AP. --Dual Freq 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dual Freq, can you please explain why you assert that the two articles are essentially the same? Your specific remark in your edit summary is "lets not pretend that the CBS material was original, they simply reprinted most of the article. No need for two identical sources. Rework copied sentence." It's clear that the two articles use some of the same quotes and obviously describe the same incident but they appear two different articles to me. Can you please explain how you reached your conclusion? --ElKevbo 02:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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


 * Looks the same to me. --Dual Freq 02:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they used many of the same quotes. But the rest of the articles appear to be different (well, as different as two articles about the same story can be).  --ElKevbo 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is something different in the CBS article that we need to cite, then we can cite CBS there. This paragraph seems fine cited with just the AP story. --Dual Freq 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree. That CBS also felt the need to report this story seems to give it some additional weight.
 * I'm also still waiting for an answer to my original question. Or do you now agree that the stories differ significantly?  --ElKevbo 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The material in question is from an AP article, no doubt reprinted by dozens of other newspapers and added to or subtracted from as CBS did. If there is some CBS only information that can be cited, if relevant, I won't have a problem with it citing that material. I don't understand why we need two sources to verify the same paragraph. --Dual Freq 03:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, please read the two articles. Compare them back-to-back.  They appear to very different from one another.  They use the same quotes in some places but different quotes in other places.  It's more than just a "CBS added a paragraph or two," IMHO.
 * As to why to cite both of them: Why not? They're different enough and add different information about the same general incident.  --ElKevbo 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we can't just conveniently ignore the fact that Limbaugh was not found guilty of any criminal act or of using illegal drugs. Comparing the deal that saw the DA drop the case after unsuccessfully pursuing a 2+ year investigation, to deals that users of illegal drugs, or convicted drug users got, creates an implicaation that Limbaugh broke the law, and that violated WP:BLP. I don't care which source printed the quote, it doesnt change the rules. Limbaugh was not found guilty of committing any crime and in fact the evidence shows he was unfairly singled out for a politically oriented prosecution. Caper13 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Casper13, I'm going to revert you again. There's a clear consensus for keeping the quote, and you seem to be the only one convinced this is subject to removal per BLP. I'll repeat my suggestion that you bring it to the BLP noticeboard if you still disagree. GertrudeTheTramp 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than stating BLP doesnt apply. would you care to explain why that is so? And there is a consensus to not add this to the article last time I checked. Caper13 04:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there were several editors who collaborated to phrase the quote demonstrates consensus. I explained why this isn't BPL-libel on your talk page and above. I'm going to have to stop reverting under 3RR soon, but I know other editors will help keep this important, topical and completely apropriate information in the article. GertrudeTheTramp 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All the drugs he used were obtained legally through prescriptions. It is not illegal to become addicted to drugs prescribed to you. Its a horrible situation, and stupid (something Limbaugh acknowledges) but not illegal and comparing the deal in which the prosecutor dropped a potentially politically motivated investigation of him because he couldn't get any proof that anything wrong even happened, (source available) to sentences of people who were convicted of using illegal drugs, creates the impression Limbaugh did something illegal and got off easy. A violation of WP:BLP and it doesnt matter where the quote being used is sourced. It can not be added to this article in a way that violates BLP.. A consensus does not exist for this addition, but even if so, a consensus can not vote to ignore WP:BLP. Caper13 04:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is voting to ignore BLP. If you think BLP applies, bring it to the BLP noticeboard. Obviously others do not think it applies. - Nunh-huh 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I went and put this up on the BLP noticeboard myself, to try to end these constant reversions. I don't think it's an appropriate place to move the discussion to, because anyone who responds there will do so having read our discussions here, but in the interest of full discloser I thought I should mention it. GertrudeTheTramp 05:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a content dispute, not a BLP issue. If the section stays (which I express no opinion on as a BLP issue), it probably ought to be rewritten, or at least have the weasle words "reporters from the Associated Press" taken out.  That makes it sound like the AP took a vote and by a 37-14 margin, they decided whatever. As a matter of BLP, though, in my opinion, that statement is not a BLP issue as it is well sourced. If you would like to request an outside view, please consider using Requests for comment/Politics. --BigDT 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the AP does not publicly credit stories to particular reporters that is as specific as we can get. Therefore I completely reject your assertion that we are employing "weasel words" when we are being as 100% clear as we possibly can in this situation.  How much more specific can we get?  --ElKevbo 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording to try to make it more clear, and I think it helped. I'm sorry my edit summaries aren't going through-- I don't know what's up with that. GertrudeTheTramp 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo et al, I'm sorry ... maybe I should be clearer. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.  Here is the current text:

''Reporters for the Associated Press contrasted this deal to Limbaugh's previous statements regarding drug offenders' punishments. On October 5, 1995, Limbaugh said on his television program, "blah blah blah" (cite web|whatever)''


 * Here is sample text that would be more neutral in its tone:

Previously, Limbaugh said on his television program on October 5, 1995, "blah blah blah" (cite web|whatever)


 * The latter simply states a fact - Limbaugh said X. Again, I take no position on whether this statement is included - I'm just suggesting a better way to phrase it. I hope that explains it a litte better. --BigDT 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the issue we're trying to find our way around, by sourcing the comparison, is that it is a primae facia POV comparison. I don't necissarily hold this to be true, but by tagging the comparison as being from an AP article, it becomes their POV (if there is any in the comparison- which I don't agree!), not Wikipedia's. GertrudeTheTramp 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But it isn't a case of Reuters said X, AP said Y, you the reader decide which is true. Is there any dispute in the article that Limbaugh said this? The newer version is definitely better than "Reporters for the Associated Press ...".  Either way, I have no horse in this race - I'm just offering an outside view as requested on BLPN. --BigDT 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying but the wording from the AP article makes it pretty clear that they are quoting his words to contrast with his actions. I don't think we need to water down and remove the context in our zeal to comply with some rather stringent interpretations of various Wikipedia policies.
 * In the end, it doesn't matter too much to me as long as (a) no Wikipedia policies are being violated and (b) the regular editors of this article, all of whom are infinitely more knowledgeable of and interested in Limbaugh, can come to or close to a consensus. I don't see any violations and if everyone else is happy then I'm usually happy, too. :)  --ElKevbo 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Gertrude. Nice to see research and consensus knock down a mountain of bad faith bluster.  Glad to see consensus has been reached to keep the quote. Eleemosynary 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that making a comparison obviously intended to lead the reader to a specific conclusion is really no better than making the conclusion ourselves. The fact that we don't ourselves add "therefore, Limbaugh is being hypocritical" when the paragraph is written in such a way as to invite readers to come to that conclusion really doesn't exempt it from our policies. We should treat the article just as if it outright said "Rush Limbaugh is being hypocritical".

This is better than most such cases because AP is actually the one making the conclusion, not us. However, it needs to be reworded to make clear that AP is the one making the juxtaposition and drawing the conclusion. I'm also a little bit skeptical about using AP as a source at all. AP is known for news reporting, not editorializing, and when inserting editorial material in the middle of a news article is acting outside its area of expertise. Ken Arromdee 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain this was a common comparison that was made by many organizations besides AP. I believe I saw it on CNN. Maybe we shoudl look for other sources so this doesn't give the wrong impression that AP was only source making this comparison. - KimmyChanga 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The AP may have originated the story, but it was restated and reprinted numerous times thereafter. I suggested using Some, consistant with the allowed exceptions in WP:Weasel, but apparently others objected. Gregmg 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, "Some such as AP, blank and blank," woudl work, with the sentence sourced to those three sources as well as others. - KimmyChanga 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?
Are there any more neutrality issues related to this article? It looks like we've got the whole quote issue settled to everyone's (grudging) satisfaction, and the homeopathy debate seems to be more OR or notability related than POV... Unless anyone objects, I suggest we take the debated neutrality tag off the article. Anywho, if there still are issues, they need to be re-brought up because a lot has moved to the archive page. GertrudeTheTramp 15:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I think the POV tag was put there by someone saying the article was too friendly to Limbaugh. I still don't like the "contrasted" bit. I also think the article is very heavy on block quotes and recent material like the MJ Fox material and lacks biographical information like early life, family, siblings, etc. Using block quotes from various 3rd parties seems like a cop out for paraphrasing the quote. There's a 119 word quote from a media critic in there, thats ridiculous. There's also a 117 word block quote in the massive Prescription drug addiction section. We have around 1500 words describing the ESPN, MJ Fox and drug issues, but his parents names are not mentioned in the article. We also have him in a Kansas City category, but the article doesn't say how long he was there, just the he was in Pittsburgh in 1972 and left KC in 1984. Maybe that category should be replaced with Residents of Palm Beach or something. Of course this article doesn't even say he lives in Palm Beach. If the tag gets removed, I'd expect somebody to pop it back up there. I won't but some Limbaugh hater with a grudge and about 6 edits will put it back there. --Dual Freq 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And when they do, either they'll list their complaints on the talk page to be discussed and remedied, or they won't and we'll remove the tag. THe point of the tag isn't to consistantly sit on the top of articles that tend to be contentious-- there's a talk page tag for that (which I just added). Rather, the tag is to be used in response to specific complaints of non-neutrality that can be identified. It's a sort-of moot point, though, now that the page has been protected. GertrudeTheTramp 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't an article on Rush Limbaugh at least mention Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot ? I think that absence makes it pretty clear that viewpoints unsympathetic to Limbaugh have been reduced beyond the required minimum required for neutrality in the article. - Nunh-huh 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think so. None of the other attack books I can think of-- Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly, Crimes and Misdemenors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President-- are given in-text mention in the articles about their subjects. At best, in a "related reading" or "Criticism and Controversy" page. GertrudeTheTramp 06:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, that book isn't even about Limbaugh. By the same token, I note that Al Franken's page doesnt mention the book "Al Franken is a Buck Toothed Moron and other Observations.[ http://www.amazon.com/Al-Franken-Buck-Toothed-Moron-Observations/dp/0965296601/sr=8-1/qid=1168410882/ref=sr_1_1/103-8459399-1943823?ie=UTF8&s=books ] Caper13 06:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I've requested this page be unprotected or returned to semi-protection on WP:RFPP. GertrudeTheTramp 08:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes,this article ought to mention Al Franken's best-selling book. If somebody thinks a prominent book is missing from, say, Bill_clinton, then they should just add that book there. - KimmyChanga 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no Rush Limbaugh Further Reading section, and an in-text reference give inappropriate weight to the book. If you'd like to construct a balanced Further Reading section to include the book, by all means go ahead, but please do not add an in-text citation; the article is about Rush Limbaugh primarily, not What Al Franken Thinks About Rush Limbaugh. GertrudeTheTramp 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, everybody can see that there's curently no section on books about Rush, and no, I am not suggesting that Franken's book should be the only one we include in such a section when we make one. I'd also like to see some more info on Limbaugh's books -- how long they were on Best Seller lists, critical response, etc. - KimmyChanga 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're proposing two diffent things- a list of books by Limbaugh complete with how long they were on best seller's lists, how many copies they've sold up to sometime, when they were published-- all sounds good and primary source. Franken's book, though, would have to go in an entirely seperate section of secondary sources, along with, I'm sure, some books praising him. GertrudeTheTramp 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are two things: 1) Add a section on books about Limbuagh and also 2) Expand the current section on books by Limbaugh. - KimmyChanga 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairness Doctrine
The following was added to the 80's section: "In 1987, under Ronald Reagan, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, thus freeing radio stations to air opinion journalism without having to air opposing points of view." I was wondering if someone would like to place that in context. The referenced slate article / blog doesn't mention Limbaugh so I'm not sure what point is being made here. Similarly, I could say, "In 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded after liftoff", then cite an appropriate article, but neither fact is connected to Limbaugh without some reference stating that A+B=C. Is there a citation or reference that says how the fairness doctrine relates to Limbaugh? --Dual Freq 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of commentators believe that repealing the Fairness Doctrine was the act that gave birth to the conservative talk radio genre. You're right, however; this sentence seems like an unfinished thought. Seventypercent 17:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The repal of the Fairness Doctrine clearly helped Rush's career. I think the quote I put in (from the Wall Street Journal) makes this clear, as does the article, which is linked in the reference. Griot 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hate Speech Reference Removed Again
A reference to Limbaugh's habitual hate speech which has been in the article for at least the last 2 years has been deleted without comment, having been sanitized by the Limbaugh cheerleaders who habitually sanitize this article to make this BLP violation removed from talk page per WP:BLP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Q.E.D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Hi, welcome to the Wikipedia. An important guideline is assuming good faith.  What edit are you referring to and what is your proposed solution? --Rtrev 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Detention On Return From Dominican Republic
Caper13 deleted the following paragraph from the article, under "Prescription drug addiction":


 * “Upon returning from the Dominican Republic on a private jet in June 2006, Limbaugh was detained at the Palm Beach International Airport when a bottle containing 29 erectile dysfunction pills was found by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in his baggage, prescribed in the name of the physician treating Limbaugh for drug addiction. ‘I had a great time in the Dominican Republic’ Limbaugh later joked on his radio program. ‘Wish I could tell you about it.’”

The paragraph included appropriate linked citations, one to an affidavit Limbaugh signed describing the incident.

In deleting it, Caper13 wrote that the incident of Limbaugh’s detention was not “notable”, and that a person’s use of impotence medication is not “encyclopedic.” However, Rush is “notable” and his detention for possession of prescription medication in someone else’s name received broad coverage at the time. The fact that Rush himself talked about the matter repeatedly on his radio program suggests an lack of neutrality in the deletion. The article should be biographical, not hagiographical. Limbaugh’s previous legal trouble with prescription drugs make the incident at least as notable as his affinity for cigars, which is covered at length in the article. If his temporary detention for traveling abroad with a drug in someone else’s name is not encyclopedic, then neither are his “distinctive neckties.” I propose to revert to the paragraph as set out above. Kpedsea 05:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Limbaugh uses viagra, that is neither encyclopedic or notable. It received brief coverage at the time and he was not charged with any wrongdoing. This is just silly and reaching. Caper13 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Bob Dole was a spokesperson for Viagra, yet it's barely mentioned in his article. This item is non-notable and not encyclopedic. Gregmg 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, it is unwarranted sanitizing to remove this BLP violation removed from talk page per WP:BLP while there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Click on your link to defacto. You obviously have no idea what it means, and your post is de jure evidence of why this item should not be included. There is absolutely no evidence that anything untoward went on during his vacation, but you are claiming that it shows something did. By that count, anyone who uses viagra and takes a vacation to the DR is engaging in a morally improper act. Silly and oh, by the way, violates WP:BLP Caper13 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourced information on this incident belongs in this article, though not under the heading "Prescription drug addiction" (Unless, of course, there are sources saying this had anything to do with prescription drug addiction.) KimmyChanga 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This isnt a gossip column, and the incident is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Caper13 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest we add gossip. I suggested we add information and analysis sourced to reputable news organizations, whether we personally like what those organizations have to say or not. KimmyChanga 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the effort by 167.191.250.80 to inject broader significance into the event, but wish others were more collegial in expressing their disagreement with him or her.


 * We all seem to be in agreement that the incident happened as described. How about this: I will put the paragraph back (with citations) but under “Personal life,” and add a sentence at the end reading: “Limbaugh was not charged with a crime in the incident.”Kpedsea 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable and I agree with your wishes that others were more collegial. If you need another source for this, there is a Baltimore Sun article here. KimmyChanga 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disputes that the incident happened, but the dispute is that the incident is neither encyclopedic or notable. Limbaugh might have had too much to drink the other night as well, and it might have even gotten a mention in the Palm Beach Post, but that in itself would not be encyclopedic or worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. I have yet to hear why this incident is notable.Caper13 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." KimmyChanga 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are the requirements for the creation of an article, not the inclusion of a specific item in an article. Rush Limbaugh, in this case, is the topic that is notable. That he got stopped by customs, used viagra, or picked his nose in his car while driving to work (even if mentioned in a newspaper article) is not. Just because an event is documented, doesnt automatically make it worthy of inclusion in an article on a notable figure.Caper13 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't believe this topic meets the "Non-triviality" test, and I don't think the sources cited meet the "multiple" sources requirement, given that most picked up the story off of the wire. I'm not convinced by the arguments for inclusion; this just doesn't seem notable, encyclopedic, and worthy of inclusion. Gregmg 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain my position in the first post. The fact that reasonable people here disagree as to whether the incident is “notable” suggests that the matter is best left to the critical faculties of the general reader. I would again note however that Rush is a public figure and thus “notable” under WP:BLP, the incident was widely reported in the press, and Rush himself repeatedly discussed the incident on his news talk radio program. Further, if his avidity for cigars and his “distinctive ties” (both covered in the article) are notable (or as others would have it, non-trivial), so is his detention for traveling abroad with a prescription medication in someone else’s name. The fact that the former facts may be seen to endear him to the public while the latter may not is not an appropriate encyclopedic concern.


 * I would have no problem removing the Cigar/Tie paragraphs. Since they are no more notable for an encyclopedic article than his detention.  --PTR 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My reference to the "Cigar/Tie paragraphs" was secondary to the point that the paragraph is notable because Rush is a public figure, the incident was widely reported in credible news publications and Rush addressed it several times on his radio program. I too have no problem with your removal of the "Cigar/Tie paragraphs" but would ask that you first review this archived thread: Cigars, Ties and TV show. Kpedsea 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you KimmyChanga for the link to WP:N, particularly the section headed “Notability is not subjective,” which seems to me to resolve the issue. As for sources, one was a direct link to an affidavit under oath which Rush signed, and the other was CBS News. Kpedsea 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, notability is not subjective, meaning that if Rush Limbaugh's nose-picking "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other," then we'll include it in this article. Or if we have enough sources, we'll write a separate article on that topic. Our personal feelings about the importance of nose-picking is not going to override multiple, non-trivial published sources if they suddenly start writing about nose-picking. And, yes, Notability is a guideline for article topics. That the topic of Limbaugh's "Detention On Return From Dominican Republic" meets the standard for articles means it is surely worth at least a paragraph in this article. KimmyChanga 00:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the serial deletions, both objecting to the placement (and again "notability," which I think is addressed above) I propose to add the paragraph to a new section, "Detention On Return From Dominican Republic," located under "Public life," - "2000s" between "Prescription drug addiction" and "Michael J. Fox comments controversy." Kpedsea 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Its no more notable there, than it is under any other heading. Caper13 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for labeling as "not notable" something which "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other"? Simply repeating "this is not notable" over and over with no real justification in not going to somehow retroactively prevent multiple, non-trivial independent published works from taking note of this. KimmyChanga 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting stopped by customs in the way he did actually had less lasting impact on his life than getting a speeding ticket. If Limbaugh got pulled over for speeding (say doing 65 in a 55 zone), it would likely be documented by multiple non trivial sources, but would still not be worthy of note in an encyclopedia article. You are equating verifiability and notability. But something may be verifiable and still not notable. Notability is also a requirement and is not the same as verifiability. Your sources satisfy the verifiability requirement, but the episode does not fulfill the notability requirement. Caper13 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Being mentioned in multiple sources does not automatically convey notability to the event. Rush Limbaugh is notable, this topic is trivial. Gregmg 23:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Being verifiable is necessary for establishing notability but not sufficient.  --ElKevbo 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability requires that this "topic ... has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Verifiability requires that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." This meets both. KimmyChanga 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How many different ways would you like people to say this. Verifiability is a requirement of notability, but verifability does not confer notability. An item can not be notable UNLESS it is verifiable however, An item may be verifiable, but still not notable. Caper13 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm totally clear on the concept that verifiability and notability are different yet interrelated concepts. What I haven't seen anywhere here is any explanation as to why this topic is being described as "non notable" when it meets Notability's requiremant that this "topic ... has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." So, no, I'm not looking for people to repeat themselves, I'm looking for people to bring something to this discussion other than their personal opinions or making comparions with widely reported news stories to unreported allegations of "nose picking." Simply wishing that something weren't the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent published works does not make it so. What are editors basing the idea that this is "non notable" on? The notability guideline? Personal opinion? A wish upon a star? KimmyChanga 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(Indent Reset) There are few absolutes in this world. Wikipedia notability guidelines are no exception, however, they do discuss the notion of "Non-triviality". Many trivial things have been written about Rush Limbaugh that do not merit inclusion in this article. Further, I would argue (and have argued) that the "multiple, non-trivial published works" test is not met by this topic, given that most of the multiple sources picked up this story from the wire. They are, in fact, the same source. You're not seeing anything new brought to this discussion because those of us arguing against inclusion feel that our argument is compelling. Gregmg 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are at war with the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Thus, notwithstanding the guidelines' admonition that “[n]otability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly,” you write that you “feel that our argument is compelling,” a purely subjective standard specifically condemned by WP:N. As such, unfortunately, I don’t know what there remains to discuss. For what it’s worth, I can’t agree with the contention that a wire service story published verbatim by multiple newspapers is not “multiple . . . published works,” and hence not notable since each printed the same story. Multiple newspaper editors were required to make the separate editorial decision to publish the wire story in their newspaper. The word “multiple” refers to the number of publishers of the information; it neither contemplates nor requires separate independent news reporting. And in any event a Google search shows that the story was reported or commented upon, under reporter bylines, by ABC (Brian Skoloff), The New York Times (Joe Sharkey)(subscription required), The Los Angeles Times (Kathleen Doheny), and the Palm Beach Post (Kevin Deutsch, Susan Spencer-Wendel), among others. The AP story was also carried in many U.S. newspapers and several in Canada including the Ottawa Citizen. Kpedsea 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am certainly not at war with the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Much to the contrary, it's important to me that we get it right.
 * In the biography guidelines, one finds the quote "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article...". There is also further discussion of relevance. The guideline indicates that there must be "...a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
 * I suggest that while the incident is verifiable and well-documented, it does not carry sufficient relevance to the subject's notability, and therefore, is not notable.
 * I would like to make very clear that I am by no means a fan of Rush Limbaugh; I am far more conservative than him and find his political commentary too politically correct to be appealing. I am only interested in maintaining the quality of this and other articles.Gregmg 18:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How can being arrested for posession of drugs (albeit over a prescription issue rather than anything involving criminal charges) not be relevant? Especially for someone whose drug problems are well-known. Lurker  oi!  18:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasnt arrested. Caper13 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine the role Wikipedia could play in clearing up any confusion on this topic. You know, somebody seems to remember something about Limbaugh being detained for viagra posession, checks a well-sourced encyclopedia article based on multiple reputable news organizations, and then that reader comes away with a better, more accurate understanding of the issue. Or mayeb not, because being detained by law enforcement for several hours is just like picking your nose. KimmyChanga 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no end to the false stories circulated about some notable figures. If we were going to list every innacurate story about Limbaugh that floats around out there in an effort to set the story straight, that would end up being most of his bio. Wikipedia takes a different tack in that it only lists notable elements about the subject rather than a collection of trivia. Caper13 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not list trivia or false stories, but instead document notable events like this one which "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself." Since nobody seems to have an argument that this is "not notable" other than "I don't like it," I'll be adding this well-documented and sourced information back into the article. KimmyChanga 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I've seen no one argue that the incident in question should not be included because "they don't like it." If anything, a controversial topic should be included especially for that reason. With respect to your suggestion that the issue of notability, or lack thereof, has not been addressed, I kindly ask that you re-read the paragraphs above. Per the bio guidelines I've previously referenced, the incident in question doesn't appear to have sufficient relevance to the subject's notability to merit inclusion. Remember, as Wikipedians we are called on to assume good faith. If we have reached an impasse then I suggest that we call for outside mediation. An edit war would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Gregmg 03:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support mediation, rather than people just deleting content Lurker  oi!  14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Would anyone object if I posted a Request for Comment here? Lurker  oi!  16:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate your posting an RfC here Lurker. I am not familiar with that process but would propose framing it as follows:
 * Whether the following paragraph should be added to the Rush Limbaugh article in a new section, "Detention on return from Dominican Republic," located under "Public life," - "2000s" between "Prescription drug addiction" and "Michael J. Fox comments controversy":


 * “Upon returning from the Dominican Republic on a private jet in June 2006, Limbaugh was detained at the Palm Beach International Airport when a bottle containing 29 erectile dysfunction pills was found by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in his baggage, prescribed in the name of the physician treating Limbaugh for drug addiction. ‘I had a great time in the Dominican Republic’ Limbaugh later joked on his radio program. ‘Wish I could tell you about it.’ Limbaugh was not charged with a crime in the incident.”[With footnotes/citations to Limbaugh affidavit, CBS/AP and the Baltimore Sun] Kpedsea 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty good to me, and ought to be in the article so that it could be edited for improvement if necessary. For example, after this is in the article editors that are worried that this doesn't meet our notability guideline could make sure there were multiple independent sources like CNN, Palm Beach Post, USA TODAY, Reuters, etc. KimmyChanga 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do an Rfc if you want but your position is contrary to both wikipedia policy and an extablished consensus. An Rfc isnt going to do an end run around this.Caper13 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific about which policy you believe this is contrary to and how? KimmyChanga 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say WP:Undue weight applies. --Rtrev 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(Indent Reset)Given the reaction to Lurker’s suggestion of an RfC -- “An Rfc isnt going to do an end run around this” -- and given that the editor offering this comment has deleted the disputed paragraph on the first occasion and at least once since, it does not appear that an RfC will help forge consensus, although I would like to hear from others on the suggestion. In an effort to advance the ball, I wonder whether the editors opposed to the paragraph would be willing to offer an alternate version for inclusion in the article. If not, are we in agreement that we are at impasse? Kpedsea 20:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am ONE of the editors that deleted this paragraph. A consensus has formed that for various reasons, this paragraph does not belong in the article, and more editors than me have deleted it. I can not offer an alternate version of the paragraph, because the incident itself is not notable. It doesnt deserve any mention because it is trivial. Now going back to Kimmy's question, it violates policy on several levals. Firstly, it fails the basic notability test. Kimmy equates notability with verifiability, and is using the minimum standards for judging whether an article CAN exist (verifiability) and turning that to a particular event in someone's life and saying it MUST be included because some source commented on it. Well, that violates the basic definition of notability in that notability is different from verifiability. For something to be notable it must be verifiable, but not every verifiable fact is notable. That is not only common sense, it is the view of Jimbo. Otherwise, a google search of Limbaugh brings up 8,660,000 hits. Even assuming 75% of those are for other limbaugh, or are not valid sources, that leaves roughly 2 million valid hits. So every fact or episode then commented on there becomes encyclopedic and should be part of his bio? Nonsense. Each episode (assuming it is verifiable) must be judged for its noteworthyness (or whether it is encyclopedic if you prefer the term). Two main reasons have been offered to show the noteworthyness of this episode. One maintains that getting stopped by customs with a bottle of viagra which has a prescription label in someone else's name is noteworthy. Well, it could be, EXCEPT, it was legally prescribed to Limbaugh by his doctor, so his possession was lawful. Limbaugh was not arrested and no crimes were committed. Customs saw something suspicious, investigated and then appeared to find that everything was ok and dropped the matter. Getting stopped by customs is not notable unless a crime has been committed. Taking viagra is not notable. Going to the dominican republic is not notable. Having a prescription issued in the doctors name (as long as the doctor is supervising) for privacy reasons is not notable and is not a crime. The second viewpoint for notability on this episode sees the episode as evidence that crimes were committed. Either drug crimes (which is not true), or sex crimes, which is unsupported by sources. As both of these conclusions are unproven and unsupported by valid sources, they become a violation of WP:BLP. SO thaat is that. The event is either not notable, because there is no point to the report (no crimes were committed, no lasting impact), or if the report is intended to infer a point (drug crimes, sex crimes) then it becomes a BLP violation. The thing that WOULD make this notable, makes this a BLP violation. Caper13 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "it fails the basic notability test. Kimmy equates notability with verifiability, and is using the minimum standards for judging whether an article CAN exist (verifiability)" Actually, no, I'm using the definition of notability from the Notability guideline, which this clearly meets. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." What notability guideline are you using? Also, no, I'm not suggesting we add every piece of information availiable on the internet, as 99% of what's on the internet is unreliable and trivial. Instead, as you may have noticed, I'm suggesting we add information published by multipel reputabel news organizations like CNN, USA TODAY, Reuters, etc. Also, I'm fairly certain we could find this commentary on this topic by news oragnizations well after the incident. Would that help you with your worries that there was "no lasting impact"? KimmyChanga 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple..., they are talking about the whether the topic (or subject) for AN ARTICLE is notable. Not every piece of information that goes into an article on a Notable subject (like Limbaugh) Why don't you tell me what the lasting impact of this was. (other than a few people talking about it) Caper13 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right, and maybe it would be a good idea if most of the information on Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic were in its own article because it meets the notability requirements for for AN ARTICLE but maybe it doesn't meet the notability requirements to be in this article. I'll see if I can find some commentators talking about the impact of this incident. Of course, you can add some, too. I still think this ought to be in the main Rush Limbaugh article, but at least this new article will give people a chance to actually write rather than just talking about writing, and it can always be added back into this article any time later. KimmyChanga 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Creating an article seems a bit pointy. Every newspaper article doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I wouldn't expect that to remain an article for very long. At least you spelled Limbaugh correctly the second time. I'm not sure what all the hubbub is about on this issue. Is this supposed to be a drug abuse issue? If so, on what grounds? Is viagra addictive? The script turned out to be legit no charges filed, so what's the big deal? My guess is this is all related to some desire to make back-door insinuations about sex tourism or whatever else Limbaugh haters are trying to play this up to be. For comparison, I remember Bill Clinton broke his leg while at Greg Norman's place back in the 1990s. Many news stories were published about that incident, and there was much speculation as to the cause and circumstances of the injury, yet it is not mentioned on either article. Why? Because it's not notable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. --Dual Freq 01:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "At least you spelled Limbaugh correctly the second time. ... whatever else Limabugh haters ..." Yes, those typos can be a pain, can't they? And, again, the idea that things which meet the notability guideline are not notable is wrong. KimmyChanga 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha, it took me 3 attempts to spell it right. Still, not a notable event. And what was your justification again, was I right about that? --Dual Freq 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, again my justification for believing this is notable is that it meets the Notability guideline in that "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." What notability guideline are you using? KimmyChanga 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are going around in circles. Why is this story important. IT is not important because it was mentioned on a website. Why is it important. You were supposed to tell me the lasting impact this story has had, and other than it wasting my time on this talk page, I can't see any. a Story ISNT important simply because it was published by a third party source, or even several. Caper13 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm starting to see where some of the confusion is coming from. Maybe I haven't made it clear that a source like USA Today isn't just "a website" with extensive coverage of topics like "nose-picking." It's the largest circulation newspaper in the U.S. KimmyChanga 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just listed an example of a highly publicized news story, the Clinton/Shark thing, and illustrated that it is similarly non-notable. What is the point of inclusion of this "incident"? Is this a drug addiction issue? Is this a tabloid style, back-door accusation of some kind of sexual misconduct? Is this supposed to be incriminating? Please explain why this is notable, simple news reports are not enough, because once there were no charges filed, and it was realized that it was a misunderstanding, the news coverage went away. Basically, the story died and editors said, oops, we thought this would tie in with his drug addiction thing and we thought he might get busted, but it didn't darn it, he didn't do anything illegal. That's the end of the story, there is nothing more to see here, etc, etc. There is no encyclopedic value to this story since the end result was, oops nevermind. --Dual Freq 02:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you believe you "illustrated that it is similarly non-notable." By showing that Clinton's injury is not in Wikipedia yet? Injuries are probably to detentions as apples are to oranges, and there is plenty of notable information missing from Wikipedia, which is why we can create new articles and add new information to existing articles. You also seem to believe "news coverage went away," "the story died," and "That's the end of the story." I recall this being discussed well after the incident. If someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? KimmyChanga 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the point of inclusion of this "incident"? Is this a drug addiction issue? Is this a tabloid style, back-door accusation of some kind of sexual misconduct? Is this supposed to be incriminating? There is no story, no charges, no sanctions, no drug addiction. Just admit that the reason you want this included is the alleged and unproven, uncitable sexual misconduct. Publication of an event in the news is not enough, there has to be a reason for future interest in the story. The media dropped this story once no charges were filed. It's a non-story. --Dual Freq 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've nominated that article for deletion as a POV fork. I encourage all interested parties to participate in the AfD discussion.  --ElKevbo 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have requested that the matter of the paragraph be sumitted to mediation, have posted the link to the RFM at the top of this page, and have added a link to the Talk page of interested participants. I hope that we can agree to submit the dispute in this fashion and, hence, that each editor who has weighed in here on either side of the issue will sign the RFM.

Book List
There are many books written about Limbaugh, what is the criteria for including books here and how should they be sorted. Do we even need a list of books? --Dual Freq 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we necessarily need the lists. I'd rather have something in paragraph form that says a little something about prominent books -- who the author is, what type of book it is, how long it was on the best seller list, that type of thing. "In 19XX job title Jane Doe wrote in TITLE OF BOOK that 'Representattive quote goes here" and 'Here's another quote.' It spent XX weeks on Publisher's Weekly's best seller list; Some Reviewer called it "whatever some reviewer said." I'd also like to se this type of detail on Limbaigh's books. The lists are a really good start, though. KimmyChanga 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Detention, continued
Dual Freq, I find completely innapropriate your suggestion that others should "Just admit that the reason you want this included is the alleged and unproven, uncitable sexual misconduct." That seems to run counter to the ideas that we should all Be polite, Assume good faith, and make No personal attacks as explained at the top of this page. My reason for wanting to include this information, as I've stated several times already, is that it is the type of widely-reported, notable, neutral and factual information that encyclopedia users look for. I'm not sure where you get "sexual misconduct" out of Viagra posession. Do you have any sources making such an accusation? Also, again you say that "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed," while on the other hand I recall this being discussed long after the incident. As I asked before, if someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? KimmyChanga 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You cite TSG's "Rush Limbaugh's Dominican Stag Party" in the other article and pretend not to know what I'm talking about. I've already said the reason it was widely reported, per your mainstream sources, was the drug addiction and probation violation / potential arrest angle. That did not happen and it turned out to be a misunderstanding. The script was legit, no crime was committed. How does this rate inclusion in an encyclopedia? I'm not stupid, I can read between the lines here. I have nothing more to say until you admit that there is no reason to include this except for the insinuations of the smoking gun's tabloid / sex angle. --Dual Freq 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite the "Rush Limbaugh's Dominican Stag Party" article, another editor did. I hadn't even read it until moments ago. It's just a copy of a signed afadavit from Limbaugh, though the "stag party" title sounds like editorializing. Since there's nothing in it that isn't in the other sources, I don't see why it can't be removed. As I've asked before, if someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? Or will you just change your standards again? KimmyChanga 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you share your source instead of acting like you are trying to bait a trap. Caper13 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have any more recent sources yet, but I think I could probably find some with some research. I recall seeing this in the newspaper recently, but I could be wrong, and I really don't feel like spending the time to dig up multiple independent recent sources if multiple independent recent sources aren't going to satisfy you two. I'm not sure how it's a "trap" to ask you what your standards are so I can make some attempt to meet them. You act as if we're working against each other rather than working together to create an accurate encyclopedia article about notable events in Rush Limbaugh's life. I don't think there is any question that this is accurate, but the question seems to be Notability, and the notability question seems to have moved to a need for more recent sources. I just want to make sure that's the case before I spend several hours sifting through the coverage of this incident to try to find multiple independent sources from the past couple of months. So, as I've asked before, if someone finds more recent sources 6 months or so after the incident showing that the story didn't die, will that change your mind? Or is there something else you are looking for, and if so, what? KimmyChanga 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no response. I'll take that as a "maybe." So, I've looked for sources from the past few months to see whether it is true that "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed." It looks like the Wichita Eagle, in their 12/29/2006 "More best and worst of Opinion Line 2006" included "Regarding Rush Limbaugh and his Viagra situation, the bigger question is: Why would a single man require Viagra in the first place? According to conservatives like himself, sex should only occur within the confines of marriage." KimmyChanga 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And on 12/26/2006 the St. Petersburg Times gave one of their 18th annual Sour Orange Awards for the "the stupid, futile events that happen in Florida every year" to "BLOVIATORS GONE WILD, PART 2: Rush Limbaugh was detained at Palm Beach International Airport after customs officials found he was carrying a bottle of Viagra but his name wasn't on the prescription. Limbaugh joked on his radio show that he got the pills from the Clinton Presidential Library." KimmyChanga 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And on 11/23/2006 the Tucson Citizen named Rush Limbaugh their Hall of Shame Man of the Year in part for this incident. "Limbaugh - who has a well-known history of chemical dependency for Oxycontin and Viagra - ridiculed the actor, claiming he was off his Parkinson's medications while appearing in commercials supporting stem cell research in Missouri." KimmyChanga 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sure about this one from the School Library Journal's review of American Icons [Three Volumes]: An Encyclopedia of the People, Places, and Things that Have Shaped Our Culture (Hardcover): "Though many well-studied subjects, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Marilyn Monroe, are present, in general the choices are strongly influenced by current trends in pop culture studies, so that separate articles on, for instance, George Washington or the American flag are shouldered out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Viagra."[ http://www.amazon.com/American-Icons-Three-Volumes-Encyclopedia/dp/0275984214/ ] KimmyChanga 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have to be a regular reader, but I'm not even sure I understand this from a 1/24/2007 column in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Pass the Viagra: QT Digest of Rush Limbaugh for the Week to Date (for Your Convenience): ". . . gorgeous . . . naked body . . . have a blast . . . ooh, baby . . ." Some of this may be out of context." KimmyChanga 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another from the Chicago Sun-Times, this time a 12/27/2006 Richard Roeper column on his "annual GOOF (Greatly Overhyped and Overexposed Fool) Award." "Imagine if a Democratic candidate for office had a past that included three failed marriages, a dubious reason for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War, a voting record that didn't commence until he was 35, addiction to painkillers, questionable public remarks about women and minorities, and an incident in which he was detained by customs because of a mislabeled bottle of Viagra." KimmyChanga 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And the second holiday wish in this 12/21/2006 syndicated column from Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith is for "RUSH LIMBAUGH: Some sense. Who goes around carrying other people's Viagra? Even worse, who accuses Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson's symptoms? Ha ha ha! It's like a play on words. Rush gets caught with Viagra. Then, accuses Michael of faking it!" KimmyChanga 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith also but Limbaugh on their Tacky Taste Awards 2006 on 11/22/2006 in part for this: ""I think the top Tacky award should go to that pill poppin', Viagra-stuffin' egomaniac Rush Limbaugh for his tirade chastising Michael J. Fox for trying to save his own life as well as others with that totally debilitating condition." KimmyChanga 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the date on this one form U.S. News & World Report, but it seems post-November elections given the Pelosi reference: "Conservative yakker Rush Limbaugh is taking his one-man show to Washington this week. At the Thursday show, sponsored by WMAL and the Heritage Foundation for the benefit of the Fisher House Foundation, we hear he'll most likely touch on Fox, incoming Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the GOP's impotence, and his use of Viagra." KimmyChanga 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Summary: An hour's worth of Googling to see whether "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed" back in July turned up seven stories in recent months, including one from this January, four from December 2006,and three from November 2006. The incident also seems to be referenced in an encyclopedia review, and possibly covered in the encyclopedia itself. [ http://www.amazon.com/American-Icons-Three-Volumes-Encyclopedia/dp/0275984214/ ] Rather than "news coverage went away," "the story died," and "That's the end of the story," it would appear that this incident has some life long after last July. KimmyChanga 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. You've certainly convinced me.  I still don't think it's a major event that should receive more than a mention in the this article but apparently it does at least merit that mention as those in the media are continuing to make reference to the event.  Thoughts on how to tastefully and appropriately mention this event and the subsequent coverage without giving it undue weight?  --ElKevbo 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, KimmyChanga. You've provided many solid sources.  The incident is clearly worth being mentioned in the article. Eleemosynary 07:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. Just because people are talking about and making jokes about something does not make it notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  People still make jokes about cigars and Clinton but there is no mention of it in his encyclopedia article.  We need to approach writing this article in a clinical, non-tabloid way.  --PTR 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have to disagree... Wikipedia is not a tabloid. None of the examples of references listed above address the core issue... the notablity of this issue and it's relevance to the subject's notability. Gregmg 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Persondata
Please exchange the category block with the following data. It includes Persondata and DEFAULTSORT to make the category block more readable. No other changes were made.

Thank you. --32X 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Double-checked to make sure we weren't changing any content, but didn't catch anything. Doesn't seem related to the earlier content dispute which led to the original protection. Let me know if this causes any problems. Cheers! Luna Santin 03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize
Could someone with the power to do so, add his nomination by the Landmark Legal Foundation for 2007. Sorry for only the yahoo source, can't find it anywhere else. Hello32020 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks like some kind of hoax. From nobelprize.org: "Nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later." KimmyChanga 01:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If nominations cannot be revealed, why is there a revelation about Al Gore's nomination? http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Feb01/0,4670,NorwayNobelGore,00.html Crocoite 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While the Nobel Committee does not issue any comments for 50 years, there is nothing to prevent the groups and individuals that submit nominations from commenting on their nominations. All that announcements like these mean is that a name was submitted to the Nobel Committee.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of nominations are sent to the committee every year and there is no way to know if a nominated individual will receive more than a quick review from the committee until 50 years have passed. --Allen3 talk 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't familiar with the Nobel Prize process before this. Hello32020 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we mention Al Gore's nomination in Wikipedia, why not Limbaugh's too? -- Ash Lux ( talk 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Either this article gets a mention of his nomination, or Al Gore, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Alfred H. Love, Maksim Kovalevsky, SOS Children's Villages Canada, Hugh Harman, Ding Zilin,... should lose their mentions. Is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize worthy of being in an encyclopaedia or not?  Given how many other articles show nominations (not those actually awarded the prize), it seems that we've made the decision that it is.  Consistency demands that this article follow the same convention.The Monster 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding - and I am the first to admit that I could be wrong here, since I have no direct knowledge of this - is that being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize isn't particulatly noteworthy since many different people can send in nominations and the committee who decides on the prize doesn't issue any public comment about the details of their deliberations. In other words, they don't say whose names are seriously considered and whose go right in the garbage.  So, I tend to agree with The Monster, the act of being nominated isn't actually that noteworthy.  Maybe the person did something noteworthy that led to the nomination and the article about them could certainly mention that.  But the nomination in and of itself?  It seems pretty trivial to me.  --Lee Vonce 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Nobel Peace Prize, "In some years as many as 199 nominations have been received" for the award. That seems like a surprisingly small number to me.  -- Ash Lux ( talk 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think especially given that the only verification of a nomination is the word of the person/organization that made the nomination that these should all be removed. Certainly, this should be applied uniformly to all the articles listed above.


 * Having said that, if the nominations for other people are going to be listed, then if the nomination for Limbaugh can be verified to the same extent as the other mentions, then it should go in the bio. However I think it's the wrong slope to start down and it would be better to include in the guidelines somewhere that Nobel Prize nominations are not to be included so that the policy can be applied evenly.  Oh, and you can add Tookie Williams, a convicted multiple murderer executed by the state of California, to the list. —Doug Bell talk 06:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just another example of liberalism run rampant on Wikipedia, how can we claim to be a objective source when we allow the Al Gore nomination to remain, and the Limbaugh nomination not to. I can't believe you people!!! —jeff9979 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be all or none. I'd vote for none, but since even Tookie Williams get a mention of his alledged nomination, so should Rush. —Doug Bell talk 06:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never been accused of being a liberal before, but I think Limbaugh would even admit he has no chance of winning the peace prize. That would make this either a publicity stunt (which Limbaugh doesn't really need) or an attempt to point out that anyone can be nominated for the prize thus downplaying the nomination of others. I don't see that it is particularly noteworthy to Limbaugh's biography or anyone else's for that matter. I'm pretty sure he has mocked the winners of the prize in the past as well. Just because another article fails to recognize that a nomination in not noteworthy doesn't mean this article should mention it. --Dual Freq 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've already stated a couple times, I think all the mentions should go. But the current standard seems to be to include the nominations.  Whether this was a publicity stunt or not, if it was a legitimate nomination it should be treated the same in all articles.  To do otherwise is unfortuneately to enforce a point of view.  Besides, certainly the nomination for Rush has as good a chance of winning (which is 0%) than some of the other mentioned nominations. —Doug Bell talk 07:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize & review/rewrite request
I,too, was only able to find his nomination by the Landmark Legal Foundation on Yahoo. Maybe the organization didn't take it seriously, or maybe it hasn't even happened.

Anyway, I have a question about a quote in the entry regarding his avoiding military service during the Vietnam War: "but he was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to an undisclosed medical problem." But, the footnote/endnote sends you to a link that clearly defines his medical problem as a cyst on his tailbone region.

Overall, the entry seems rather biased towards Rush (especially when you read about his being arrested for prescription drug abuse). I mean, I don't want the article to be one big Rush bash, but what gives? It's as if he or one of his employees wrote it. The entry clearly needs to be rewritten with more accuracy and with readily-available information added in MANY areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evets70 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The Norwegian Nobel Committee has posted the list of eligible nominators on its web site. If none of the persons or entities named by The Monster and others have been put forward by an eligible nominator then I would agree that their "nominations" should be removed and/or that Rush Limbaugh's nomination by the Landmark Legal Foundation should be added. Kpedsea 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment is simply not true. The Landmark Legal Foundation is made up of well-known lawyers and law professors and judges.  They are qualified under the rules.  This decision-making about whether Landmark is qualified or not sounds like original research and must be rejected.--Getaway 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is exactly the type of thing I would expect on Wikipedia. I, for one, think it is notable enough to mention.  There are hundreds (thousands?) of people who get nominated for various entertainment awards and those nominations get listed on their article.  The Nobel Peace Prize is no different (it is a notable award after all).  It would also be very very difficult keeping nominations out of articles.  -- Ash Lux ( talk 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that an effective nomination is notable. To be effective however the nomination must come from someone entitled to make the nomination under the Norwegian Nobel Committee's rules. Do you know whether the Landmark Legal Foundation (upon whose Board Rush serves) is entitled to advance his nomination under the Nobel Committee's rules? If not, any article about his nomination would necessarily have to carry an asterisk noting the unorthodox nature of his nomination. Kpedsea 23:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur - This was a publicity stunt from a group who does not have the privilege of making a real nomination. The press release even says that this was an unsolicited nomination.  It does not belong in this article.  I could myself make a nomination of just as much standing for Mike Malloy, for example.  Some jerk could even nominate Osama Bin Laden with just as much effect;  NONE.  --BenBurch 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur - I rewrote the nomination section without first checking the talk page (bad wikinoob! bad... no cookie for me!) and once I read this discussion I realized that the argument against conclusion is quite strong and completely valid. Notability aside, there are potentially thousands of nominations for a given year, and just because one organization thinks a person deserves the prize does not make the nomination itself notable.  If the situation were different, and only a few nominations could be made each year (like the Oscars) this issue might actually be worthy of entry here.  As the situation stands, it is not.  Blueminneapolis 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply put, notability is not met seeing as there is only the single source and no further commentary or interest. If something comes of this then yes it would be but for now it is pure PR as far as I can see. --Rtrev 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply put, notability is met by the inclusion of Al Gore's nomination--even though Al Gore's nomination could be construed to be a pure publicity stunt.--Getaway 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. Al Gore's nomination came from people with no affiliation with Al Gore. Limbaugh's nomination came from an organization which includes Limbaugh on its board. That's what makes it a publicity stunt. --MiguelMunoz 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple things...first of all, can we say with 100% certainty that the Landmark Legal Foundation has no authority to make a legitimate nomination? Is there any chance at all that they fit into the "institutes of foreign affairs" group (I'd guess no, but I can't say with certainty)? In any case, this seems to be getting enough buzz online that I think people will be looking for it (and adding back in) enough that it might deserve mention within the appropriate context of it being a nomination with little or no legitimacy or validity. What do people think? -R. fiend 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the list includes "university professors of law", I'm going to guess that the nomination may be legit. I still don't think any of the nominations should be included since by definition the only verification will be the say so of the nominator. —Doug Bell talk 06:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore has never won the Nobel Prize either, but yet his page lists the nomination
I reinserted the factual, fully sourced information about Limbaugh's Nobel Prize nomination to be consistent with the precedent set in the Al Gore article. As far as I know Al Gore has never won the Nobel Prize, but yet the Al Gore article refers to Al Gore nomination for the Nobel Prize. So in compliance with the decision over on that page, I have re-inserted the Limbaugh nomination.--Getaway 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact wording of the Al Gore Nobel Prize nomination is: Along with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming. -Getaway 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The precedent was set long before the Al Gore article to include these, although I think it's a bad idea. See the discussion above for some of the other lusterous nominees who have that fact mentioned in their bio. —Doug Bell talk 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This nomination is like Al Franken being nominated by George Soros. You want to use Gore's article as an example, Al Gore's article doesn't include a 10kb list of Gore bashing books like this one has. Should we remove the list of Limbaugh hating books based on the Gore article? Gore's article is also filled with a bunch of poorly made references, listing only the url and no further detail, should we also follow that example here? My point is, who says Al Gore's article is correct? It's also typical for wikipedia to focus on whatever non-notable issue is being talked about in the blogosphere or whereever right now and ignore the historical context of the item. That's why the Sportscasting section is so large and why last fall the MJ Fox section dominated the article. If you want to add it where is it going to be placed? Right now it's in the 2000 section, which was in chronological order placing a 2007 item before a 2001 item. --Dual Freq 14:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Al Gore was nominated by an eligible party. Rush Limbaugh was not. Therefore, the citing of the nomination in Gore's article is correct. The citation in this article is improper, unless it is explicitly noted that Limbaugh was nominated by an ineligible party with views compatible with his own. Even then, I'm not sure it's noteworthy enough to be cited. We can't include every publicity stunt that Limbaugh, or his sympathizers, pull. Does Limbaugh's ineligible and improper nomination have significant media coverage or otherwise seem notable? Vassyana 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is a "publicity stunt" or not. I don't know the motives in the heart of Limbaugh's nominator.  I don't know if Al Gore's nomination was a "publicity stunt" or not.  I just don't know and I don't pretend to know.  I don't think anyone knows execept the people that nominated Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh.  At any rate, as a Wikipedian it is not my job to read the minds and hearts of someone.  Now, as a Wikipedian I am to make a decision on whether something should be included in the article or not.  I don't know if Al Franken should have or should not have been nominated by George Soros. It is irrelevant.  There has been a discussion at Al Gore to include Al Gore's nomination.  That is a fact.  The Wikipedians of that article have decided that, even though Al Gore has only been nominated and has not won the Nobel Prize, the Al Gore article should have section dedicated to the Al Gore's nomination.  I do know that Limbaugh's nomination is as at least as notable as Al Gore's nomination.--Getaway 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now 10 editors can argue over wording and placement, but in a month the whole thing will be removed as non-notable. I don't care about Gore's supposed nomination, it is not relevant to this article. --Dual Freq 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. You personally don't care if Al Gore's nomination is relevant or not.  That is your personal opinion.  Unfortuantely, you don't speak for the whole Wikipedia community.  May be in a month the whole discussion will be non-notable or not.  I just don't know.  What I do know is that there are others in the Wikipedian community you find the source reliable information to be note-worthy and should be in Limbaugh's article--just like Gore's nomination is mentioned in Gore's article.  Now, you might want to ignore the opinions of the editors at Al Gore's page, that is you personal opinion, but I find the debate over there to be important and should be taken into consideration.  I don't know if the Al Gore nomination was a publicity stunt or not.  I don't know if the people or groups that nominated Al Gore were so-called "qualified" or not.  I just don't know.  It is possible that Al Gore's nomination is just a "publicity stunt" to promote his movie.  That is quite possible.  It is possible that Al Gore's nomination is just a "publicity stunt" to give him more attention in case he decides to take on Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President.  I just don't know. I do know that these complaints about Al Gore's nomination, that it might done as a "publicity stunt" or that the nominator was "unqualified", are not really determinative if we should ignore the opinion of the Al Gore editors because without third party independent reliable sources backing up the complaints against Al Gore's nomination they are just the red herrings placed out there by a few Wikipedians that do not want to see Al Gore's nomination in the article.  But I don't know that your opinion on this issues and my opinion on these issues is not worthy of placement in the article.  You have not provided a third-party independent reliable source to back up the assertions that you have been making concerning the Limbaugh nomination.  These are just your personal opinions, which of course is your right, but they are not relevant to whether the opinions of the editors at Al Gore should be totally ignored.  I don't believe that those opinions should be ignored based on your one opinion.--Getaway 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You just wrote a rather long paragraph about what you don't know. May I suggest you instead look up the citations? (it's very easy to do, and took me less time than it did to read what you wrote.) If you ever do, you'll learn that Al Gore's nomination came from members of the Norwegian parliament, who are somewhat well respected by the Nobel committee, as they appoint the committee members. It doesn't take a lot of gray matter to figure out that this is not the sort of self-serving nomination as Limbaugh's. --MiguelMunoz 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding "unsolicited" back in. From the letter of nomination by Levin: "Dear Dr. Mjos: Landmark Legal Foundation herewith submits the name of Rush Limbaugh as an unsolicited nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize." (emphasis mine). Hardly speculation. -R. fiend 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My mistake.  Have a good day!--Getaway 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone at least post a link to the blog that is telling people to come here and reference the Gore article. --Dual Freq 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Dual Freq: That sounds like wild speculation to me.  See I really don't know if Al Gore's nominator is "qualified" or not.  I just don't know if Al Gore's nomination is a "publicity stunt" or not.  I just don't know.  Do you know if Al Gore's nomination was a "publicity stunt" or not?--Getaway 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to yahoonews (and the Nobel's website, as well as our article on the subject) Gore's nominators are quaified: "Norwegian lawmakers are among the thousands of people and groups with rights to nominate Nobel candidates." I don't think we can really debate that, although Rush's is certainly questionable. -R. fiend 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems like this might be an item that was posted elsewhere and has driven people who have never edited this article before to add this particular item. I'm not wasting my time with this any further. It will be removed at a later date, argue about wording if you want, but it's a waste of time. --Dual Freq 15:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it appears to me that Landmark does not have the authority to make a legitimate nomination. "University Professors of Law" may be eligible, but Landmark Legal Foundation is not a professor (nor is Levin, it seems, who penned the nomination). While it is entirely possible that Landmark has professors on their staff, it seems they would personally have to make the nomination in their own names. Mind you, I don't think this should be mentioned in the article, and I think we should remain silent on the nomination's validity until we hear for certain. I just wanted to mention this. -R. fiend 15:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's easy for people to announce that they have nominated so-and-so for the Nobel Peace Prize, but that doesn't make it notable. Most so-called nominations shouldn't be included, even if the people are technically qualified under the Nobel rules. Limbaugh's nomination is so obviously self-serving that it has absolutely no place in this article. (Wikipedia is not supposed to be an extension of the Limbaugh marketing team.) Al Gore received a serious nomination and may actually win the prize, so his case may be an exception to the rule. Since he was nominated by members of the Norwegian parliament, which appoints the Nobel Committee members, it should be taken more seriously. But as much as I admire Gore, I'm not even sure his nomination is notable, as it was made by professional politicians, who may simply be trying to curry favor with voters. (The Nobel Committee asks nominators to keep their nominations confidential.) (Somehow, Al Franken's hypothetical nomination has entered this debate. As much as I love Franken's humor, if some Bozo nominated him for the same prize, I'd take that nomination as seriously as I do Limbaugh's.) --MiguelMunoz 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote to remove this entire section, for the reasons given by User:MiguelMunoz . Kdammers 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Al Gore received a serious nomination and may actually win the prize — that's pretty rampant speculation, and sorry, but your opinion on the matter is irrelevant in determining which nominations can be included and which can't. You can't know the minds of the Nobel Committee.  None of them should be included for exactly the reasons you cite, but this needs to be applied evenly, and so far the precedent is to include them when they are made public.  As I mention above, Tookie Williams' is mentioned, and Limbaugh's certainly got as good a shot as a convicted multiple murderer who has been executed for his crimes.  We can't very well cite "MiguelMunoz said this one is serious, and this one isn't" when discussing inclusion.  Unfortuneately, Limbaugh's needs to stay until the rest of the nominations are removed from the other bios mentioned above.  To do otherwise is to base the inclusion/exclusion decision on original research and doesn't represent a neutral point of view. —Doug Bell talk 11:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm discussing RL. If AG's nomination is not notable, then remove it.  The same goes for any other nominations.  But here we need to decide whether this particular nomination meets the criteria.  It doesn't as far as I can see from the above discussion and from the entry on the RL page (i.e., he's on the board). Kdammers 11:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not making a distinction about some being notable and some not. I'm saying, that for reasons cited throughout this discussion, that none of them are verifiable (the Nobel Committee neither confirms nor denies any nominations), and therefore they all need to go.  At best, you can say that so-and-so was "reportedly" or "alledgedly" nominated or that so-and-so "claims" to have nominated, etc.  The fact of whether the nomination was actually made is not verifiable.  Therefore it's against policy to include any of them, but since so far they are being included, it isn't a matter of whether this one or that one is notable because that sort of detemination is original research.  Notability isn't the issue because it never gets over the earlier hurdles.  What is needed is a centralized discussion on the matter and then to have the conclusion of that discussion applied to all the alledged Nobel nominees. —Doug Bell talk 11:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that they cannot be confirmed is not entirely true. We can confirm whether or not the nominating party is eligible to make a nomination for the prize. One can find that reference HERE. Al Gore was nominated by members of a national assembly. Rush Limbaugh's nomination came from an organization that does not fit the list. Therefore, using the sources at hand, it is easy to determine that Gore's nom came from an eligible party and Limbaugh's nom came from an ineligible party. At the very least, if Limbaugh's nom is mentioned it should be noted that the nom came from a party that has no standing under the committee rules to submit nominations. It is misleading and inaccurate to have the nomination appear valid in the article. Vassyana 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Vassyana, that above comment is not correct. We as Wikipedians cannot decide if Landmark is an 'eligible nominator or not.  We don't know if Landmark is eligible or not.  I am not on the Nobel Committe and I assume that you are not on the Nobel Committe either.  (I could be wrong and if I am I will quickly defer to your opinion.)  So it is not up to us mere Wikipedians to go through and decide for ourselves if a group is eligible.  We just do not know if Al Gore nominator is eligible or not.  Without a third-party independent reliable source determining that Al Gore's nominator is eligible or not then I have to assume in good faith that Al Gore's nominator is eligible--and by the same token we don't know if Limbaugh's nominators isn't eligible and therefore once again we must assume, until proven otherwise by a third-party (non-Wikipedian) independent reliable source, that Limbaugh's nominator is eligible.  I have not seen from any reliable sources any information to disqualify Landmark.  Your personal opinion as a Wikipedian is not eligible, if you will, to overcome the presumption that Limbaugh's nomination was valid. Have a good day!--Getaway 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the reference I provided. Vassyana 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't provide a reference to a reliable source making a determination of eligibility for Landmark. Also, given the statement "The nominators are strongly requested not to publish their proposals," one could question whether the cited nominators of Gore, being as close as there are to the Nobel Committee, would actually have published their nomination.  Do you have a source the provides a any quotes from the alledged nominees themselves? —Doug Bell talk 16:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Landmark does not fall under any of the listed eligible parties in the reference I provided. However, Gore's nominators do clearly fall under those guidelines. It's fairly simple. Vassyana 17:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source that makes your claim. You can't make the assertion yourself.  Surely if your claim is true, somewhere there is a reliable source the makes the claim.  I can't imagine that such a thing as an unqualified Nobel Prize nomination for Limbaugh is the type of thing that would go unchallenged.  If not such source is available, then your assessment that Landmark is not qualified is insufficient and original research. —Doug Bell talk 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Vassyana. It is not fairly simple. I do not see that Al Gore's nominators are eligible.  I do not see a letter from the Nobel Committee.  No. It is not fairly simple.  I do not seel that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  I do not see a letter from the Nobel Commitee stating clearly that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  I understand that you have a personal belief and opinion that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible, but as I stated before you are a Wikipedian and it is ok for you to have a personal opinion, but your personal belief and opinion is not a reliable source for this determination.  There is a reliable source that has stated uncategorically that Limbaugh has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and therefore the information should stay in the article.  You have not provided a third-party independent (non-Wikipedian) reliable source to back up your personal claim that Limbaugh's nominators are ineligible.  You also have not provided third-party independent (non-Wikipedian) reliable sources to back up your personal claim that Al Gore's nominators are eligible.  So the only real choice at this point is to leave in the information.  Wikipedia is not censored. Please see WP:CENSOR.--Getaway 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Getaway, please stop acting stupid. It's not very becoming. You're obviously literate enough to compose a complete sentence, so I'm convinced you're capable of processing what you read. I know you're smart enough to deduce that members of the Norway legislature are qualified to nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I have to wonder why you're pretending that you can't figure that out. Are you on Rush Limbaugh's payroll? --MiguelMunoz 07:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the whole question of whether the nomination comes from an eligible source is so debatable, I suggested an additional standard" A nomination is clearly not "notable" if it is obviously self-serving. Limbaugh's sits on the board of the organization that nominated him. That alone disqualifies the nomination from inclusion in my book. Let's keep that standard in mind. --MiguelMunoz 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

MiguelMunoz, I may agree with your general position, but please be civil. Getaway and Doug Bell, I provided a reliable source. It is not original research to note that Gore's nom falls under the eligible guidelines in that source and Limbaugh's does not. Also, please show me a reliable news source that discusses Limbaugh's nomination as valid. So far, I've only been able to find reprints of the press release, summaries of the press release, brief secondary mentions, spamvertisement and blogosphere chatter. I should also note that the Committee sends invitations for noms and that Limbaugh's nomination was specifically "unsolicited", whereas the lawmakers of Norway (Gore's nom source) always have the right to submit nominees (per the Associated Press). Be reasonable! Gore's nom clearly falls under the general guidelines of eligible parties, comes from a group specifically and explicitly eligible to nominate candidates and has been widely covered by the mainstream media including the newswires. Limbaugh's nomination came from a group clearly not under the general eligibility guidelines, is self-confessed to be unsolicited and has no primary reliable news coverage. It is quite the contrast. Vassyana 15:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice of centralized discussion on inclusion of Nobel Prize nominations in bios
I started a discussion at Village pump (policy)/Archive AT on this issue. It may well eventually be moved off the Village Pump policy page at some point in the future, but it seemed a good place to get the discussion started. —Doug Bell talk 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is exactly where the topic should be debated. Since the Nobel rules do not provide for any official announcement of 'real nominees', there is no way to distinguish between this nomination and any other.  Either we mention nominations, or we don't.  If we exclude any, we should exclude all.The Monster 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

doug, i tried to post to the village pump page about this. is that the best place? Brendan19 10:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

also, did we ever reach a conclusion on whether we should be including nominations in bios? thanks. Brendan19 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you could say that consensus was reached, but I've moved the general discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to prevent it from being deleted from the VIlliage Pump. It did generate a fair amount of discussion. —Doug Bell talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks--Brendan19 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox comments controversy
Why is this in the article so prominently? Limbaugh has made in any number of controversial statements on his show. I see nothing particularly noteworthy about the Michael J. Fox controversy to give it its own section in the biography. I propose either simply deleting this, or at least moving it to The Rush Limbaugh Show. —Doug Bell talk 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why this has persisted. It should probably be completely removed or pared back (and I argued as such when it was first added).  However, when it was first happening just before the US mid-term elections there were several editors that were very adamant about its inclusion and did not want to discuss it much. Once it was added it sort of ballooned so that all POVs would be represented.  I have been waiting for a time to pare it back and I think that perhaps after letting the WP:DUST settle it might be time to start talking about it. --Rtrev 15:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section from the article. If someone thinks this needs to be discussed they can dig it out of the history and put it somewhere else. It might be appropriate to include in The Rush Limbaugh Show—I'm not offering an opinion either way on that question—but it clearly doesn't rise to the level of something that needs to be in the bio. —Doug Bell talk 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the item is to be deleted, the deletion should be tied to a Wikipedia policy, as opposed to an individual editor's subjective evaluation. I would note that WP:N states the following:


 * "One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."


 * Further,


 * "General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether 'the world' has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy."


 * By these measures, the notorious incident belongs in the article. Kpedsea 23:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The event is not notable in relation to the biography. There are many other similarly controversial events from the Rush Limbaugh show that are not and should not be listed here because they are not particularly notable with regards to Rush Limbaugh.  The only reason I can see that the Michael J. Fox controversy is included in the bio vs. all of the other events from the show is that it is fairly recent (although fadingly so).  A year from now, this event would be completely indistinguishable in its notability as it relates to Rush from at least a dozen other events that could be included.
 * Therefore, this is not the place for it. —Doug Bell talk 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One other note, regarding the second quoted text above. This would mean that you need to find reliable published works on Rush Limbaugh that deem the event a notable aspect of his career/biography to establish the notability relative to his bio.  It doesn't mean that every event that's been reported in the news regarding Rush (or any other notable person) should be included in their bio.  You haven't made any effort to establish, or even claim, the notability of the event relative to this article.
 * While items should not be deleted based on editors subjective opinions of notability, neither should the be included on the same basis. —Doug Bell talk 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted material is well-sourced to multiple reputable publications, which is the principal citeria for inclusion. Notability is generally permanent and hence "is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing." WP:N. I have returned the Fox incident to the article in accordance with these guidelines. Kpedsea 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You've completely avoided addressing the core aspect of my reason for removing the content from this article so far. The incident is not notable in regards to the history of incidents regarding Rush.  Neither does the incident have any particular impact on Rush's career, life or the public perception of Rush.  Unless you can substantiate it's inclusion here based on it relevance to the Rush Limbaugh bio, then it needs to be removed from this article.  I have no prejudice against it being discussed in another, more relevant, article. —Doug Bell talk 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your point, which seems to be that there are so many controversial incidents invovlving Rush that it does not make sense to include this one in the article. However, that is a subjective perception not grounded in the notability guidelines. Further your statement that the incident had little impact on "the public perception of Rush" may or may not be true, but is not the issue. The fact is that the matter was reported by virtually every newspaper, magazine and television news show in the country and hence is properly included in an article about him. Kpedsea 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you can quit quoting the notability guidelines and labeling my statements as subjective. Your subjectivity in saying that it is a notable event as relates to the bio on Limbaugh is no less than my subjectivity in saying it isn't.  The burden of proof is on you to cite some source that backs up your claim that this has significant relevance to Limbaugh, not on me to prove that it isn't.  I can't very well prove a negative.  If you can provide WP:RSs (see I can quote policy shortcuts too) that back up your claim of relevance, then that would be an argument to leave it in the bio.


 * As to your second point, that is great argument for including this in The Rush Limbaugh Show article, since it was in the context of the show that Limbaugh made the comments and started the controversy. —Doug Bell talk 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think that the burden would fall to the person advocating a change in the status quo, which in this case was inclusion. In any event, assigning burdens is not particularly helpful. The notability guidelines state that the “primary notability criterion” is whether “the world” (meaning “[o]ther authors, scholars, or journalists”) have deemed the information to be worthy of publication. A Google search shows that the incident was published in the [Washington Post], [New York Times], [Los Angeles Times](January 12, 2007), CBS News, ABC News and NBC News, in addition to many regional newspapers and each of the cable news channels. Each of these sources are “reliable” under WP:RS.


 * Honestly, I do not understand the suggestion that this notorious incident belongs in the article about Rush’s show rather than in his biography. Because it is notable and reliably sourced, it seems to me that it belongs in both. Kpedsea 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Status quo was no inclusion before it was added...that's when the burden fell. If you want to put it that way, then I'm simply restoring it to its previous status quo.


 * I don't care whether this incident is considered "notorious" or not—I have no interest in sanitizing this article, simply making it read like a bio. If I came to this article and there was no mention of the prescription drug incident, I'd push to have it included here because it is relevant to his bio.  The Michael J. Fox incident is relevant to his show, so it should go there.  I fail to see how this incident is on the same footing as the rest of the material in bio as they relate to a neutral biography of Limbaugh.  None of the articles you reference provides any support for the position that this carries the level of relevance to a summary bio on Limbaugh as to warrant inclusion here.  If this was a book-length bio, then sure, include it.  But this is a summary, and in the scope of the life and career of Limbaugh, this doesn't have the same impact or relevance, and none of the references you cite indicate otherwise.


 * Earlier you wrote: "If you can provide WP:RSs (see I can quote policy shortcuts too) that back up your claim of relevance, then that would be an argument to leave it in the bio." I provided multiple reliable sources in response; now it appears that the goalpost is being moved. The article is not merely "a summary": "Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite." [Wiki is not paper]. Protestations of neutrality put me in mind of Queen Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Kpedsea 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did no such thing. The links you provide are reporting on the incident.  They make no statements regarding the impact or relevance of the incident as it relates to Rush Limbaugh.  They make no claims of how it has affected Rush's career, audience, show, life, etc.  There is nothing in the articles your provided that gives any indication that this story is in any way elevated over any of the dozens of different stories Limbaugh has been involved in throughout his career.  In short, they did not back up your claim of relevance of this incident to this article.  I did not move the goal posts, you are simply trying to redefine them.  I will restate the goal post for you: "This would mean that you need to find reliable published works on Rush Limbaugh that deem the event a notable aspect of his career/biography to establish the notability relative to his bio." —Doug Bell talk 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, would you please ground your "goal post" in a Wikipedia policy or guideline? Kpedsea 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your motivation for including this in the article doesn't seem to be to make this the best neutral bio on Limbaugh, but rather to make this a negative bio. I'm not trying to suppress this information or make this a positive bio, I simply want to move the discussion to a more relevant article.  At this point, consensus is not supporting your position.  I think Blueminneapolis has the correct solution—include a sentence here and link to the discussion in show.  The LA Time link includes a single sentence mentioning the event.  So perhaps surprisingly, I agree with the source you reference in regards to its relevance—include a single sentence referencing the event in the article. —Doug Bell talk 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is more productive to couch the discussion in terms of Wikipedia policy rather than to impugn the motivation of other editors. Ad hominem argument usually means that the proponent is on the wrong end of an issue.Kpedsea 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The most obvious policy regarding this event is Neutral point of view. This was a roughly one week press event that has had no apparent affect on Limbaugh's personal or professional life and should be treated as such.  --Allen3 talk 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I support moving the Fox controversy to The Rush Limbaugh Show article. That does seem like a better fit. Herb West 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * concur - On the grounds that the relevancy to his biography as a story of his life is limited, these comments are better placed in the article to which they most directly relate, with perhaps one sentence worth of material remaining here with a link to the information's new home. Blueminneapolis 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Per this discussion I would say that the policy that specifically relates is WP:Undue weight in that this is given specific credence and attention when it is no more important or less important than comments about any other famous personality. Unless someone can give specific reasons that this deserves mention over any other inflammatory comments it should be removed.  Has this generated continued interest/commentary beyond the initial event?  Is this a significant moment in Limbaugh's biography? --Rtrev 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * concur - There is a difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Rush Limbaugh show and even as the show goes it's just a blip. --PTR 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"(see I can quote policy shortcuts too)"- Doug Bell. I do not think there is any need to be snippy just because you disagree. Yes, anyone can quote shortcuts- thats what they are there for. Be civil to Kpedsea. Thanks 208.0.115.120 07:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm being perfectly civil. I was making reference to the fact that instead of answering my points, s/he kept quoting the notability policy, which isn't even all that relevant to the issue. —Doug Bell talk 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

neutrality
throughout this article there seems to be efforts made by both sides to paint rush as either good or bad. to read the opening couple of paragraphs one would think that rush was a beloved radio personality by everyone. in fact, he can be quite polarizing. transforming am radio? really? says who? i couldnt even access the source to see if what it said because it is so old. how about mentioning something up front about how he is at the same time loved and disliked by separate groups in this country? Brendan19 19:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the NPOV tag since you need to point to specifics before adding the tag. Just saying you don't think it's neutral isn't a basis for the tag.--PTR 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that I explained about the neutrality tag in depth to Brendan on his talk page. I'm a little disappointed that he chose to readd it to the article after that without adding the specific points to the talk page. —Doug Bell talk 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, after reading the opening paragraph, I don't see where Brendan reaches the conclusion that "one would think that rush was a beloved radio personality by everyone". The paragraph discusses mostly objective facts regarding his broadcasting career and references a few subjective outside analysis views on his impact on broadcasting.  There is no discussion of his viewpoints or their popularity, only a discussion of his broadcasting career.  On the other hand, the viewpoint Brendan proposes "he is at the same time loved and disliked by separate groups in this country", would need to be referenced.  Otherwise it would be be original research.  If a reliable source making that observation could be found, I think that could be added to the intro, but lacking a reliable source it can't go in anywhere. —Doug Bell talk 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyst
At some point, the cyst reference (as mentioned by Allen3 was removed without discussion here on the talk page (looking back thru the archives confirms this lack of removal discussion). I've put it back, referenced it with the The Rush Limbaugh Story biography, and believe it meets NPOV. --LeyteWolfer 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of block quotes
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh is the place to add random quotes. This was worked out months if not years ago. --Dual Freq 01:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The original entry I made was trying to balance out the presummed racism on Limbaugh's part with the brief foray into sportscasting. However, Allen3 correctly highlighted that the position I took was not really NPOV and suggested corrections. Since then, the statement has gotten moved and further altered in ways I felt weren't worthy of protesting without appearing to have ownership on my part. Now, I feel, it has become so diluted as to appear -as you intimated- to be pointless or as a target for anyone with a pro-POV, instead of standing in its stead as a NPOV entry. I look forward to your suggestions (other than outright deletion) that will help fix its original intent. Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So the point that you are trying to make is this? I assume the controversy mentioned actually was published in a newspaper and not just noted by media matters. Is this the commentary that is referred to? How is the Grossman comment the most profound or controversial thing in his post-super bowl commentary? Why is this noteworthy in the first place? Is it only because media matters chose to single out one sentence of a 15 minute monologue? I think he spent more time criticizing Kati Couric's hair. I'm trying to understand how this fits in a biography. --Dual Freq 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable?
On his February 5, 2007 show, Limbaugh commented on why Chicago Bears quarterback Rex Grossman was considered a poor athlete by mainstream sports media, for the singular reason that he is white }}

I moved this to the talk page because it seems entirely not notable. It has a single source and as far as I can tell has generated no interest beyond the initial event. I am open to discussion. Does anyone think this belongs in the article, why, and does it conform to WP policies? --Rtrev 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, obviously this is just an arbitrary quote not connected to anything in the bio. I'm not sure it required discussion to remove it. —Doug Bell talk 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rushlimbaugh.com
I propose to remove the following from the article:


 * =Rushlimbaugh.com=


 * In July 2000, Limbaugh launched the web site bearing his name, which includes brief overviews of the current show along with recent headlines from which Limbaugh drew content for his daily radio program. In the beginning, the Web site was a text commentary and transcript-only Web site that allowed his listeners to review the contents of the day's show from a news-based perspective. By December 2000, major changes to the Web site were made, and new downloadable audio-links of daily highlights were available to internet users free of charge. In spring 2001, the Web site had launched a brand-new subscriber based Web site to what would be called "Rush 24/7". Rush 24/7 was now making the entire commercial-free audio of the daily show available all day via streaming internet audio. The new subscriber Web site came to include Limbaugh editorials, commentaries from previous years, and reruns of Limbaugh's defunct television show. By the summer of 2002, a live streaming video feed (the "Ditto Cam") of the radio show was made available to Rush 24/7 subscribers. By 2003, the rushlimbaugh.com Web site introduced a fully interactive Rush Limbaugh store, selling products that Limbaugh marketed (including a signature line of golf apparel, sporting equipment and novelties). The Rush 24/7 site now includes the Podcast feature, in which subscribers can have daily audio and video of the radio show downloaded directly to their iPod or other MP3 player.

The paragraph is unsourced, appears to be original research, and constitutes advertising for Rush's commercial website. Kpedsea 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is too much unnecessary detail in that paragraph. I think it should be cut down to one or two sourced sentences.  It's probably appropriate to move this to The Rush Limbaugh Show article as the Web site is really just an off shoot of the show. —Doug Bell talk 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. --LeyteWolfer 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Ive taken this case to mediate. Ive familiarised myself with the basics. Im curious - Id like to see a quick vote from each of you - are you for or against inclusion and your reasoning in a sentence or two. -Ste|vertigo 08:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For. The incident is notable under the WP:N guideline in that "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." In addition, “[n]otability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly;” rather, notability is conferred by the decision of multiple editors of reputable publications to print the information and by Rush's decision to discuss the incident repeatedly on his radio program. Kpedsea 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Against Just because people are talking about and making jokes about something does not make it notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. People still make jokes about cigars and Clinton but there is no mention of it in his encyclopedia article. We need to approach writing this article in a clinical, non-tabloid way.--PTR 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are we mediating? You say "for or against inclusion" but you don't say inclusion of what. There are several issues under discussion on this page. --MiguelMunoz 05:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, see also Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic --Dual Freq 06:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with including it, as its been noted in the media. Dont make it a big section that repeats all the various speculations though. -Ste|vertigo 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a non-story and not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Press coverage initially focused on the drug abuse angle expecting that Limbaugh would be sanctioned due to his previous drug issues. However, no charges were filed and the story died. The only reason for including it has been an attempt to drum up some illicit, tabloid style sex tourism rumors. There wasn't much support of a merger in the AfD. --Dual Freq 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The common exclusionist argument is moreoften than not based on a preconcieved or biased notion of what an encyclopedia is. Wikipedia is much more than a typical encyclopedia. -Ste|vertigo 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Much more than a typical encyclopedia, but I thought it was much better than the Weekly World News. There is nothing in that story worth repeating except to imply some sort of unreferenced, unsourced sexual misconduct angle. The only reason it made the press in the first place was the potential for further drug abuse charges. No charges were filed and noteworthiness of the incident was gone. Basically, the story was "Limbaugh got busted with drugs, hopefully he'll be arrested", then when he wasn't, the story became "oops, never mind." The AfD indicates that the community doesn't support a merger of the material. --Dual Freq 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The separate article was created by an editor after the same information was repeatedly deleted here. The separate article was then proposed for deletion as a POV fork, see Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic, not because the information was not "notable". (All of this occurred at roughly the same time the Request for Mediation was pending). Deletion of the separate article as a POV fork thus cannot fairly be claimed to have addressed the propriety of including the information here. The Mediation Committee accepted the case and the neutral Mediator designated by the Committee, Ste|vertigo, recommends inclusion. I propose to return the information to the article as framed in the RfM, see Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh. Kpedsea 05:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not quite what happened in this case. A user was trying to make a point and created a stub article that was deleted and not supported for merger by a fairly wide margin. Comments included: "Non-story. "Celebrity uses Viagra." Really? That must be so uncommon.", "I don't think Wikipedia needs it at all, but it certainly doesn't merit a separate article of its own." "Forking out a news article that does not belong in the encyclopaedia is not the way to solve a content dispute over a biographical article." I'd say the AfD is defiantly pertinent. --Dual Freq 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Editor Dual Freq was originally listed as an “Involved party” in the RfM but withdrew, writing (as shown on the history page): “don't drag me in to this, I removed the item because it was placed in improper chronology. I only engaged the talk page once a separate article was created.” Two other editors involved in the RfM, who originally opposed inclusion, have also withdrawn. The neutral Mediator supports inclusion. I think it is time to move forward. Kpedsea 16:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to be removed from mediation because I don't like going around in circles with a bunch of single purpose accounts. I will be removing the non-notable material per the community consensus not to merge on the AfD. --Dual Freq 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There has already been lengthy 5000+ word discussion on this matter, it is clearly not worth a single word in an encyclopedia. A point was made creating the article, the article was deleted, there is no reason to dump this here. --Dual Freq 16:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As the one who nominated that article for deletion, I think that interpreting the results of that AfD as "this material doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all" is a false interpretation of those events. The only correct interpretation of that process was that particular article, at that particular time, was judged by some group of editors to be unsuitable for a stand-alone article.  The issue of including the material elsewhere and in some other form is a separate one altogether.  --ElKevbo 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am for inlcusion, as the media coverage of this issue shows it to satisfy the notability criteria. Also, some of those who support deleting the material have withdrawn from the mediation process. Is there any reason not to include this material now? Lurker  oi!  18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

POV issues with "Limbaugh's Reputation for Inaccuracies" section
This new section has been tagged for POV problems due to the fact that it is based exclusively upon partisan sources opposed to Limbaugh and that the editorial comment in the last sentence is an unsourced extrapolation of facts designed to support a conclusion. This section needs to either have independent third-party sources provided to show the claimed reputation is something other than routine political name calling on the part of Limbaugh political opponents, or else the section needs to be removed. --Allen3 talk 09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that Allen3 has not taken issue with any of the facts cited in the section. I tried to find a source in Limbaugh's favor, but I couldn't find one, although anyone is welcome to add one. As for being based on "partisan sources," those sources are well cited and their claims can be easily checked for accuracy. The claim made in the article, that FAIR has questioned Limbaugh's accuracy, is correct and supported by the cited sources, which are FAIR's actual allegations. Limbaugh does have a reputation for getting his facts wrong, and this certainly has a place in the article. --MiguelMunoz 10:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not "take issue with any of the facts cited" because the claims are irrelevant to my argument. The problem is this section is nothing more than the claims of Limbaugh's political opponents, individuals and groups with an incentive to misrepresent and disparage.  Until the underlying problem with the source is addressed there is no need to debate the "facts". --Allen3 talk 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the section in question because it had absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bio's of living people are held to a high standard on Wikipedia, but text like this has no place in any Wikipedia article. Gregmg 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gregmg: Please don't remove something until we've had a chance to discuss it on this talk page. Two highly credible media watchdogs have raised valid questions about Limbaugh's accuracy. This has a very valid place in the article. The rest of the article paints a glowing portrait of Limbaugh's commentary, and I wrote this section to provide some balance. I have rewritten and expanded the section, and removed the extrapolation that Allen3 objected to. If you want to add to this section with evidence in defense of Limbaugh, please do so. --MiguelMunoz 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MiguelMunoz: Please don't add content to articles that violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then chastise your fellow Wikipedians for removing said content. Gregmg 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I sounded like I was chastising you, I apologize. I was simply inviting you to discuss our disagreement on this page. (See below) --MiguelMunoz 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Allen3: Your 2nd comment says that you don't take issue with the facts because they're "irrelevant." But then you claim that my sources "misrepresent" Limbaugh's views. So they're relevant after all. But if my sources indeed "misrepresent" Limbaugh's views, you need to present evidence. --MiguelMunoz 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is the poster-child for What Wikipedia is not. Please review this official policy and explain why this section should remain in this article. Gregmg 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I assume you're not alleging self promotion or advertising, so it looks like you're concerned with the first point under "Not a soapbox," which states that Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. I agree. However, the Rush Limbaugh article presents a glowing portrait of the quality of Limbaugh's commentary without any dissenting point of view. As I'm sure you know, Limbaugh is a controversial figure, but you would never know this from reading Wikipedia's article. If you view my section in isolation, you could reasonably charge me with spewing out propaganda (though that's debatable), but when you view my contribution as part of a larger article, it's clear that the article as a whole is not propaganda or advocacy, and therefore conforms to Wikipedia's "Not a soapbox" rule. If you're aware of how controversial Limbaugh is, you would expect to learn something about the controversy from a Wikipedia article. I should point out that the charges of inaccuracy are very well documented, and you're welcome to refute them in the article. (Also, I should clarify that, by controversy, I'm referring specifically to the content of Limbaughs commentary, not his personal life. The article's discussion of his personal life covers a separate controversy, which is not an issue here.) --MiguelMunoz 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the "glowing portrait of the quality of Limbaugh's commentary" that you are claiming justifies the addition of this weasel worded section in apparent violation of Neutral point of view? The only thing outside your addition close to analysis of Limbaugh's commentary is Lewis Grossberger's style comment.  I realize that the article portrays Limbaugh differently than sites such as Democratic Underground, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a political advocacy site. --Allen3 talk 04:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Allen3: You're avoiding a central question, which is the accuracy of the charges by FAIR and Media Matters. Are you saying that FAIR and Media Matters got it wrong? Or are you suggesting that telling the truth is political advocacy? The fact is that Limbaugh's career consists of political advocacy, so an unbalanced, glowing portrait of him here is a more subtle form of political advocacy. I'm trying to provide balance. After all, an NPOV (as we learn from the link you thoughtfully provided) will present fairly and without bias all significant views. Yet somehow, the carefully researched and well-sourced view that Limbaugh plays fast and loose with the facts is missing. So where is the "glowing portrait" I describe? I'm glad you asked. Let's start with recipient of the Marconi Radio Award and inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame. Then move on to greatest radio talk show host of all time and most influential host in the nation. That's just in the introduction. Then we read that he's an honorary member of Congress whose has a style that's bouncing between earnest lecturer and political vaudevillian, which kind of suggests that it's important to know if his "lectures" are accurate or not, especially since Limbaugh's audience has the highest percentage (56%) of hard news consumers and that he was a catalyst for the Republican Party's 1994 Congressional victories. All of the sudden, accuracy seems like an important topic of discussion. You don't have to believe FAIR or Media Matters if you don't want to, but readers should know that Limbaugh's accuracy has often been questioned, so they can make up their own minds. By the way, I'm fascinated that you included a link to the Wikipedia definition of "weasel words," because it strengthens my case. What makes a word "weaselly" is the inclusion of unsourced statements. I have provided sources for all of my statements, as I'm sure you verified when you checked out my references. --MiguelMunoz 08:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Munoz: While the quotation You just added is sourced (and,in my opinion, fairly accurate), it is tooinflamatory. Let's try to stick to the fact that various named groups have documentedsome of RL's inaccuracies. By adding shouting statments, You're just incurring deleting and yelling responsesfrom RL supporters.10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (kdammers; I don't knowwhy the tildes didn't show my name.)


 * kdammers: It is a strong statement, but I wanted to illustrate the intensity of the controversy, as well as its scope. I'm leaving it in for now. (Besides, I'm tired right now.) As for the tildes, are you sure you were logged in? That was the problem last time they didn't work for me. --MiguelMunoz 10:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Getaway & PTR: Please don't make major changes until we've had a chance to discuss them here. I restored some of the earlier text from a revision by Allen3. This version restores a sense of the history of this controversy, and emphasizes its intensity and scope, as well as identifying a key player, David Brock. I feel these are important points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs)


 * MiguelMunoz: You did not give substantive reasons on why you reverted my edits.  Media Matters and FAIR are liberal political organizations.  They are not media watchdog groups.  That is just fancy term for a group that has an axe to grind and they are attempting to make it look like that they are neutral and nonpartisan.  The article needs to reflect that the those two groups are simply expressing their opinion, nothing more.  MM and FAIR both have long records of inaccuracy and they both make huge mistakes all the time.  They are no different than any other source of opinion used in Wikipedia and they will not be treated with special treatment.  Their comments will be put in the context that is appropriate.  They both have liberal political agendas and their agenda includes, among other things, to be highly critical of Limbaugh in an attempt to weaken his popularity with the public as a whole.  I'm going to re-edit the article so that MM and FAIR's comments are put in that context and just because I did not comment here, well, that is NOT a good enough reason to revert my edits.  Please focus on substance.--Getaway 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Getaway: Thank you for your comments. I most certainly did give my reasons -- Read my previous comment. What you didn't do is raise any points on the discussion page before making changes. As for your charges:

1) FAIR and Media Matters are certainly media watchdogs, even though they're political. All media watchdogs are political. Rush Limbaugh is political. That doesn't make any of their views invalid, but it does call for balance.

2) Phrases like "axe to grind" serve no function in intelligent debate. It would be equally pointless to argue that Limbaugh has an "axe to grind." He does, and I don't have a problem with that. He has every right to have an axe to grind here in the land of free speech, and so do FAIR and Media Matters. Having an axe to grind is just one way to say somebody takes a certain political position. Limbaugh's positions are one POV of a partisan debate and FAIR's are another. Their axes, excuse me, their views need to be balanced. By the way, I don't know as much about Media Matters as about FAIR, but FAIR makes no claim to be "neutral and nonpartisan" as you suggest. What they claim is to be accurate. You're welcome to challenge that accuracy, with sources. Which leads to my next point:

3) It's very easy to toss out weasel words like "MM and FAIR both have long records of inaccuracy" but you're not providing any evidence that their charges against Limbaugh are fallacious or inaccurate. Judging from Limbaugh's feeble response to FAIR's charges, we might be tempted to conclude that Limbaugh can't answer FAIR because FAIR got it right. If there's a problem with FAIR's accuracy, you're welcome to include it, with sources, in the paragraph. (I've issued this invitation three times already and nobody has taken me up on it.) But you do not get to blindly assert that FAIR isn't a credible source without any evidence to back you up, and you don't get to water down what I've written just because you don't like FAIR's work or because you can't find sources to back up your position.

4) FAIR isn't merely expressing opinion. It's documenting errors of fact. Please don't confuse opinion with fact, they're not the same thing at all. When Limbaugh claims that suspending rules on minority hiring will make earthquake repairs go quickly, he's stating an opinion. But when Limbaugh says the government suspended rules on minority hiring, he's making a statement of fact. FAIR is taking issue with Limbaugh's facts.
 * Simply not true. Did you read through the stuff they wrote?  They assume that global warming in absolutely caused by man-made source.  They are not willing to questiion whether global warming might just be part of the natural process of things, just like the ice age, etc.  No. I am not going to assume that everything that FAIR and MM put out there is true.  The fact that you are making that assumption tells me that you are editing with your own bias, which is not what Wikipedia is about.  We need to present the information and let the reader decide.  You have present one-side of the debate as if it is factual and cannot be questioned.  The use the term, "watchdog", is an example.  That silly term could be applied to anyone, but it isn't for political purposes.  I could call myself a "watchdog" of Munoz's edits, but I won't.  If I did then I would be putting myself out there as if I am superior and more factually correct than Munoz.  You have a right to believe that Limbaugh is inaccurate, but just because FAIR questions some info does not make them more of a watchdog than Limbaugh.  It is a politically charged term and you know it because you are working so hard to revert anyone who attempts to remove it.  It provides the argument that FAIR is infallable and unquestionable.  And I know that ain't true.--Getaway 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that I said "Fair isn't merely expressing opinion. Implicit in this is that they are also expressing opinion. I was not trying to say that they don't express opinion. I was trying to say that they do more than just express an opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, just like Rush Limbaugh is, and just like you and I are. Your comments suggest that their POV is illegitimate because they express opinions. It's not. So once again, I am not asking you to assume that what FAIR says is true. I'm asking you to document any inaccuracies in their statement of fact. You continue to challenge their accuracy without providing any evidence. And your example about global warming is ludicrous, but this isn't the place for that debate.
 * As for the term watchdog, the point of that word is that it concisely describes what FAIR and MM do. They watch the news media and publish examples of bias, distortions, and so on. They do not provide any other kind of commentary. They don't provide opinion pieces, unless they were commenting on bias and distortion in the news media. "Watchdog" is an established term in the field of media criticism. It's not my word. FAIR and MM are both considered watchdogs in the academic world of media criticism. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Columbia School of Journalism. --MiguelMunoz 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5) I'm not asking for special treatment for FAIR. I'm asking that, as per NPOV rules, their view get equal treatment. Are you asking for special treatment for Limbaugh's views?

6) Please focus on substance? I am. I feel it's important to provide a historical perspective on this controversy, and I feel the article needs to illustrate of the depth and scope of the controversy, which is provided by the Media Matters quote. I also feel this section needs a defining introductory sentence. For these reasons, I'm restoring much of the previous text. If you disagree, please take issue with me on this page.

BTW I feel that Allen3 made a useful clarifying edit in an earlier revision, when he labeled FAIR a "progressive" organization, and provided a link to an article. I find that much more accurate than "Liberal," since FAIR keeps its distance from classic liberalism, and sometimes takes issue with people who call themselves Liberal. Can we keep the "Progressive" label? --MiguelMunoz 12:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a question and a couple comments. The Franken book and The Way Things are Aren't are listed in the books section. Why should these books but not the others be singled out and highlighted in the article?
 * They are mentioned because we have a section that deals with these allegations, and the books provide documentation. They play a role in the controversy. I haven't contributed much to the other sections, so I can't say why other books aren't mentioned, but their mention probably doesn't provide any illumination of the article's contents. --MiguelMunoz 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia biographies should be specific and have multiple sources. If Limbaugh has a history of inaccurate statements then that will be reported at the New York Times and/or Wall Street Journal or other reputable news sources. For example, the Michael J Fox story was reported in every major media outlet. The charges in the FAIR link are not cited by multiple major news sources. I don't think a good Wikipedia article would cite Franken and Media Matters and FAIR. The content of the Questions About Accuracy section is vague, not well sourced, and the quotes are seemingly chosen at random. In its current form I don't think this section makes a positive contribution to the Rush Limbaugh article. Herb West 15:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most newspapers don't provide a lot of coverage of any commentator who gets things wrong. They pretty much leave that to other commentators. The Michael J Fox story probably got a lot of coverage because 1) It happened in the course of a political campaign, 2) MJ Fox is a popular actor whose condition tugs at peoples heartstrings, and 3) a lot of people had seen MJ Fox's commercial, even outside the state with the voter referendum, so it made for good news coverage. By contrast, Rush Limbaugh incorrectly claiming that government red tape was cut for earthquake repairs, long after the earthquake is old news, is dry stuff that won't sell newspapers. Also, FAIR doesn't get a lot of press in major newspapers because they're often highly critical of those very papers, so the paper's don't like to give them a lot of publicity. As for your claim that the section is vague, I agree. At the time you made this post, the version was the one that Getaway has extensively rewritten and, in my view, completely watered down. That's why we're in this discussion. Could you do us a favor and use the history tag to check out the version dated 04:57, 21 February 2007, and see if you find that one vague, too? --MiguelMunoz 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed the adjective "highly" since it's not encyclopedic as it's subjective. The sentence "They regularly add ..." is not encyclopedic since it implies there are always things to criticize and will be in the future.  I have not removed it but think it should be.  The qualifier "A number of..." should be rewritten or removed since you are referencing three which is "a few" and not "a number."  "Other groups have since joined..." should be rewritten, "Other groups have also questioned..."  Al Franken didn't "raise questions" he questioned.  The paragraph would be more encyclopedic written:


 * Progressive groups and individuals have questioned Limbaugh's accuracy, such as: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), in the July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, Al Franken in a satirical book , and Media Matters, a progressive organization that comments on political events of the day.


 * Some of the things he's said on his shows and in his books have been criticized but shouldn't this material be on his show page and book pages? Is this bio information?--PTR 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The controversy about his accuracy is certainly bio information. Limbaugh has a reputation for getting his facts wrong. This article (as I've pointed out) paints a glowing portrait of Limbaugh, and readers should know that he is a very controversial figure, and why. Limbaugh's alleged inaccuracies are found throughout his broadcasts, books, opinion pieces, and detailing the individual incidents isn't encyclopedic. I leave that to the watchdog groups.
 * As for your edits, Thanks for giving your reasons. Here's my reply. 1) removing "highly" is fine. 2) I said "they regularly add..." to let people know that this is an ongoing controversy, not a merely historical one. (I wasn't happy with the wording, so if you can come up with a better way to get that across, please do.) But judging from MM's web site, they will continue to provide new criticisms. 3) I'm fine with changing "a number of..." 4) I prefer "Other groups have since joined..." since it provides a sense of chronology that "other groups have questioned..." doesn't. The sense of chronology gives a feel for the history of the controversy, while livening up the piece. "other groups have questioned..." is a bit too dry. 5) I'm not sure why you object to "raised questions" but I'm fine with "questioned." 6) Your description of MM is too vague, as I describe below. --MiguelMunoz 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The section heading "questions about" is weasely. Referencing groups merely as having questioned Limbaugh's accuracy is also weasely. Either Limbaugh has made inaccurate statements that have been reported by multiple credible news sources or he hasn't. If he has made inaccurate statements then those statements might be included in the article if they are placed under a heading of Inaccurate Statements with the references cited. Also, I am concerned about this section becoming a catch-all excuse for including random Limbaugh minutia. To merit inclusion in the article the inaccurate statements should be non-trivial events in Limbaugh's overall biography. Herb West 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble with creating a section that of "inaccurate statements," listing each one, is that there are too many for an article like this. Creating that section would essentially be duplicating what FAIR and Media Matters have done. Instead, I created a smaller section that discusses the controversy, and provide links to let people read more. As for your concern that this section becoming a catch-all for random Limbaugh minutia, so far that hasn't happened, and if it did, I would join you in removing anything that isn't related to questions about Limbaugh's accuracy. As for your objections to the section title, I'm not happy with your alternative for the reasons given, although you're welcome to propose other titles. But my title doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of weasel words. Everything I wrote is well-sourced. --MiguelMunoz 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Getaway: You changed the description of Media Matters from "media watchdog" to "progressive organization that comments on political events of the day." That definition could apply to many progressive groups and it seriously broadens the scope of Media Matters' mission and enhances their stature. Media Matters is very specifically a progressive watchdog organization. That's pretty much all they do. --MiguelMunoz 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Allen3 wrote:
 * Mediator comment
 * "This new section has been tagged for POV problems due to the fact that it is based exclusively upon partisan sources opposed to Limbaugh and that the editorial comment in the last sentence is an unsourced extrapolation of facts designed to support a conclusion. This section needs to either have independent third-party sources provided "

One, there are no "independent third party sources" on matters of criticism. Either one is a critic or a supporter. Naturally a section dealing with claims of innacuracies must be put in context that these are critics with a critical point of view. Counterclaims are welcome of course, and each claim is represented and counterrepresented. Naturally the title has to be changed as "reputation" implies some established view - a POV. (Note section headers shouldnt be capitalised). It should just be "claimed innacuraccies". Leave it to the reader to decide whether the number of accuracies constitutes a "reputation". The issue for criticism sections is dont mistake NPOV to mean finding neutral sources. It means keep the writing neutral. If present, use counterbalancing claims, if not, simply add context for the claims. Trust the reader to make up their own opinion about the subject.

GregMG wrote: "I removed the section in question because it had absolutely no place in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Bio's of living people are held to a high standard on Wikipedia, but text like this has no place in any Wikipedia article." Certainly this is not a cooperative way to participate in the editing process. And simply repeating the statement that something "has no place" does not add support to your argument.-Ste|vertigo 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Getaway: I answered your objections to the word "watchdog" on this page. Please contribute to the discussion before removing the word. It's not my word. It comes from the field of media criticism, and it's an accurate and encyclopedic description. I also restored some of the text that, according to you, "takes sides in the debate." As Stevertigo pointed says in "Mediator Comment," "use counterbalancing claims. If not, simply add context for the claims." You're removing facts that you don't like, and removing context as well. Please come back to the discussion. I also corrected your descriptions. Your watered-down description of FAIR's work was vague and inaccurate. Once again, the point of this section is to provide a counter balance to the rest of the article. Wikipedia does not take sides but it does present both sides. Please don't delete material that presents an opposing viewpoint. Note that I'm not deleting any of the material in Limbaugh's defense. It's all still there, where it belongs. --MiguelMunoz 01:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to plug a couple of 10 year old books, one by Franken and the other by Rendall? Both their books are listed in the Books about Limbaugh section along with similar ones like The Assassination of Rush Limbaugh. How big is the criticism section of the Barack Obama article, (a featured article)? I don't see one there. --Dual Freq 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point isn't to plug the books. Limbaugh has been controversial for a long time, and the first documented criticism that I know of was the FAIR study. FAIR continues to monitor Limbaugh and others, and this controversy is very much alive. Today Media Matters carries much of the burden. This section wasn't added because of some long-forgotten article.

Certainly the Obama article will soon enough have a controversy section and that will likely grow to be a separate article, but I dont think the comparison is valid simply because Obama's only been in the national spotlight for a couple years, while Limbaugh's been around longer and has had reasonably controversial things to say over that time. I dont think its proper to refer to book references as "plugs," particularly if they refer to this particular person - certainly those who view Limbaugh favorably would seem to have some interest in minimising any criticism, but of course they are acting out of POV rather than NPOV. From a neutral point of view, its fair to be inclusive and to look down on exclusionism. So with those points brushed aside, what are the objections Dual Freq? Miguel, would it not make sense to post the controversial section here and work on it as a draft? (You can put it on a subpage and transclude it here). That way things can be sort of worked out separately from the article and then included. -Ste|vertigo 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I confess I'm not sure what you mean by "put it on a subpage and transclude it here," but that sounds like a good idea if we can persuade Getaway to cooperate. Can you tell me how we can bring Getaway into the process or prevent him from sabotaging any consensus we come to? --MiguelMunoz 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So "In the July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, a publication of an organization that comments on the media, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), there is an article which lists a series of situation where FAIR believes that Limbaugh's commentary was inaccurate." needs two references? It just looks like a needless way to cite the Rendall book. Everyone has political opponents, and their criticism should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm sure Franken's article could use a section criticizing him. --Dual Freq 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two references because the current draft has been whittled down from one that used to make two separate points, each with its own reference. (I want the previous wording restored, but Getaway doesn't seem interested in discussing this with me.) As for Al Franken, if you want to provide balance to the Al Franken article with some well-sourced criticism, please do so. --MiguelMunoz 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm also curious as to why Progressivism in the United States is used instead of Liberalism in the United States. --Dual Freq 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I selected "progressive" instead of "liberal" because both FAIR and Media Matters self-identify as being progressive( and ). Al Franken ,on the other hand, self-identifies as a "liberal infotainer". --Allen3 talk 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question. Allen3 and I have often been on opposite sides is this debate, but on this point we agree. Classical liberalism and progressivism are often very similar, but they go different ways on some issues, like free trade. If you're not clear on the differences, check out the respective Wikipedia articles. (Franken, despite his claims to be a Liberal, seems to be more of a progressive. But "progressive" is kind of an academic term, which neither politicians nor comics use much these days. Teddy Roosevelt called himself a progressive, but the progressive wing of his party has long since evaporated.) --MiguelMunoz 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since he was "considered by many to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's 1994 Congressional victories." it seems logical that political opponents would begin their attack in earnest following their defeat in 1994. It seems like a large chunk of these "Rush Limbaugh is a fat, ugly, lying republican idiot" books were written in that time frame. I would discount them as politically motivated in light of the 1994 losses. It is evidenced by the fact that these groups are not even willing to call themselves liberal for fear of the stigma Limbaugh attached to the term liberal. --Dual Freq 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about the timing. However they are no more politically motivated than Limbaugh. Neither Limbaugh nor FAIR will deny political motivation. However, that's no reason to discount them. In fact, it's a good reason to present both sides fairly and clearly, especially since the controversy is very much alive. (Check out the Media Matters web site.) But they don't call themselves progressive out of fear of Limbaugh. Progressives have some serious disagreements with liberals, in spite of their close alignment on many issues. --MiguelMunoz 05:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? It seems many editors are against including mention of criticism of Limbaugh because all the sources are Limbaugh critics. Well Duh! This idea that "well, they're liberals, so we can't believe anything they say, even if they do cite facts, because they're opposed to his philosophy" is pretty dumb. Let's erase all mentions of the Clinton impeachment, because that was (to use Dual Freq's words) "politically motived", shall we? -R. fiend 05:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, you are missing something. No one has ever stated that criticisms of Limbaugh should not be in the article.  What I have stated and I will continue to state is that FAIR and MM both have an agenda build and their opinions about Limbaugh's accuracy or lack there of are just simply the opinions of FAIR.  We should mention that FAIR and Franken and MM have made comments, give the reader the place to go to read more if they want to and then sit back and let the reader decide.  But to state, as all of Munoz's edits do, that FAIR has "documented" so and so then Wikipedia is taking sides in the debate and basically stating that Wikipedia agrees that FAIR has "documented" so and so and Wikipedia totally agrees with FAIR's findings.  That ain't the way that Wikipedia works.  Yes, present that Fair/mm/fraken has stated that they have criticisms, but then let the reader decide.  It is not up to Munoz to decide for all Wikipedians that FAIR has "documented" so and so beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't agree that they have.  Beside Wikipedia does not work that way.  Present the two sides of the debate and then let the reader decide, not Munoz.  Munoz attitude is "Let Munoz Decide!".  No.  If wording once again puts out there that FAIR is a "watchdog" and FAIR has "documented" so and so, then I am going to re-write the paragraph with acceptable Wikipedian prose and says things like "FAIR, a liberal organization that comments on the media, has stated so and so".  Now, you can move my words around, etc.  But Wikipedia is NOT going to take a stand that FAIR has "documented" so and so and the term "watchdog" is just a politically charged term.  It is assumes that FAIR is superior to the Limbaugh and that whatever FAIR states has been "documented" when some of the things that they say are just their opinion.  Munoz wants me to drag out each and every statement that FAIR has written and prove to him (WOW!) that it is just opinion or wrong.  I'm not going to play that game.  That is a debate tactic and it has no place in Wikipedia.  That tactic borders on Wikipedia lawyering.  Let's just simply show both sides and then let the reader decide.  Point the reader in the right direction to get the information and then let them decide, not Munoz.  He does not speak for all of the Wikipedia or all Wikipedians.--Getaway 13:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Getaway: You appear to have declared yourself the Decider. I'll deal with that after I've addressed some of your other points.
 * 1) You state: It is not up to Munoz to decide for all Wikipedians that FAIR has "documented" so and so beyond a reasonable doubt. You're treating the word "documented" as if it means "proven." It doesn't, and nobody is suggesting that it does. "Documented" simply means they've provided material for people to read, so they can make up their own mind.
 * 2) Terms like "impeachable offense," which get bandied about by both sides in the political debate, are politically charged terms. I don't recall "watchdog" ever getting used in any political debate. You may not like the word, but it's not "politically charged" at all. As I've stated here before, "watchdog" is a term from the world of media criticism, and it isn't my term. I've raised this point in this discussion and you don't address it at all, you just repeat your earlier claim, as if "watchdog" is my way to politicize this discussion. It's not at all. I also turned the term watchdog into a tag so people can click on it and learn what it means, but that's not good enough for you. Could you please answer my point that "watchdog" comes from the world of media criticism?
 * 3)Munoz wants me to drag out each and every statement that FAIR has written and prove to him. Here you seem to be confusing "document" with "prove" again. So allow me to clarify. When I've asked you to "document" your claim that FAIR is inaccurate or unreliable, all I'm asking you to do is cite some references using the tags, or provide a link here in the discussion. I'm not asking you to "prove" anything.
 * 4) I'm not going to play that game. The "game" I'm asking you to play is to provide references, not to "prove" anything. In other words, to play by the wikipedia rules. You've blindly asserted that FAIR and Media Matters are unreliable, with no references to back you up, then you rip the meat out of the section and fill it with inaccurate and vague descriptions of what's happened.
 * If there were a consensus in this discussion that "watchdog" is politically charged, then you would have a case for removing the term. But nobody on either side of this discussion has supported you on removing the word "watchdog." Wikipedia works by consensus. What I'm asking you to do is participate in the discussion and work toward a consensus. Instead you're acting as a censor, making changes on your own, and then sometimes using the talk page to explain yourself, and disregarding other people's opinions. It's a standard tenet of any political debate that each side gets to present its own case. You get to make your case and I get to make mine. If you have evidence that my sources are bad, you get to say so in the debate, and you get to back yourself up by providing your sources. (This is called "documenting.") But you've decided to present my case. You're to placing limits on what the opposition is allowed to say. You're even redefining the opposition's terms to exclude them from the debate. That's political censorship. That's what Big Brother did in 1984, and that's what I'm asking you not to do. --MiguelMunoz 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediator comments
Miguel, escalating things doesnt help finding agreement, which is why you agreed to mediation in the first place.

Getaway states : "Media Matters and FAIR are liberal political organizations. They are not media watchdog groups. That is just fancy term for a group that has an axe to grind and they are attempting to make it look like that they are neutral and nonpartisan." - This is an opinion, and one about two reputed journalistic organizations. No doubt they have some bad habits you don't like: catching people when they say particular things which people find offensive, for example. Your opinion is noted, but it can hardly override (as if they were just spam) the sitewide usage and references to MM and Fair. That said, even the most "reliable source" is often simply a point of view. NPOV demands we have balance, and the best way to do that is to have counterpoint. Include rather than exclude, period. -Ste|vertigo 07:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Getaway writes: "But Wikipedia is NOT going to take a stand that FAIR has "documented" so and so and the term "watchdog" is just a politically charged term. It is assumes that FAIR is superior to the Limbaugh and that whatever FAIR states has been "documented" when some of the things that they say are just their opinion." - I I think there is very good point here. If Miguel is attempting to assert the superiority or veracity of particular cited claims, above what the plan facts are, that that clearly has to be corrected. -Ste|vertigo 07:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo: When I described FAIR as a "watchdog," and claimed they "documented" incidents of inaccuracy, I never imagined these terms would cause any controversy. In no way did I attempt to assert FAIR's superiority over anybody. My dictionary definition of "document" says Record something in written, photographic, or other form. There's no implication of superiority at all. When I stated that FAIR has "documented" many inaccuracies, I was merely describing what FAIR did. All it means is that they wrote down specific cases of Limbaugh's alleged inaccuracies, combined with their own analysis, to allow us to read about them and make up our minds. It's a simple statement of fact that you can verify by checking out the reference. The individual incidents that they documented may include opinion, but the fact that they documented them isn't. Getaway has been treating this term as if I claimed that FAIR "proved" something beyond reasonable doubt (a phrase that only applies to proof, not to documentation) which is not what I was claiming at all. If I'm misunderstanding where the implication of superiority comes from, please clarify.
 * When I described FAIR as a watchdog, I was doing two things: 1) I was using FAIR's description of itself. "Watchdog" is a standard academic term to describe an organization like FAIR, which is why it has a Wikipedia article. You can go to Columbia School of Journalism website and look up the word "watchdog," and you'll see that they use the term that way. In fact, Media Matters uses the same term. 2) I was clarifying their mission. Identifying FAIR an "an organization that comments on the media," as Getaway puts it, is like identifying Kobe Bryant as someone who engages in athletic competition. Sure, it's accurate, but it's vague. As you say, "include rather than exclude." Wikipedia should no more exclude the term "watchdog" for FAIR then they should exclude "professional basketball player" for Kobe Bryant. As for Getaway's claim that "watchdog" is a politically charged term, it's not. It's just a description. Politically charged terms are those that politicians and commentators use to distort and sway opinion, like "soft on crime" or "baby-killer." Can you cite any examples of politicians using the term "watchdog" in this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 10:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Lets see what Getaway has to say. -Ste|vertigo 23:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've worked on this as well. MM and FAIR are both organizations with agendas which is included in the abouts on their sites.  MM states they are a:  "... progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."  "Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."   FAIR states that EXTRA (the souce cited in the story) articles "... examine biased reporting, censored news, media mergers, press/state cronyism, the power of corporate owners and advertisers, and the exclusion of progressive voices from the media."  I couldn't find the term watchdog in the about section on either site. --PTR 18:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * PTR: FAIR uses the term informally, so it's not on their "about us" page. But it's there on the web site. Search for the word "watchdog" on any of these pages from FAIR's website.
 * 
 * And here's Rush Limbaugh referring to FAIR as a media watchdog. (Actually, he calls them a "media watchdog bunch of homies"!): http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1305 --MiguelMunoz 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Media Matters has many examples where the term is used to describe their work, and the work of others on the right. For example:
 * (This one identifies both MM and Bill O'Reilly as watchdogs.)
 * Here's an example of Bill O'Reilly being called a media watchdog by one of his defenders: --MiguelMunoz 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best way to go is to use the descriptions they apply to themselves. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh has called them a few other things besides watchdog.--PTR 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV demands that we represent the criticism. In politics there are no RS, as you and Getaway have shown that even organizations dedicated to documenting what people say verbatim can be argued with. "MM and FAIR are both organizations with agendas which is included in the abouts on their sites." Note that any journalistic organization by definition is a liberal organization: journalists are people who make it their job to know the facts - factonistas if you will - and as such hold views which are more based on fact that on rhetoric.
 * As much I think I understand how Miguel is percieved as annoying and partisan, I dont think hes in the wrong on this at all. My suggestion to you miguel is to continue your work on a subpage of the article, under a title of "controversies." I will show you how to transclude it into the article.
 * Since this is essentially a debate between exclusionists claiming RS versus inclusionists claiming NPOV, Im going to rule that NPOV trumps RS. (No, wait thats Jimbo's decree, not mine). -Ste|vertigo 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Thank you. I'm not sure what a subpage is, either, so any help there would be appreciated. --MiguelMunoz 09:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You have misread my edits. I did not remove it.  I rewrote it so it was more encyclopedic.  I was mentioning the agenda because RS states you need to be careful with partisan sources especially in BLP articles.


 * Here are my reasons for edits and proposed paragraph rewrite from above:


 * Removed the adjective "highly" since it's not encyclopedic as it's subjective. The sentence "They regularly add ..." is not encyclopedic since it implies there are always things to criticize and will be in the future.  I have not removed it but think it should be.  The qualifier "A number of..." should be rewritten or removed since you are referencing three which is "a few" and not "a number."  "Other groups have since joined..." should be rewritten, "Other groups have also questioned..."  Al Franken didn't "raise questions" he questioned.  The paragraph would be more encyclopedic written:


 * Progressive groups and individuals have questioned Limbaugh's accuracy, such as: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), in the July/August 1994 issue of Extra!, Al Franken in a satirical book , and Media Matters, a progressive organization that comments on political events of the day.


 * Some of the things he's said on his shows and in his books have been criticized but shouldn't this material be on his show page and book pages? Is this bio information?--PTR 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

--PTR 16:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that idea is that his inaccuracies are scattered throughout all his works. They're in his broadcasts, books, opinion pieces, and anywhere else he may appear. If one specific book were controversial, then that's where this discussion would belong. But that's not the case.
 * Also, I'm unclear what you're referring to when you say "I did not remove it." I don't see any reference in my preceding comments claiming you had removed something. --MiguelMunoz 18:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bio and the criticisms are regarding his shows and books not him personally. My comments above where for SteVertigo on his two camps remark; exclusionist and NPOV.  --PTR 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PTR: I don't think Stevertigo was talking about your edits. I know I wasn't. The mediation concerned a conflict between me and Getaway. I don't have any problem with the way you handle disagreements. --MiguelMunoz 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. Sorry to butt in.  I thought he was the mediator for the other item above and just stepped in on this one when he noticed the conflict.  --PTR 12:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversies
What happened to the controversies page on this guy, there used to be a huge segment, and I think a whole separate page on Limbaugh controversy, now there is barely a paragraph. Same thing with the Page on O'reily too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.228.96.42 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Global Warming text
"Limbaugh has been attacked for his views on global warming. He claims that scientist's "consensus" results are predetermined by benefactors (i.e. the United Nations) with a pro-warming agenda. As evidence he cites the Kyoto Agreement's exclusion of the world's largest polluter, mainland China, from severe restrictions that would otherwise apply to the United States economy." I don't think the first sentence belongs with the rest of the paragraph. After reading the first sentence, I was expecting a summary or selection or attacks. Instead, there is a discussion or RL's criticism of scientists. Shouldn't these be in two sepatate pragraphs if included? Kdammers 04:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The first sentence should be followed by a summary of the "attacks", and then by a paragraph describing Rush's position on global climate change. Kpedsea 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Limbaugh Image
Limbaugh's image is probably going to be deleted from wikimedia commons. When I originally uploaded it there it was Cc-by-sa-2.0 licensed on Flickr, but #REDIRECT now the Flickr source shows it non-commercial. Bottom line is there is no way to prove it wasn't always listed non-commercial so it will probably be deleted. I suggest that we find a replacement image. --Dual Freq 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)