Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The active talk page is Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Archives of older discussions:

Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive1 October 2003 - September 2005

Nayger nickname

On Sept. 10th, Kuralyov edited the article to include a reference to a nickname Rush allegedly used for Mayor Nagin, "Nayger". He linked this to a racial slur. Can anyone independently confirm that Rush ever used this nickname? I don't listen to his show more than once or twice a week, so I can't say with certainty that he didn't say it, but it sure seems out of character. A search of rushlimbaugh.com and news.google.com turns up nothing. The only mention I can find of this anywhere besides here is on a liberal message board. Gregmg 22:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As of today, Sept. 11th, there's a lot more information out there on this. It does appear that Rush actually said "Mayor Naygor". Gregmg 14:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a yahoo search on it and was only able to find several liberal blog websites about this. I did not see any reputable mainstream sources. I think this issue may be so new that we may need to do some more research and let this develop before we edit the article. If anyone can produce a reputable source about this , please share.Gator1 17:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

A Google search turns up quite a bit. Here's a soundbite[1]. I'd like to hear it in the context of the show, but if this audio clip hasn't been altered, it does seem deliberate. Gregmg 19:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I agree, but it's just that I have yet to see a reputable website or source report this. Let's face it "crooksandliars" is not about to give us an objective and fair view of Limbaugh or anything he has to say (especially something as controversial as this). I just think we need to get the context and get a more reputable source to give us their take on this before the article should be edited, that's all. If anyone can give us a mainstream reputable source on this one, that'd be great (it may take a few days for others to pick up on it).

I've relistened to Rush's broadcasts; he never said it. Bedford 23:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the audio file making the rounds a spoof? Gregmg 01:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take on the audio. 1) no context but more importantly, it just sounds like a flub, it doesn't sound, to me, like he meant anything by it and he quickly corrected himself and moved on. Unless someone can show is examples of how he has repeatedly said that, I am inclined to chalk this one up to an honest mistake that others are trying to blow out of proportion and just move on. Listen to it, doesn't it sound like an accident or am I off my nut? I might be wrong, but find other examples (from reputable sources that don't, for example, refer to Rush as a "crook" or a "liar" by implication) to pove this, that one clip doesn't do it for me.Gator1 02:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Since this is the only instance that has been presented of Rush referring to Mayor Nagin this way, I suggest leaving it included in the article, but remove the description of this as a nickname. Describe it instead as a one-time reference, possibly a flub. Gregmg 03:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

See, without more than this, I don't even think it should be included. I mean, the man is allowed to make a verbal "flub" without having it put on the article with an insuation that it was a racist statement. I say, leave it out without more evidence, becuase this entire thign could easily be a pointless topic.Gator1 12:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone back and listened to that clip a bunch of times. Upon further consideration, it does sound more like an honest error than it does a deliberate slur. I've edited the article accordingly. Gregmg 22:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Crazy, right-wing quote

A number of anonymous users wish to remove a quote by libertarian Thomas Sowell. This quote has been in the article for a long time, and appears to me to be appropriate. Anyone care to discuss? Gregmg 22:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stay in. It's articulate and helps give the article some balance. Frankly, the anon user that has remeoved it is not doing so out of nay sense of NPOV, but clearly has an agenda of his/her own as evidenced by the repeated use of "crazy right wing quote." That's offensive and very narrow minded. That's my vote.Gator1 23:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree; it need to be left in. There is enough anti-Rush stuff in the entry; we need to keep pro-Rush in for balance. --Bedford 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll bite. I think it should go, not because I think it affects the slant of the article at all, but because were it a quote from someone other than a semi-notable Libertarian, everyone would be jumping on the guy for using weasel words and not citing sources. After all, the quote states, "Actual research on Rush Limbaugh's audience has shown that they are above average in both education and income." Let's be fair here. If a Wikipedian added that phrase to the article, the editor would be taken to task for all sorts of NPOV violation. Why is it OK for some arbitrary Libertarian to make such a claim?

Furthermore, the quote isn't even about Rush Limbaugh per se. It does more to cast aspersions on those critical of him and defend his audience than it does to support whatever good Limbaugh is doing.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First, with respect to the "semi-notable Libertarian" comment, doing a search for Thomas Sowell on Google turns up more hits than Al Franken. No one seems bothered that Al Franken is referenced in this article. Second, with respect to this quote not being about Rush, I strongly disagree. His detractor's have long suggested that Rush just appeals to red necks, slack jawed yokels, and hillbillies. They have suggested this not to disparage his listeners, but quite obviously to discredit Rush. Therefore, this quote is about Rush and deserves to be included in this article. Gregmg 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Instead of debating about the quote, why not actually find this "Actual research" of Rush's audience and cite that instead, if it exists? That seems to be the real issue here, not the notability of Sowell but the credibility of that comment. Fuzheado | Talk 03:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Citing the surveys or studies upon which the Sowell quote was based, instead of the quote itself would kind of be missing the point, since this is an article on Rush, not his listeners. I suppose adding references to the supporting information might be ok, if not a little unorthodox. Normally I would think a reference for the quote would be sufficient. It's not like Thomas Sowell is a contributor to this article (as far as we know). Gregmg 13:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought the point of the quote was to contradict the widely held view (by liberals) that Limbaugh only appeals to rednecks. If that's the case, then cited research that discusses the demographic makeup of Limbaugh's audience will be even stronger than the quote.

The quote needs to go. Let's see some actual research in its place.—chris.lawson (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I would first of all like to apologize for not discussing it first. It was immature and wrong to do without talking about it first, although I didn't think my given reason was “offensive and very narrow minded.”

The quote still needs to go for the first reason that chris.lawson gave. If Sowell were a widely respected pollster or media critic it would be fine to have a comment from him about the demographics of a talk-show audience. But he's a commentator and economist. I also heard about a study by the people at the Annenberg Center that showed that people that listened to talk radio were less informed than others that got their information from other sources. I can't find the study and you don't have to believe me.

As for the Al Franken remark, Al Franken is more well known and I think his comments are widely known enough that they could be allowed in the article. Having said that, you should know that I don't “an agenda” so if there were “crazy left wing quotes” by somebody like Al Franken that somebody wanted removed they wouldn't get a fight from me unless they caused some sort of big controversy. Thanks Chris Lawson and Fuzheado. 206.72.38.167 03:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 206.72.38.167

I think Al Franken may only be 'more well known' as a pop culture figure. Sowell has authored numerous (~13) books. His syndicated articles and columns have appeared in numerous major newspapers and magazines. While he may be an economist, most of his writings seem to deal with issues of race, class prejudice, and politics. My point is that he's not some fringe nutcase. He is controversial, at least in the sense that he is a conservative African-American and some have a problem with that. I don't think there is anyone on the planet more uniquely qualified to comment on these allegations about Rush and his audience. I feel strongly that his quote is appropriate for this article. I'm willing to look up the surveys and provide references for what he said, but the quote is appropriate and needs to stay. Gregmg 14:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Here here.Gator1 14:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

May it's my "liberal sense of superiority" getting in the way, but I don't think that writing 13 books and having articles published about economics, race, class prejudice, and politics automatically qualifies someone to make statements about how savvy his viewers are. It would be great if you could find information that clearly backs up the quote, but take it down until then.

A quick search of Google has yielded a number of references in news stories to survey's that support Sowell's quote. I won't have time to delve into this further until the weekend. If the quote is really bothering you that much, go ahead and pull it for now. I'll put it back when I have direct links to the survey results. Gregmg 00:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I found a number of survey's that support Sowell's quote. Several were from the Annenberg Foundation. I included a link to the most comprehensive survey, but there are several others that could be used as well. I may take another look at this later. Gregmg 22:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a bizarre item to have been discussed and still be in the article. The heading on the section says "demographic appeal", but the quote (and surrounding text) isn't about what the appeal IS, it is about what it ISN'T. There's no way that is encyclopedic. -Jcbarr 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The data is encyclopedic in nature, it's just in the wrong article. Any data or quotes about Rush's audience more properly belongs in the article about The Rush Limbaugh show, not about the man himself. Bjsiders 22:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before (in this thread), I really think this belongs in the article. Rush's detractors have long suggested that he only appeals to rednecks and hillbillies; they do this not to insult his audience but to discredit him. If that wasn't the real issue, I would suggest that this be moved to the The Rush Limbaugh Show article. Gregmg 22:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

But is the role of an encyclopedia to discredit someone's detractors? This quote says NOTHING about Rush himself. The point of the "Rush Limbaugh" article should be an encyclopedic article about Rush. -Jcbarr 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh's real name

Is this guy's given name actually "Rush"? Or is that short for "Rusell" or something? Is there any information on where this name comes from? Bjsiders 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Limbaugh's real name is actually "Rush" (or, more precisely, "Rush Hudson"). The name is French in origin and means "red-haired". [2]

— DLJessup (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

His Grandfather (who lived past 100 years) and father were also named Rush Hudson Limbaugh. Hence the III after his name.--Rogerd 03:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that as a kid, he went by "Rusty". Joe 03:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stirling's edits

USer Stirling Newberry put the following in the article and I removed it twice for violating NPOV. AM I crazy?

He is bst known for his invective and attacks, particularly on Democrats, and his defense that those attacks are purely entertianment. He is the most successful of a generation of radio and television personalities using a populist approach to putting forward right wing and Republican talking points in the format of catchy and easy to remember slogans.

No one else seemsto be objecting and I'm wondering if its becuase I'm nuts or something else. Opinions. I am not going to engage in my own private edit war here.Gator1 13:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're not nuts, that's got serious POV problems. "Best known for invective and attacks..." by whom? Distilling Rush's entire schtick into "right wing and Republican talking points in the format of catchy and easy to remember slogans" is also biased. android79 13:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it has some POV problems, but they can probably be fixed without complete removal. He certainly is well known for attacking Democrats. Is that even debatable? Sure, remove the word "best" as a judgment call. And I'm quite sure that he considers much of what he does entertainment, though that doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he says. As for "right wing and Republican talking points in the format of catchy and easy to remember slogans", I certainly wouldn't say his show is devoid of such things, though condensing him down to those simple elements is a bit over the top. And, as of now, I believe he is the most successful right-wing talk show host, though I imagine that's covered elsewhere in the article. I guess the main question is, once the POV is removed, how much is already covered in the article? -R. fiend 13:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. (Sorry, had to.) android79 13:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Golbez, your response was not necessary and overly aggressive-confrontational. You owe me an apology.Gator1 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Gator1, I'm going to try to say this as nicely as I can, because I appreciate your efforts here and I don't want to throw gasoline on the fire. I didn't find Golbez's remarks any more unnecessary or aggressive or confrontational than your own comment that no one was helping you. I was off Wikipedia during the entire exchange between you and Sterling, and so I was bit surprised to see your "the silence is deafening" comment. Sometimes people are just not watching the article, because they're asleep, eating breakfast, doing their jobs, etc. Let's just relax and try to have patience with each other.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank for your opinion on this subject, I found it to be very helpful. My opinion is unchanged, however.Gator1 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Stirling's edits were clearly intended to inject POV into the article. The removal of those edits was entirely appropriate. They could have been heavily modified to remove the POV, but who's responsibility is that? Shouldn't the original contributor make some effort to stay neutral in making edits? Gregmg 14:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Description used for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

There have been several changes today of the adjective used to describe this group. At present the group is described as a liberal American group. I propose that word liberal be changed to progressive, linking the term to Progressivism in the United States. This change has two benefits over the current version. First, the group describes itself as being a progressive group[3], allowing for verification of the term with a cited source. Second, it removes confusion as to why others are claiming the group it liberal latter in the same paragraph. I agree that the differences in the terms is subtle, but until a source can be provided to conclusively prove that this group is liberal instead of progressive we are probably better off using the term used by the group. --Allen3 ^talk 21:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I inserted the liberal adjective a while back to replace a more POV descriptor another contributor had used. It should be removed if it is a point of contention. Gregmg 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the adjective works for me. While I believe that WP:NPOV requires that any likely bias by the group against Limbaugh should be indicated, the last sentence in the paragraph accomplishes this by providing a documented claim that the group supports a rival political philosophy. --Allen3 ^talk 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rolling on the floor--IN laughter!

LOL! ROOOFL!

I can't stand it...this WHOLE thing is REDICULOUS!!

....Why don't you just leave that top paragraph and delete all the rest? This article is definately NOT neutral!!

Why?

...Please compare this article with the article on Bill Clinton.

I ask you: which article is neutral?

The answer is...NEITHER!

Why? How many bad things can you find about Clinton? How many on Rush? Count 'em up....and figure it out.

DING DING!

Clinton is a champion, a hero of the human race. (Yeah, so what he had a FEW scandals.) He's great! (Look at it--how many bad things about Clinton?) Almost none! One TINY little section about SOME of His scandals--that's it!

You call that non-partisan?? I don't.

Compare...Look at Rush. THREE PARAGRAPHS are neutral! What about the rest of them? "Oh...Rush did this bad thing, Rush did that bad thing, oh, OH, lookie here...Rush did THIS! He was the most scandalous man alive!!"

....But, when you get to Clinton...

"Oh...Clinton? Why, he he, he was the greatest man alive--only had a few scandals (you probably could count them on one hand) and when he was around, we were doing just great and everything was ok..."

...Fair and balanced? I don't think so....

Here's the deal...Edit out the majority of bad stuff on Rush--you can leave a little in. But...make these articles look fair. C'mon!

....And the Vince Foster case...was nowhere to be found. Nor the hundreds of people who vanished that were going to tattle on Clinton...remember all those suicides?????

Who can see this? Let's be honest, shall we? And let's ask ourselves one question...what IF Rush was a Democrat and Clinton was a Republican? I'll bet your bottom dollar that there would be some "happy" and "care-free" article on Rush's life and how "fair and balanced" he is.

...And Clinton? No...no, not Clinton. He's a R-r-republican--and just LOOK at all these scandals and look at all these HORRIBLE AUTROCITIES that happened just becaue he EXISTED!! He's not a role-model! He's a MEANACE!!!

...Guys...let's be fair, shall we?

--jfritzyb

Not that your inane ramblings warrant a response, but I'll give you one anyway. Did you notice these separate articles: Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Pardongate (probably others too)? Come back when we have separate articles on every Limbaugh scandal. -R. fiend 13:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

True..true.. but I will agree with our rambling maniac on one thing.. It is impossible to have a "fair" article that is "truthful". The fact of the matter is that the truth and fairness having nothing to do with oneanother. Such articles as Limbaugh and Clinton simply cannot have NPOV. Better would be to have separate pro and con articles and let the public read both and make up their own mind.

Recent revert by me

Oops, sorry! I didn't realize what I was reverting was a quote. I only looked at the diff and not the article. My apologies. android79 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sowell's quote was recently the topic of much discussion. Please see "Crazy, right-wing quote" above. Of course, nothing is ever really settled on Wikipedia, and everything is always open for discussion. I can't add much to what I've already said on this. I really think the quote is appropriate, all things considered. Some verbage could be added, though, to better tie it in with the earlier paragraphs. Gregmg 13:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

kerry photo

does anyone where I can find the photo that was on Rush's site of kerry when he "flashed the bird"?

grazon 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

here [4]

Widely credited

• Limbaugh is widely credited with having defeated Hillary Clinton's proposed national health care plan.

Can we please have some sources for this "wide crediting"? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is cause or coincidence. However, it's certain that old media did not scrutinize the plan. Who did?

Limbaugh used his 3 hours a day to discuss, debate, and raise awareness of the plan during 1993 and 1994, calling it nationalization of one seventh of the nation's economy. He wasn't the only voice in opposition but certainly the one with the biggest audience.

Oh.. a source... Try Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton. patsw 02:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, many sources would be better if the assertion is that Limbaugh is "widely credited". What does Clinton say in her book? I've never read it. On the internet I see this excerpt:

• "Limbaugh and others rarely criticized the contents of the Health Security Act or any other policy the Democrats introduced." (Page 245)[5]

That wouldn't seem to agree with the assertion. Anyway, let's find a source or sources. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's only means that Limbaugh's criticism was so effective, HRC thought it was worth mentioning him negatively -- or do you really believe that Limbaugh's 1993-1994 criticism was rare? patsw 05:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The assertion posted above gives Limbaugh sole credit for having defeated the plan, which must be implausible even to a fan. Can we start by finding a specific source, saying a specifc thing? (i.e. "H. Clinton blames Limbaugh for leading the succesful fight for the defeat of the health plan she organized"(see page xxx)) We can add on from there. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh's Self-proclaimed Ubersexuality

Limbaugh has commented on-air about his peculiar self-image as an ubersexual, deserves inclusion in article, imho, as evidence of his drug-induced brain damage, and obtuse insistence on missing the fundamental point of every argument, to wit, that no one except Jeff Gannon or Karl Rove would consider him the least bit sexy.

In an attempt to counter the rumors that he is a self-hating gay, Limbaugh declared on the broadcast of Oct 11 2005 that he is an ubersexual [6].

  Please tell me, what exactly is your point?The Scurvy Eye 20:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And?--Matt 09:31, 6 November 2

And what?The Scurvy Eye 02:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mega-Dittos

I was just reviewing the recent edits of an anonymous contributor and was surprised by the dittohead reference. In all the times that I've reviewed this article, I never noticed the rather conspicuous absence of any reference to this term. You can't listen to the Rush Limbaugh show for more than a few minutes without hearing someone say dittos or mega-dittos, and over the years, dittohead been misinterpreted to slander Rush's listeners. As a standalone article, I don't believe dittohead stands well on its own. I think it would be better to include it here. What does everyone think? Gregmg 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, this is probably better left for The Rush Limbaugh Show article. I notice though that it's only mentioned in passing there. Gregmg 20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Absence of the dittohead term is quite amusing and revealing, yet more evidence of the hyper-sanitizing of this article, since even the term dittohead is now an embarassment to Limbaugh's idiot followers, revealing a little too much about their adulation of an ignorant dropout poseur, aka rascist fascist demagogue. Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace, Big Brother is Watching You, welcome to Amerikkka.

I think like many people, you've misunderstood the term "dittohead". As is explained in the dittohead article, when a caller ends their comments with "... mega dittos Rush", they are really saying "love the show, enjoy your satire, great to hear a conservative POV, etc." Since the term is more a part of the show and its listeners, it's probably better left discussed there. Gregmg 17:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Demagogue

If Limbaugh is not a demagogue then I dont know who is, absence of the term from the article is to take NPOV to the point of idiocy.

As per the article Demagogy

The word is nowadays mostly used as a political insult: political opponents are described as demagogues, but people we approve of are "men of the people," or great speechmakers.

As Limbaugh is a current political figure, the decision on whether he fits the definition of being a demagogue is largely based on the political views of the decision maker and including a link to the article on demagogy strongly implies that Limbaugh is a demagogue. Meeting NPOV requirements means we should not make the decision on if he is a demagogue. An appropriate attributed quote claiming he is a demagogue would however be acceptable. --Allen3 ^talk 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Demagogue is a loaded word. It's highly pejorative, and the Demagogy article even describes the term as an insult. Ditto's though with what Allen3 said... a quote concerning this would be appropriate for the article. (I guess that makes me an Allen3-dittohead.) Gregmg 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of my personal dislike for the man such language is political framing and as such constitutes a violation of the general objective nature that is supposed to be the Wikipedia standard. If he is truly a demagogue then the objective facts should show it not the opinion of the writer. If the objective facts fail to show this then perhaps he is not a demagogue.--Matt 09:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to get demagogue into the article, it would be useful to find someone in media criticism who's tagged both liberals and conservatives as demagogues and quote it. patsw 17:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The word is nowadays mostly used as a political insult is itself POV, and in any case irrelevant. If one employs the tactics of demagoguery as listed in the article, then what should one be called, if not a demagogue? This semantic quibbling is as ridiculous as saying one cannot call Bill Clinton or George W Bush a liar, when the objective facts indicate they have in fact lied. According to Wikipedia's insane NPOV dogma, there have been ZERO liars or hypocrites in all of recorded history, amazing.

If you want to get into semantics and philosophy of reality everything is a point of view, for our purposes here such discussion is irrelevant. You don't have to call someone a liar for everyone to see they are a liar you don't have to call a demagogue a demagogue if the preponderance of facts shows him to be one. As I said previously, if the audience cannot conclude that someone is something from the factual information being presented then either that information is lacking, your audience is inept, or perhaps the title is nothing more than popular opinion.--Matt 18:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hate speech

Who has accused Limbaugh of hate speech? patsw 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure. An anonymous contributor has repeatedly put a reference to it the "Balance and point of view" section. I reluctantly reworded this reference using the qualifier "some". Strictly speaking, I think "some" is one of those weasel words that is to be avoided. In any case, hate speech should not be linked twice in the article; only the first occurence should be linked. Gregmg 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Commenting vs. defining

The current wording of the Philosophy subsection titled "Defining the conservative movement" is a little too... glowing, I think. It does not reflect a NPOV. To say that Rush defined the conservative movement puts too much weight on the importance of his thoughts on this subject. It's more neutral, I think, to title this section as "Comments on the conservative movement." What does everyone else think? Gregmg 14:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gregmg, is this is your inner-Bill O'Reilly talking? It's a neutral observation that Rush with 20 million listeners does more than comment on the conservative movement in the United States as if he were outside the movement looking in at it. While not attacking Harriet Miers as Ann Coulter did, he withheld support from the nomination, and this led to his invitation to the op-ed, which as I have edited into the article does not refer to "I" but to "We". It is a dramatic demonstration that the President can be deaf at times to the voice of the movemement. It is not overreaching, I submit, that this op-ed is more than mere comment, it is a definition. And if this were not a definition of the conservative movement, what form would such a definition take? patsw 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and political commentator. He is not the head of the Republican party. He is not the President, majority leader in Congress, or even a politician. To suggest that his 20 million listeners follow him as a conservative leader is to give credence to the whole "dittohead" argument that his detractors keep presenting. He may have defined the conservative movement in this op-ed piece, but who cares? Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the show (even if Rush's political commentary is a little too liberal for me), but the way this quote is presented is definitely not NPOV. Gregmg 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rush as entertainer is the point of view based on the jealousy of his competitors for his audience, popularity, and influence.

I think you are projecting someone else's view of Rush on me. I am not saying that Rush is the head of the conservative movement but that this particular op-ed defines it with a clarity that, frankly, Bush, Frist, and Hastert or any conservative politician have failed to do in the recent past. Or are you saying that Rush lacks the credibility among conservatives to make the statements he does in the op-ed?

Who cares? At the time this op-ed was written (i.e. Miers was the nominee, indictments of Rove and Cheney were predicted), the liberal critics called it the crackup of the conservative movement. I really don't know how the word "neutral" applies here -- the whole context here is one of conservative advocacy. It is simply more accurate to call it a definition rather than a commentary. It is a first person account so another word such as declaration or statement would fit. I'm not so much obsessed with definition as much as I reject commentary as inaccurate. patsw 18:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from. You are asserting that Rush is more than an entertainer and political commentator; and for all practical purposes, he is driving the conservative movement in America. By being a defacto leader of this movement, he is in a position to define what it is. I hope I haven't mischaracterized your position, but if I have it right, no point you've raised justifies giving such weight to his definition. I would greatly appreciate another POV on this issue. Gregmg 20:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think most people agree that there isn't a single conservative movement in the United States but I believe that the movement, as opposed to Republican officials and Bush's inner circle, was united behind the idea that the Miers nomination was not advancing the movement. So I don't put Rush as the leader, defacto or otherwise.

On the other hand, his op-ed was not a passive observation on the movement (i.e. a mere commentary) but written as a leader of the movement as a motivational statement or definition to the conservative movement and to the people who passively observe it. It's simply the distinction between observer and participant that I am making. patsw 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

When Dick Cheney calss Rush personally as one of the first moves in selling a nomination, one can be justified in asserting Rush is more than an entertainer, and actually is a leader, for better or (much) worse, of this neofascist movement.

American Forces Network Scheduling

• The Rush Limbaugh program represents less than 1 percent of the total weekly radio music, news, sports and information programs fed by American Forces Network.
• The news and news commentary from National Public Radio is believed by some to have a liberal bias and believed by others not to have a liberal bias. The article doesn't need to and shouldn't make a conclusion on this question.
• What is Ed Schultz doing in this article? Rush has 20 listeners for each 1 of his. Has Rush taken a position on whether AFRTS should carry his show? The fight over his show should going into his article and or the American Forces Network article. patsw 03:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh has commented on-air about the Congressional debate re the AFRTS censorship of the Ed Schultz show, without however mentioning Ed Schultz by name. Schultz is relevant for inclusion as his handlers are the same original promoters of Limbaugh, and since he intentionally models his radio style directly after Limbaugh's, right down to the stupid antics of pounding the table for emphasis as well as working himself up to a froth of feigned righteous indignation. Judging by his rapid audience growth, it appears to be working as well for him as for our beloved fuhrer Limpballs.

Audience size

Uhh. How long has Arbitron's 20 million been an anonymous 13 million?71.193.3.242 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we are seeing the normal pattern of changing audience sizes that Rush has experienced for years at play with these numbers. I do not have a source available, but my memory is that the 20 million number is from the months just before the 2004 elections. The 13 million number appears to be current ratings numbers and reflect the reduced level of political interest outside an election year. If anyone can locate appropriate sources, we should probably list both the peak listener numbers along with the most recent Arbitron figures. --Allen3 ^talk 01:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Results published in October 2005 give Limbaugh an audience of 20 million. [7][8]

So I'm going to restore the 20 million number with the link to the press release from Premiere Radio Networks.

I'm also going to drop the unverified claim regarding the size of Paul Harvey's audience. I haven't seen any recent estimates of the current size of his audience. Also, the comparison always bothered me as one of apples and oranges since Harvey's spots are either 4 or 8 minutes long. (Did people turn on radios or tune to the station specifically to hear Harvey?) patsw 03:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing why there's such as big discrepency between what Premiere Radio and Talkers report as audience size. I will try to find out. If anyone knows please answer here. patsw 20:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many folks do turn on a station just for Paul Harvey. They tend to skew older, though. There are quite a few stations that carry Harvey right before Limbaugh, which makes for a pretty powerful ratings punch. However, that combination has become less frequent since many Clear Channel stations switched over to Fox News Radio affiliation (Harvey is with ABC).Realkyhick 16:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Morton Downey Jr.

Who awarded Morton Downey, Jr. the credit which the heading of the Rush Limbaugh article assigns to him largely responsible for the shift in AM broadcasting to a news-talk format?

I don't want to remove credit where credit is due, but any history of radio and television I seen (outside of the Wikipedia) puts Downey in the category of being outrageous simply for the sake of obtaining high ratings. Perhaps today's version of him is Michael Savage (commentator)

The influences on Limbaugh I think would have been Joe Pyne, Jean Shepherd, and Bob Grant all of whom could have been heard by Limbaugh in the 60's through the 80's. I wonder if Limbaugh ever heard Victor Riesel. When I first heard Limbaugh, I thought his style of first person news narration was similar to Riesel's reporting.

What got AM talk radio going? I pretty much agree with the Talk radio article, which, by the way, doesn't mention Downey. patsw 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

'neglects to mention...'

Sowell may have been referencing surveys such as those from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, but neglects to mention the dittohead phenomenon as being the stereotype of a Limbaugh listener.

The quote from Sowell makes sense but the above sentence which follows doesn't make sense. I don't want to delete it without giving someone an opportunity to correct it or offer a better rebuttal to the point that Sowell makes (assuming the sentence was a rebuttal argument to Sowell) . patsw 04:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dittohead, as defined by Rush's fans, is simply another way of saying one is a fan of the show. When used by Rush's detractors, it is intended as an insult; it means that one is a mindless drone that blindly follows Rush's lead. As a phenomenon of the show (using the former definition), any discussion of dittohead really belongs on the show page. However, as an insult intended to slam Rush's fans and to discredit him, some discussion of it probably belongs here. The current wording is odd though. It should become a standalone paragraph. Gregmg 05:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible change to summary?

Hi! In helping a new arrival to understand that a partisan and highly controversial figure can be covered fairly and neutrally on Wikipedia, I'm looking for good examples. (The article in question is Simon Wessely, where Jimbo himself recently intervened.) The Rush Limbaugh article seems generally good to me, but I was wondering about the summary. To me it doesn't convey what makes him different from any other entertainer. Could the summary be improved in that regard? And would words like "partisan" or "controversial" help in that? Thanks, William Pietri 18:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It helps to know that neither Hitler nor Stalin are labeled controversial in the Wikipedia.

The word takes on a unique meaning in the Wikipedia: it simply means that critics have arrived here and are adding negative opinions on the subject to the article.

William, calling Rush an entertainer is inaccurate, by the way. He is a radio talk show host. His critics use this occupational label to minimize his importance in shaping public opinion. It's a put down. patsw 19:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just quoting "entertainer" from the summary; I don't have any personal point of view. I note, though, that the article says he describes himself that way.

As to Hitler and Stalin, I don't think they are controversial these days. Take a look, though, at Hugo Chavez's summary; you'll see it makes much clearer what a polarizing figure he is. Wording aside, do you think that the intro fails to convey part of what distinguishes him from other public figures? I sure do. --William Pietri 20:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody have futher objections to a change like this? Thanks, William Pietri 20:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Views on Homosexuality

The claim is made in the article that these are the the subject's views on homosexuality

In 2003 Limbaugh suggested that the pro-choice movement could theoretically promote an anti-gay rights policy:

Imagine we identify the gene — assuming that there is one, this is hypothetical — that will tell us prior to birth that a baby is going to be gay…. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, [that he] was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you don't know but let's say half of them said, "Oh, no, I don't wanna do that to a kid." [Then the] gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody you've ever seen. … They'd be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies. [9]

Limbaugh opposed teaching grade school students about homosexuality in 1993 and wrote of gay rights as being special rights. He has made similar statements about transsexuals.

• It is inaccurate to say these are his "views on homosexuality": Having heard the original on-air version of this, I think he was giving this as a hypothetical and from this hypothetical it's not at all clear what position he has on real political issues such as anti-discrimination law, legal recognition of civil unions and gay marriage, etc.

• The above hypothetical is frankly a mess of generalizations and suppositions about the attitudes of parents (and the larger socierty) towards "perfection" in children by using abortion for trait selection, and the political will of the "gay community" to confront the pro-choice absolutists. To pull from this that Limbaugh is actually talking about "an anti-gay rights policy" is nonsense.

• Perhaps the article could have a complete and accurate "views on homosexuality" section, but as written, this is not it. patsw 02:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. This section is a bit of a mess, but since Rush has been repeatedly accused of being a self hating gay, some mention of his limited comments on homosexuality is probably in order. In other words, this section is better than nothing. Gregmg 04:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm the editor who restored that subsection. One of the habits of vandals around Wikipedia is to blank chunks of text. Therefore, when I review the history of an article I've got watchlisted, if I see text deleted without explanation, I almost always restore it with the edit summary "restoring text deleted without explanation". I try to be consistent about this to avoid POV problems. That being said, I would be perfectly happy if patsw were to remove the subsection now and have an edit summary like "see Talk:Rush Limbaugh#Views on Homosexuality".

— DLJessup (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

racism

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180006

Football Injury

A quote was recently added stating that there's no evidence that Limbaugh ever played football. This strikes me as being inappropriate. Is there any controversy over this? Somebody who claims to have proof he never played? I mean, I've got a nagging knee injury from hockey, although I never played for my high school or in college. I suggest that the line be removed unless there's some kind of controversy over the claim. Bjsiders 19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. — DLJessup (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this could help shed some light on the quote- http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm

I have added in the notation by the football coach about Limbaugh's injury, It is not a 'Disingenuous attempt to cast aspersions on character'. It is noted in the book 'The Rush Limbaugh Story'. The notation of this book was previously added as a footnote. the statement is found in the same pages.Rsm99833

Critics suggest...

... though critics suggest that his influential father pulled strings to arrange his passing-over.

Please provide a citation for this claim. The only Internet mentions of this appear to have picked it up from this Wikipedia article. patsw 04:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I tracked down this claim to a user named Geoff NoNick, who made the edit on November 3, 2005. (See this diff.) I have made a post on his talk page, requesting a citation.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Documented to be almost always right, 99.4% of the time?

Limbaugh claims that he's documented to be almost always right and then follows this up with a ludicrously high figure, like 98.2 or 99.4 or something. Is this just part of his on-air schtick? Or is there actually somebody keeping track of this? If so, how is this information gathered and - uh - how reliable is it? If it's more than just shtick, it might be a worthy entry to either this article or the one about The Rush Limbaugh Show. Actually, the show is probably a more appropriate place. Any thoughts? Bjsiders 20:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It one of the jokes that is meant to understood by long-time listeners and to confound new listeners. The opinion audit is conducted by The Sullivan Group which refers to Thomas M. Sullivan. I have added a wikilink to the See also section to satisfy the curious. patsw 05:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It is typical Limbaugh Goebbels style demagoguery B.S., he never acknowledges his gaffes, for example when pronouncing the following egregious error proclaiming his absolute certainty that Karl Rove could not have been the Valerie Plame leaker:

from rushlimbaugh.com: If Rove Leaked, We'd Have Known in '04 July 5, 2005 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Let me say one thing about this Karl Rove business. Let me tell you how I know. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rove is not the leaker. If Karl Rove were the leaker to Matthew Cooper of TIME Magazine, do you think they'd have kept that news private during the 2004 presidential campaign? This leak occurred in 2003. If Karl Rove engaged in criminal activity, do you not think that the media -- who claimed to know it all now -- would have not released that information during the campaign, given it to John Kerry or something and made it a huge campaign issue that the president's chief political advisor is a criminal?

This is off the subject, but if Rove is known to be the leaker, why was he not charged with anything? Nobody has been charged for the leak yet, just that Libby dude being a pain during the investigation, right? How do you know that Mr. Limbaugh was wrong? I don't doubt that he might be, but you're presented this is a well-known fact to back up your point, and I'm not convined that it's (a) well-known or (b) a fact Bjsiders 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just a part of his schtick, and it's about as meaningful as "omg rush is goebbels". android79 20:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

it may shock youto learn, but there is also no real museum of broadcasting where the tapes get sent via armoured courrier and he does not actually has half of his brain tied behind his back.--Kgs 06:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Club Gitmo Article

I suggest that the Club gitmo article be merged in to this one? Perhaps under a new category entitled, Controversies or something? Thoughts? --Toddbloom7 02:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have change the Club gitmo article into a redirect to The Rush Limbaugh Show. The article on the show already has a sizable list of show related jargon, including information on "Club Gitmo". --Allen3 ^talk 02:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, works for me - I always forget that talk show hosts usually have two pages. I should of checked there first. --Toddbloom7 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How are these not Controversial statements?

• He has called Native Americans "Injuns" [10]
• He's told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." [11]
• He claims "What if Fidel Castro shows up and says "I endorse Kerry"? The Black Caucus would like that." 3/19/04
• and has said "Hugo, Cesar--whatever. A Chavez is a Chavez. We've always had problems with them." [3/26/04]

--grazon 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Elsewhere I've mentioned that in the Wiki-glossary "controversial" is "critics have arrived here". Listeners (and readers of this article) are going to judge for themselves whether these quotes deserve their approval or condemnation. Remember that he makes a living out of being controversial and if often criticized by his callers for going soft on matters upon which the callers expect him to be more outspoken.

For people who haven't clicked on the snopes link, Rush said over 15 years ago that he felt guilty about the "bone" quote from over 30 years ago. If he had many more quotes like that in his long career, he might have ended up as Bob Grant, Al Campanis, and Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder did. patsw 03:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Limbaugh did end up like Jimmy the Greek Snyder. He got fired from ESPN (so much for "feeling guilty" about that racial quote. Unfortunately he makes his living peddling hate. --Asbl 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The page are spinning off the calendar to make sense of what you just wrote. According to Newsday and reported in snopes.com Limbaugh made a racist remark to a caller over 30 years ago when he wasn't doing a talk format, and apologized for it over 15 years ago. Can't you move on from that? Limbaugh wasn't fired by ESPN in 2003, he resigned when the other on-air commentators and ESPN executives wouldn't back him up. He was asked by ESPN to stir up some controversy and he did so -- on the Philadelphia media, not McNabb.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

The irony is that Limbaugh in 2005 has defended McNabb from the attacks of the Philadephia media for getting surgery that will take him out for the rest of the season.

On the credibility of the quotes, I've heard him say tongue in cheek injuns and I think that's just to taunt listeners like Ashbl. The two other quotes are entirely legitimate political observations. I don't have free access to the Newsday archive to verify the details of the 1970's bone quote. patsw 17:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that according to the Snopes article, he did not apologize, only felt guilty. Somehow I doubt he could ever apologize about anything, just as I doubt his fundamental racism behind that quote has ever changed. He has just gotten a little more careful, but he is no less a hateful nazi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.55.248 (talk • contribs) .

Anon, in the Wikipedia, we assume good faith, so we accept that snopes.com refers to a real Newsday article on Limbaugh, and that, in context, Rush admitted guilt and apologized and didn't qualify felt guilty into a non-apology for what he said to one caller over 30 years ago. It's entirely possible that the referenced Newsday article doesn't exist or it doesn't say what snopes.com says it says. patsw 17:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that the "pull the bone out of your nose" quote should appear in the "controversial" section. It has been replicated many times in mainstream media outlets without challenge, hasn't been disputed by Rush Limbaugh in the past, and rightly or wrongly is one of his most famous statements. I think it falls under common knowledge and would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. Freddie deBoer 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Chickenhawk

Where is the link to Chickenhawk? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.55.248 (talk • contribs) .

• Not in the article. Don't add it. android79 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghostwriters

That Limbaugh used ghostwriters for his books is not in doubt. Should this fact be mentioned in this article? I think so. Does anyone disagree? --SpinyNorman 05:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy disagrees. First, we assume good faith. If Limbaugh says he's the author, then we accept that until proven otherwise. If there's evidence that his books were ghostwritten, then describe it, identify the source, and cite. patsw 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does it say that Limbaugh "says he's the author"? Has he actually said that, or are you simply assuming it because his name is on the book? Surely you know that celebrities use ghostwriters, don't you? --SpinyNorman 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There were references to Limbaugh's ghost writers at one point in this article, and they were removed per the above policy. Barring some kind of reliable source and evidence, the issue is closed. Bjsiders 16:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll replace the reference since the New York Times is generally considered to be a reliable source. --SpinyNorman 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By who? Didn't they just fire their CEO last year for covering up reporters who were manufacturing quotes and stories? Bjsiders 17:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the article text to include Limbaugh's disclosure of John Fund and Joseph Farah as collaborators. They can't be characterized as co-authors or ghostwriters since the books contain Limbaugh's original ideas and neither Fund's nor Farah's. patsw 05:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rush Doesn't Speak "15 Hours a Week"

Regarding this quote from the article: "His defenders claim that because Limbaugh talks unscripted for fifteen broadcast hours a week the number of alleged factual errors is, under the circumstances, very small."

I'd like to add a correction. Limbaugh's show is on 15 hours a week. But he doesn't actually talk on his show for anywhere near 15 hours a week. Limbaugh's show is constantly interrupted with loads of commercials, station breaks, news updates, and more. I'd say a more accurate figure for the amount of time Rush is actually speaking is around five hours a week (or an hour a day).

As a Rush 24/7 subscriber, and often hearing his total show archived, I know that each one lasts 2 hours, give or take 2-3 minutes, making his total weekly air time to 10 hours.--Bedford 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a typical show like Limbaugh's will run for 38-42 minutes per hour of scheduled airtime. So 38-42 x 15 hours of air time = 8.0 to 10.5 hours/week. I agree that the "15 hours" figure is bloated but 5 is also pretty far off. Bjsiders 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a copyright violation

The use of an attributed quote from Colford's 1988 reporting on Rush in New York Newsday going national is not a copyright violation. patsw 14:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

————

My concern with the Colford quote was that the quote was 125 words from a 224 word abstract of a 774 word article, and there's a notice at the bottom of the quote that "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission." If "copyrighted material" refers to the abstract itself, we've just reproduced 56% (i.e., a majority) of that work in Wikipedia. (Obviously, I don't know whether the notice is about the abstract or about the actual article being sold there.)

I am not a lawyer, so it may be that having a mere two paragraphs is sufficient to constitute fair use. In fact, looked at from that direction, it seems to be. It's just that, as a percentage of the abstract, it's awfully high.

— DLJessup (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Statements of honor"

...rather than repeating their admiration for the host and statements of honor to be selected to be on-air, callers to the show often preface their comments with "Dittos from (insert location here)". The term has been embraced by Limbaugh's fans themselves as an honorative, many proudly asserting their dittohead status in public forums or when calling into the show.

Please keep it simple: Fans use ditto to express they like the program in as few as possible words.

The Wikipedia ought to express the same without resort to a non-word like honorative. patsw 14:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Date of Separtion from Michelle Sixta

Anon added this as a link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560256141/104-8658315-9127161?v=glance&n=283155 when editing the info on Michelle Sixta's separation from Limbaugh. This link does not any information on that point and it appears to be obvious link spam.

Colford's biography doesn't mention Christmas 1988 or December 1988 as the date when their separation started. So if anyone has a verifiable citation, please provide one to the article. It isn't important to me, but if its in the article it should be verifiable. patsw 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

————

I don't think that the link was intended as link spam. Rather, I think that the (anonymous) user in question was attempting to cite the book The I Hate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity… Reader: The Hideous Truth About America's Ugliest Conservatives as their reference for the date of Michelle Sixta's separation from Limbaugh. I'll put this on my to-do list for follow-up.

— DLJessup (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

————

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560256141/104-8658315-9127161?v=glance&n=283155 got entered again. It appears after "She left him Christmas weekend 1988" but the link doesn't contain information that supports that statement. So it gets deleted as irrelvant or as link spam.

Let's assume good faith and the user wants to communicate that Clint Willis book states that Sixta left Limbaugh Christmas weekend 1988. Cite the book and page number like the Colford quote in the article and it will stay in the article. patsw 01:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

————

Thanks Patsw next time I see the book I'll write down the page #.

grazon 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

————

I skimmed through the book in a bookstore this weekend and the only reference I could find in that book was an entry on a timeline on p. 337. This entry did say that Sixta left Limbaugh on Christmas weekend.

— DLJessup (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Elliot Sanders" hoax

The first appearance of Elliot Sanders appears to be here http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/12591d0cff86f70d?q=g:thl2359783047d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8

St. Louis Man Claims Affiair

St. Louis Post Dispatch - Dec. 8, 2002

A 46 year old music store owner from the St. Louis area, Elliot Sanders, is claiming that while a college student at Southeast issouri University in 1971, he had an affair with Rush Limbaugh. Sanders claims that he and Limbaugh, the well known talk radio star, had an affair that went on for about 3 months in the fall of 1971.

Sanders stated that he met Limbaugh in a class he was taking, but it was only after meeting his sister, who was openly gay at that time, that he found out Rush himself was gay. "Rush was a charming man privately," says Sanders, "I met him in a class I was taking, and got on a first name basis with him. I didn't realize he was gay until his sister came to visit him. She was gay, and like, we hit it off, and she seemed shocked that I didn't know Rush was gay as well. When I found out I was like ... wow!"

Sanders says that privately, Limbaugh was very sensitive and caring man, but that he was furiously angry that KFBK, the top 40 radio station he worked while still in high school would not offer him a full time job.

"He was furious about that," said Sanders, "And he often told me that he was really going to show them." According to Sanders, Rush's politics at the time were somewhat middle of the road. "Rush said that he though most people are incredibly gullible, and he felt that the key to radio programming was to reach that crowd, and that it would be really, really easy. He thought he thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the more outrageous is was, the more they would beleive it."

When asked when he thought Limbaugh "went straight," Sanders replied, "What are you talking about? I mean, he's been married four times now, do people really not get why he doesn't stay married? I guarantee none of those marriages was ever consummated."

Sanders would not divulge any further details, but when asked if he feared retaliation from Limbaugh for his revelations, he stated, "No, Rush wouldn't do that, he's really a sweetie at heart, but some of the people who listen to him might. I think most of them are psychotic. I don't think these people realize he's just pandering to them for ratings, but if they find out, I wouldn't want to be there."

Since the date of post was so close the print date of the citation, it was easy to detect this to be a hoax -- it didn't appear in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on that date. It continues to circulate because there is a hatred for Limbaugh and some readers who don't care if it's verified or not.

Of course, if there's a real Elliot Sanders story out there, i.e. prior to December 8, 2002, please cite it. patsw 05:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Other reference to Elliot Sanders:

Interestingly, former college roommate and music store owner Elliot Sanders [12] claims to have had a homosexual affair for three months with Limbaugh in 1971 (though Limbaugh denies it), and Limbaugh's sister is openly gay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.224.236 (talk • contribs) .

It is merely referencing the bogus hoax USENET posting on a discussion board. If you want any other indication it is a hoax it is that KFBK mentioned in the Elliot Sanders account above is not the station that Limbaugh worked at in high school, which was KGMO, and no writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch could make that mistake. KFBK is in Sacramento, California. patsw 17:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

New York Times Bestseller List Record - citation needed

The purportedly unbroken 54 week record on the new york times bestseller list seems unlikely to me, is there a citation for this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.224.236 (talk • contribs) .

The record claim on Google points to John Switzer USENET summaries and nowhere else as far I could determine. patsw 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Saved AM radio"

The consensus that Rush Limbaugh saved AM radio is so broad that its mention in about.com isn't research on the part of Corey Deitz but an acknowledgement of fact and not merely "claimed by some".

The best indication that he saved AM radio is how the value of AM radio stations increased and their advertising rates increased after Rush and the other nationally syndicated radio hosts came on the AM radio scene. Even people who despise Limbaugh's politics must appreciate that he saved AM radio from becoming irrelevent or worse, unprofitable, outside a handful of large markets. If Limbaugh didn't save AM radio, what is the counter-claim? That AM radio in 1988 was a healthy and profitable business, or that someone else such as Sally Jessy Raphaël saved AM radio? patsw 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that removal of the "equal time" clause from public broadcasting saved AM radio, and Limbaugh was first in line to benefit from it. But to cast any doubt on whether or not Limbaugh's success has helped to revitalize AM broadcasting is utterly silly. AM is decidedly conservative on balance, and Limbaugh surely contributed to this shift significantly.Bjsiders 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

and even President Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, comparing her to a "dog."

One reference to this incident in the article is sufficient. patsw 01:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron Brown Memorial Service (It has been verified...)

This incident was incorrectly entered as "funeral". It can be corrected to "memorial service". It was entered with the citation that I found in World Net Daily This is the diff [13]. So let it be corrected.

Funeral does not need to appear in the text. patsw 01:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Limbaugh claimed..."

If there's a reason to doubt Limbaugh's statement as true, then it can be called a claim. Claim is a word which can carry a subtle POV.

Patsw said it snowed in New York City today. Patsw claimed it snowed in New York City today. These sentences have different meanings. patsw 02:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Conservatism and libertarianism

This section is turning into a wikidebate on:

1. What is conservativism?
2. What is liberatarianism?
3. What does Limbaugh believe?

I think the reference to Terry Mattingly is in part at fault. If there's evidence that Mattingly knows what libertarians believe, or even knows what Limbaugh believes, please let us know here. Mattingly is a religion reporter and author.

The original Mattingly article is off the net. The link is to Jollyblogger who is apparently not sympathetic to either Mattingly, Limbaugh, or libertarians. The way JB wrote the post up, it's very hard to tell when he's referencing Mattingly's opinion of Limbaugh's politics, or JB's opinion. JB's post is mostly concerned with the end of Limbaugh's third marriage in any case and not identifying Limbaugh's libertarian sympathies.

Limbaugh frequently dismisses all third parties as being stupid and futile and from what I read on the net, card-carrying big-l Libertarians have a low opinion of him. [14]

If there's an existing verifiable source for the POV that Limbaugh is libertarian (or was ever liberatarian) (i.e. besides blogger Terry Mattingly via JollyBlogger), then please add it. Otherwise, I'd strike this entire section as being unverifiable and an insignificant POV. Patsw 22:08, January 3, 2006 UTC

I'll move it up a notch. Who thinks thinks section is accurate and verifiable? Accordingly, I have given the section the disputed section template. patsw 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the section is worthy of inclusion and in my opinion, reasonably accurate. However, it is strong on POV and weak on citations and references. Therefore, I can't really defend it. Gregmg 17:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, Gregmg, and rewrite it totally. patsw 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for removing Conservatism and libertarianism:

1. It's not at all clear if Mattingly wrote what's claimed to have been written in the extract in Jollyblogger.
2. Even if he wrote it as quoted, looking Mattingly's online writing, its not clear that he knows much about either Limbaugh or Libertarianism. He's entitled to his opinion, we're entitled to evaluate that opinion as informed or uninformed.
3. Commentators on Limbaugh who do know Libertarianism, don't have a comment.
4. Commentators on Libertarianism who do know Limbaugh, don't have a comment.

I'm not going to put it in the article because I'm making a claim that something doesn't exist, but I make the claim here: Everyone knows Limbaugh is a conservative and not a libertarian. That explains why its not a topic among all the Limbaugh observers out there. But if there's accurate and verifiable to the contrary that you can cite, please rewrite this section. patsw 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I'd say he is a constitutionalist. He has expressed often enough, that, while he may personally not agree with many agendas/policies, what actually pains him most is when they are implemented through unconstitutional/unlawful methods like courts overstepping their authorities, the mayor of San Francisco simply starting to hand out mariage certificates to samesexcouples, prosecutors going on fishingexpeditions, congress making laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press etc. Kgs 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ghrabib

Late August 2005, Rush Limbaugh discussed a new reality show on BBC called Bring Your Husband to Heel. The host is dog trainer Annie Clayton. She teaches wives how to train their husbands. The show is obviously controversial and odd, but even more odd were the comments Rush made while discussing the reality program. "That Annie Clayton babe can go down to Gitmo, and she can bring her leesh with her". Rush has already gotten in trouble for belittling the abuse of Abu Grabib prisoners, but this time he sexualized it.

Okay, who here recalls Rush saying this? He said it right at the end of a show that I think it took place on a Friday, In August. Actually, august the 19th.

Anyone here in favor of this being posted? I think its relevant. I cant go back and listen to the show on that day, but how many of you guys recall Rush saying this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob5005 (talk • contribs) .

Something as specific as this requires proper citations. I believe a link to the transcripts would be required at a minimum. Also, are these your words framing his (alleged) quotes? They reflect POV. If you're going to introduce something like this, it really needs to be an excerpt from a news article or editorial from a reputable source. A citation would be required for that as well. Gregmg 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this addition. The first is that the statement itself from Limbaugh barely makes any sense. Second, I don't understand how it's sexualization. Third, what section does this need to go in, and why? It seems like, at most, a silly and slightly stupid comment by Limbaugh. The man makes dozens of such comments every day, why is this one noteworthy? Bjsiders 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that Limbaugh has transcripts available somewhere, though it might be for a fee. However, that's a moot point, because, as I mentioned before on your talk page, the material you want to add would violate Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and original research. android79 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't titled "Rush Limbaugh's Opinions", so anything that we add ought to have some biographical value. Bob5005's recalled story is neither typical nor truly outrageous and that's why it isn't memorable. patsw 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

He said she could take her leeshes to GITMO. What does that mean? Anyone? I know he meant that prison down in Cuba holding those terrorist. But am I the only guy here who seems to think that Rush is a sex deviant? I could be paranoid, but he always seems to be hinting at being a S/m freak. If that is true then he's not very conservative- he's libertarian. I always thought it was odd how he promotes Camille Paglia, a lesbian feminist who believes in men having sex with 12 year old boys and legalization of drugs. Anyway, here is the link to that program where he said what he said. It was actually dated the 23rd of August. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469272/posts

It could be that he was mocking the journalist who covered GITMO. They got the news wrong a few times over there. But still, does anyone else think Rush is a sexual weirdo? Or maybe Im just being unfair.....

This article is also not "random Wikipedians' opinions of Rush Limbaugh". It doesn't matter if you think Limbaugh is a sexual deviant, unless you happen to have had that opinion published somewhere prominent. Limbaugh's sexual life is private, and therefore almost completely unverifiable; it is likely to stay that way. android79 02:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh - Sexual Deviant

As evidence of Limbaugh's general level of pathological depravity and deviancy, ignoring for the moment his drug addiction, and his incoherent hate-filled ranting, is his announcing on his show that he represents the epitome of the Ubersexual type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk • contribs) .

(yawn)...next! Lawyer2b 06:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

He does seem to have problems, but I don't think there is at present, any evidence he is sexually deviant. Rob cowie 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of 'correctly'

The term "correctly" was recently removed from the page. Although it sounds like the type of POV qualifier that people are constantly trying to stick into Wikipedia, I went back and reviewed the quote in question, and I think the qualifier may be justifiable. Limbaugh's comment seems to very clearly and directly be about the sports media, and for him to insist that it was indeed about the sports media could be objectively considered a correct assertion. I don't like the word "correctly" because, as I said, it's the kind of adverb people slip into "objective" material to slant it, but this may be a rare case where its use could be justified by a reasonable observer. Am I off my rocker? Bjsiders 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point, but I think correctly is too problematic. Limbaugh's position and defense on the subject stands well on its own without this troublesome word, so I suggest leaving it out. Gregmg 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Bjsiders 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the sentence. There's no dispute that Limbaugh's criticism was directed at the media. The blowback on Limbaugh was not based on his criticism of the media (which would be fair game), but on the mischaracterization of what he said. patsw 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, or there would have been little controversy about it. I removed the word "mischaracterized." I think it's accurate, you think it's accurate. Clearly, however, a lot of people would NOT agree, and that makes it fairly clearly a POV statement. I replaced it with a simple, "Regardless, some critics interpretted Limbaugh's comments as being directed at McNabb personally..." That's a factual statement. Some critics DID interpret his comments that way, regardless of any clarification that Rush offered about them. Something else - do we need all of the "Rush's defenders point out that" regarding the factual statements about McNabb a few paragraaphs up? There's a part where it says, "Defends of Rush's comments point out that McNabb had his worst start in years and was the lowest-rated quarterback with the highest salary." If those things are facts, is it necessary to point out that they were echoed by Limbaugh's supporters? That makes it sound like it's some obscure junk that some Limbaugh apologists drudged up, but if they're just plain factual statements, I think we should omit the part about Limbaugh's supporters shouting about them. I'd remove all of that stuff and just change the paragrpah to read something like, "McNabb was the highest-paid quarterback in the NFL at the time, had his career start in the 2003 season, which may have been attributable to a slow recovery from a broken leg in the previous season." or something like that. Maybe it's just me but I'd like to see less "he said, she said" on Wikipedia and more plain old facts without endless qualifiers to discredit the information or prop it up. Bjsiders 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a point of view but a fact that Limbaugh was critical of the media and not McNabb. patsw 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a point of view that Limbaugh's comments were "mischaracterized". It's a point of view that his defense of them was "correct." Nobody will ever know who Limbaugh was truly trying to attack with that statement. On its surface, it looks like the media first and McNabb a distant second. He flat out said that McNabb got praise that he hadn't earned. That's a criticism of both the media for lumping praise on an undeserving recipient and McNabb for poor play. Facts are things that can be objectively known. I agree with you in the sense that the comments fairly obvious look to be directed at the media, but that's my point of view on them. It happens to agree with yours. I feel it's so damn obvious, infact, that I started this discuss to question the necessity of removing the "correctly" modifier. But clearly it's not THAT obvious (or people deliberately misinterpretted Limbaugh for whatever reason) because millions of people came to the opposite conclusion. I can accept that their interpretation may have been influenced by a negative bias where Limbaugh is concerned, but if I accept it, I must accept that my interpretation be influenced by a positive bias. Hence, anybody's interpretation of those comments, including Limbaugh's own perception of them, is all point of view. The only FACTS here are what Limbaugh actually said. Nobody can know what he MEANT by it, that's a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is, by definition, an individuals point of view. Bjsiders 19:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You should reread your own comments. You wrote Some critics DID interpret his comments that way. That could be a dictionary definition of mischaracterization. It would be a point of view to write that his critics knew his comments were directed to the media but lied about what Limbaugh said in order to damage Limbaugh's reputation and impute racism to him.

It's a fact that the media didn't respond with No, Rush, we didn't give McNabb more praise than he deserved. and thereby engage Limbaugh on the topic he raised. The response to Limbaugh was quite different.

I've entered new wording that avoids correctly, mischaracterize and moves away from mind-reading the intent of Limbaugh or his critics. patsw 04:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some critics interpretted his comments in the way that you have described. That's a fact. It's an OPINION that this is a "mischaracterization" and that YOUR (and MY) interpretation of Limbaugh's comments is accurate. The media's reaction is irrelevent to the way we will describe the critical reaction to Limbaugh's comments. If somebody says, "That's one OLD car you have there," what is their comment directed at? Is it a comment on the car? About the person who drives it? Is the speaker suggesting that I can't afford a new car? That my old car is unreliable? That it's classic and has character? That I need to get a new one? There's a million ways to interpret that, and a person's interpretation is by defintion a POV, and to pick one specific interpretation and claim it's the accurate one is also a POV activity. I dislike your new phrasing, you seem determined to drive home your point of view on Limbaugh's comments which is that they WERE, in FACT, aimed at the media, when that fact will never be known (even though I agree with you on it). Your new language doesn't make it clear that you feel this is a fact, but it nudges the reader in that direction. I've softened it up slightly, I hope it's still acceptable to you. Bjsiders 22:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept Bjsiders's softening of my edit. I now believe the story is presently fairly. patsw 15:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Franken's ranking on the bestseller list

Anon added an editng claiming Franken had the No. 1 bestseller [15] for his slam at the right.

The best number I found for this book was No. 3. Can anyone verify when and on what list it was No. 1? patsw 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. The phrasing looked like cheerleading to me, I suggest rewriting it was "Al Franken's bestselling book 'Rush Limbaugh is a...'". It scans better. Bjsiders 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

65.118.15.30's edits

Changing "Limbaugh claims" to "Limbaugh says", changing "African American" to "black," etc. I didn't review his edits one-by-one but they all appear to be of the same kind of rebellious anti-PC slant. Reverted. Bjsiders 15:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "claims" back to "says" for a more POV neutral sentence structure. (for an explanation, see "Limbaugh Claimed" from earlier talk sections) Bishounen 20:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called "Talk Radio" -- it wouldn't get ratings without controversy

Not at all a stranger to controversy, Limbaugh has drawn fierce criticism over the years for remarks that he has made.

Is this new section a plot to let Media Matters and David Brock take over editing the article? patsw 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of this decade-old POV statement?

Vincent Bugliosi wrote of him: "when it comes to politics, his favorite topic, he has absolutely no credibility at all. On any matter on which there is a divergence between the Republican and Democrat positions, invariably, without exception, 100 percent fo the time, he takes the Republican side. You know what he's going to say before he says it. For Limbaugh to have any credibility, the Republicans would always have to be right and the Democrats always wrong; the Republicans always the good people, the Democrats always the bad people. Since we know, of course, that this can't true, he has no credibility ..." (No Island of Sanity, Ballantine, New York, 1998).

So which Democrats have supported the public policies that Limbaugh has advocated in election campaigns where Republicans have not? Vincent, it's the Democratic party's alignment with the left that stops it from getting endorsements from Limbaugh. I'll concede he'd have a point if Limbaugh were supporting liberal Republicans over conservative Democrats.

(Note it was after the publication of No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court on Trial that Clinton admitted to lying under oath, accepted disbarment, paid a fine, and settled with Jones out of court.) patsw 06:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• That statement can't really be fairly said to apply any more. There are a number of issues on which Limbaugh appears to strongly diverge from Republican talking points. There's no question that Limbaugh is partisan, he proudly labels himself as a partisan and he claims to love partisanship. I guess I don't get the quote. I'd suggest including it as an example of how Limbaugh's loyalty to the Republican party has become weakened during the Bush presidency. That may have been a fair statement in 1998, I don't know, but I don't think it could be fairly said of Limbaugh today. Bjsiders 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If Bugliosi's comment was true in 2006 that Rush is Republican first and principled conservative second, then how does one explain Rush's criticism of Arlen Specter, John McCain, and all the RINO's? He gave air time to Pat Toomey and his supporters to make the case against Specter in 2004. Rush was candid in his criticism of No Child Left Behind, Medicare Prescription plans, Congressional pork, inaction on immigration reform. I'm even thinking of expanding this list into a section on the things where Rush takes on the Republican party. patsw 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I said that the comment can't be fairly said to apply any more. Who are you arguing with? Bjsiders 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to discuss it with the anonymous editor who added it -- to see if could be supported -- since I am advocating its deletion. I read what you wrote, Bjsiders, and agree. That's allowed, too. patsw 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Full background on the "Cute kid in the White House" remark from 2002

Since this section of the article was edited again for the POV suggesting that the appearance of Millie (not Buddy) at the time Rush said "cute kid" in his television show was a deliberate act.

Obviously we're not going to insert this entire section into the article but for the benefit of editors, let's have the entire transcript where which has appeared in dozens of online web sites. So going forward the article can be accurate and NPOV.

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)

November 6, 1992, Friday 11:15 AM

LIMBAUGH: Thank you. This show's era of dominant influence is just beginning. We are now the sole voice of sanity, the sole voice of reason. We are the sole voice of opposition on all television. This is the only place you can tune to to get the truth of the opposition of the one-party dictatorial government that now will soon run America. Oh, I mean, we are only beginning to enjoy dominance and prosperity. Most of these things on the in-out list are not even funny, but a couple of them--one of them in particular is.

David Hinckley of--of the New York Daily News wrote this, and what he has--he's got--it's very strange. He says, In: A cute kid in the White House. Out: Cute dog in the White House.' Could--could we see the cute kid? Let's take a look at--see who is the cute kid in the White House.

(A picture is shown of Millie the dog)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) No, no, no. That's not the kid.

(Picture shown of Chelsea Clinton)

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) That's--that's the kid. We're trying to...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: No, just kidding. I'm just getting. Oh. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. That was a terrible thing. That--that was an absolutely terrible--I am--I am sorry. You know, I just--the end of the week, the pressure's on--actually the pressure's off, and I relaxed a little bit too much. You know, when my radio show started in August of 1988, a presidential campaign then, and Amy Carter was protesting everything American while at Brown University. And I didn't, of course, like that. I didn't like her protesting everything American, and I made a remark on my show that I've now since apologized for and I've taken it back; I didn't mean it. I said, You know, she may be the most unattractive presidential daughter in the history of the country.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Well, there was outrage. No, there was. I mean, there was just plenty--my--my mom called me at home that night. She said, Son, you know, you--if you're going to be serious about this, you can't make fun of the way people look. You're not supposed to--you're not--you can talk about how you disagree with Amy Carter. You can talk about how you disagree with her politics and you think she's doing some bad things, but she can't help the way she looks, and you can't--you shouldn't make fun of that. And, besides, you forgot Margaret Truman.'

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: But I--I apologize...

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I'm--I hope you'll forgive me. I'm fatigued. I'm tired. I really don't--in fact, you know what I'll do? Let's pretend this is a daytime talk show and that I'm a guest on, say, Sally, Phil or whatever. How can I make amends to you for what I just did? I can spank myself. People who spank themselves, next RUSH. Watch this. (Rush stands)

I'll do it with my left hand. I--I'm right-handed, so it won't hurt as much. Do it with my left hand.

(Rush spanks himself, screaming and crying; written on screen, Ouch!!!')

LIMBAUGH: There.

(Applause)

LIMBAUGH: We'll be back with the rest of our show in a moment.

And here's the apology

Copyright 1992 Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

SHOW: RUSH LIMBAUGH (9:00 PM ET)

November 10, 1992, Tuesday 11:15 AM

("Who's Sorry Now" is played and Rush points to himself)

(Laughter)

LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry. Let me tell you very quickly what happened last Friday night. There was a new in list and new out list that was published in the newspaper. The writer said in, cute kid in the White House; out, cute dog in the White House. Could we show the cute dog in the White House who's out, and they put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton back in the crew. And many of you people think that we did it on purpose to make a cheap comment on her appearance. And I'm terribly sorry. I don't--look, that takes no talent whatsoever and I have a lot of talent. I don't need to get laughs by commenting on people's looks, especially a young child who's done nothing wrong. I mean, she can't control the way she looks. And we really--we do not--we do not do that on this kind of show. So put a picture up of her now and so we can square this.

(Photo shown of Bill and Chelsea Clinton, who is making a sour face)

(Laughter and applause)

LIMBAUGH: All right. We're sorry. We didn't intend to hurt her feelings. We'll be back with our final segment right after this. Don't go away.

patsw 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user's Hard Right assertion

An anonymous user has twice reworded the introduction to allege that Rush has a Hard Right spin. This clearly represents his POV, so I reverted this each time. In my opinion, Rush is a bit too far to the left. Yes, I'm that far to the right that Rush is to the left of me. But of course, that's my opinion, and while I might share it on a talk page, I would never interject my opinion into an article. Gregmg 23:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to labels like this, as a general rule, we let the article's subject define himself. On the other hand, if a person with conservative credentials such as Patrick Buchanan or Robert Bork were to say that Rush is/was not a conservative, we'd take note of that. On the other hand, as much as well like anonymous and non-anonymous Wikipedia editors, their personal observation that Rush is/was a conservative is not likely to reshape the editing consensus here. It's also not helpful to use a term like hard right for which there isn't a common definition. patsw 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to interject a comment into a textual article. Rob cowie 13:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Added to Controversial Remarks

Rush Limbaugh recently made a blunder by assuming that Congressman Sherrod Brown was black, rather than caucasian. http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur24961.cfm

• He made an error, was corrected by his staff, and then made the correction on air. How does this get added to his biographical article in an online encyclopedia?

• Also, what is controversial about this so-called blunder? Did I miss something or did his supporters and his critics engage in debates across the fruited plain over it? patsw 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

evidently he used it to explain why dem politicos wanted brown over hackett, in one of his typical examples of showing off his supposedly keen insight into the liberal psyche which is nothing more than textbook psychological projection from an ignoramus.

Time Mag Cover

The cover shot of Stern and Limbaugh from the 90's was deleted. I thought that the Wikipedia had explicit permission from Time to use its covers. patsw 02:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone who knows please add the correct pronunciation of Limbaugh's name? Is it IPA [ˈlimbɑg], [ˈlimbɑː], [ˈlimbaʊ], ...? --Macrakis 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know IPA, but Limbaugh himself pronounces it as "Limb Baw". He's from the American Midwest, where accents are perceived as being fairly neutral. Bjsiders 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it to the article. BTW, [ˈlimbɑg] = limbog, [ˈlimbɑː] = limbaw, [ˈlimbaʊ] = limbow (rhymes with cow). --Macrakis 20:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show was spun off from this article. The "Jargon" article is now the subject of an AfD which you can read about, vote, and comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show patsw 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: R-fiend

R-fiend, I wasn't talking about seperate articles--I was talking about articles linked within the section about Clinton...

Sure, there's some within the Clinton article--but compared to Rush, there's a big dif...

...And why does the article keep taking his quotes out of context? Whoever is doing this needs to listen to the show more in order to get them in perspective and in their proper context.

An encylopedia gives edifying bits of info about the person. It sets the basics of the person's life, activities and events (SOME bad things should be mentioned IF they ever happened), and finally, what the person is up to now (if they aren't dead.)

And just to be honest with you, at the rate the Rush article is going, it's getting super POVish.

It should be Rush's birth, life in a nutshell, some of the jobs he worked at, a little bit about what he did, and what he's up to right now.

That's all--and in conclusion, whoever made the article look and sound the way it does now (be it the author, somone else, or both), needs to kindly clean up their act or they won't be considered NPOV and will get in trouble for what they wrote. I'm only saying this because I don't want this person to get into trouble.

Kindly consider what I've said...

Thanks,

--JJ

I agree with you in principle. In practice, however, Wikipedia is essentially a political pamphlet over whose content people engage in verbal sparring in discussion pages. Get used to articles like this. Every controversy or perceived controversy is going to be probed and explored ad nasuem, regardless of the subject. Bjsiders 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:

So, the main purpose of Wikipedia is for its users write articles that may or may not incite arguments on the talk pages?

Ok...

--JJ

That's not its stated purpose but that is why most people who get involved stay involved: to ensure that at best their POV is present and accounted for and looks better than anybody else's. If you hate Republicans, you go around and find all the articles about Republicans and raise a stink if the article isn't derogatory enough. If you love Republicans, you go around and raise a stink if they're not glowing enough with approbation. I enjoy, like, and support Wikipedia, but I know what it is. It's essentially a collection of links preceded by amatuer summaries. For some topics, this is sufficient (e.g., math and sciency-stuff). But for most topics, the article is an opportunity for POV wrangling. Just look at the utterly non-encyclopedic stuff that people want to put into articles because they think it makes the topic of the article seem better (or worse, as the case may be). So yes, the practical purpose of Wikipedia is the genesis of debate. Bjsiders 14:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Removed Spam?

Maladroit79...How was this spam (just wondering)? I am a real little boy (despite these hinges) and had nothing to do with the crafting of the song I referenced, which I might add, is an extremely clever example of both parody and how Rush is a subject of criticism. I know that you can not possibly list all the criticism leveled at Limbaugh (that would have to be its own subject and listing,I suppose), but there are three things listed...why have this section at all? Nothing about my contribution was done with the slightest bit of malfeasance nor oppurtunity for personal gain, I just thought that you were trying to approach this subject from many angles. Alas, it seems this is another strongarm tactic to keep dissenting opinions to a bare minimum. If I did something wrong placing this information on this informational site, I apologize. But could someone please explain why this information was erased, and better still why it was labeled "spam"? --Waywardprophet 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[16] is the edit being referred to here. I removed it because it tried to hijack my browser. android79 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I am a bit of a n00b, or whatever and as such have no idea what you mean by "hijack your browser". Does this refer to the external link (and if so couldn't the link just be deleted)? I feel that this information is pertinent to the entry, adds a bit of levity to an otherwise stoic composition and ties in perfectly with the preceding paragraph. I will admit to a spat of overzealousness and would agree that perhaps adding an example of the lyrics was too lengthy, but do feel that the basic information, sans the lyrics and the link, should remain. If I stand alone on this I apologize. What do others here think? --Waywardprophet 21:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at the External links guide. I can see several problems with this link and your edits. First, is this notable content? A parady of Rush singing a song is not something one would expect to find detailed in an encyclopedia. Also, if this did, in fact, require Flash, then that is at odds with the External links guide. At least this type of link was discouraged last time I checked. I don't believe I need to go any further. Gregmg 21:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the info about external links. I suppose this wasn't notable content; after all, it was only played on a popular radio station in a major American city, made available on many websites for those not in the Atlanta area and inspired at least two versions of flash-animations. Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh mentioned it, and played it in its entirity, on his own show. My line of thought was that because a team of people felt compelled enough to devote many hours patchworking a perfect parody to share with their listening public (turns out that their listening public is a bit more vast than Atlanta as people from Germany, France and Italy have translated this song, if you care to check Google) and garnered enough accolades for said parody that the lampoonee himself plays it on his own show, than this may perhaps bear some relevance to the subject of criticism. My mistake. --Waywardprophet 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad we were able to straighten you out on this subject. Gregmg 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong arms straighten; trees accept the wind. --Waywardprophet 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, in the days to come I suspect others will weigh in on this issue and a concensus will form. Based on past experience, I suspect your addition will remain excluded, but it might wind up back in the article. You never know. In any case, I hope you don't find this experience disheartening, and that you do chose to stick around. Gregmg 23:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your candor, sense of democracy and encouragement. Be assured that I remain heartened in every way- the bountiful glory that is Wikipedia completely overshadows any minor discrepancy over relevant content. Truth be told, use it or lose it, it's no skin off my po-ta-toes. --Waywardprophet 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial Remarks" doesn't actually contain remarks: 15 links to mediamatters

This section needs to more than a list of links to mediamatters.

The "remarks" need to have some context and at least be dated. The text must stand alone and not require a visit to mediamatters to be understood by the reader. patsw 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Second warning Where's the context and the dates of these remarks? patsw 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Rush say in this recording that there were no WMD in Iraq?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yADSdUasI9Q&search=%20Coretta%20King — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs)

This is a clip from the low-rated Keith Olbermann MSNBC show introducing an interview with Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery who used the occasion of the funeral of Corretta Scott King and its global television audience. Rather that using the pulpit to honor her memory, he repeated Democratic talking points including "No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". There's more detail in the Lowery article. Rush Limbaugh calls these "Wellstone moments" where the Democratic party turns a solemn non-political event into a political rally. I've just added this to the jargon article. patsw 01:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that a yes? grazon 00:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a no. Rush was quoting Lowery to introduce his criticism of Lowery. patsw 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess I'll have to settle for General Tommy Franks's December 2nd 2005 statement that "No one was more surprised than I that we didn't find (WMD's)." grazon 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying, "we didn't find" something is different from saying that thing never existed. I never did find the other remote for my garage door opener, but that doesn't mean it never existed. Admitting that I was unable to locate it is not tantamout to asserting I never had it in the first place. Bjsiders 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Was the televison show on tape delay?

Although Limbaugh has claimed it was a technical error, as Al Franken documented in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, since the show was on a tape delay, if it truly was a technical error, it could have been corrected prior to airing of the show.

I thought the television show was aired live in some markets. Can anyone verify if it was or wasn't? patsw 04:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Eleemosynary's edits

I will assume good faith and guess that Patsw did not see this part of the transcript:

"There I go. My friends, I apologize again. I--that's the third time the crew makes a mistake by showing you Millie the dog when I intended to show you Chelsea Clinton, and then I followed with that terrible story. I'm--I hope you'll forgive me."

Regarding Clinton at the memorial service, the assertion of him "abrubtly putting on a mournful expression the instant Clinton detected the presence of television cameras" is POV in its entirety. "Putting on" implies an orchestrated expression. "The instant Clinton detected" implies knowledge of Clinton's state of mind. The link to the WND Commentary offers no facts supporting any of these claims, but is an extremely biased commentary against Clinton, not a valid information source. It has the strong whiff of trying to smear Clinton in a Limbaugh article. Eleemosynary 05:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's accurate that Clinton abruptly changed his expression from jovial to mornful when he detected the presence of cameras. This is documented in many more places than only in one place in WND, and undoubtedly it lingers in the memories of the readers of this article who might have seen it in 1996. It's not at all a "strong whiff of trying to smear Clinton", the tape itself demonstrates his insincerity. The current text doesn't "read Clinton's mind" but documents Clinton's visible reaction to the cameras that one could see. Are you disputing this -- claiming that Clinton wasn't reacting to the cameras? patsw 05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And the POV keeps on comin'! No, it's an assumption on the part of many folks who distrust Clinton that his change of expression was because of the cameras. If it's documented in something other than an opinion piece or anti-Clinton screed, it merits inclusion. If it's not, it doesn't. I'm not claiming he "wasn't reacting to the cameras." I'm saying that, if you want to include it in Wikipedia, it needs some source of verification besides opinion pieces and whatever "lingers in the memories of the readers of this article." By the way, the more you insist on Clinton's insincerity, the more baldly POV your edits seem. Eleemosynary 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Clinton's conduct on camera is a matter of fact. Since this video wasn't widely disseminated by the media, Rush's presentation of it on his show was significant, and thus, notable enough for inclusion in this article. To exclude one aspect of this documented incident would reflect a POV. I've replaced some of the recently excluded text. Gregmg 16:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That Clinton's "mournful" expression stemmed entirely from his seeing a video camera is not only disputed, it's entirely not provable. To infer Clinton's state of mind is entirely POV. I will edit it to make note that some folks feel Clinton engineered his reaction. Saying something is undisputed because one believes it is a rather specious editing standard. Eleemosynary 18:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread my note. I was not suggesting it would be appropriate to describe or even infer his state of mind at that moment; I was suggesting that it is a matter of fact that Clinton's expression changed as he looked up and saw the TV camera. Upon seeing the video footage in question, anyone would describe the situation the same. Gregmg 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed your last edit. The wording you added made it seem as though Clinton's reaction to the video camera could be disputed, and Rush could have misinterpreted what he was seeing in the video. Gregmg 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not Clinton's state of mind. It's an observation that's widely made and not disputed. Before editing, ponder this:

• Have I established an editing consensus that supports the edit on the talk page?
• Is there a source published or on the web supporting this edit? patsw 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The present wording is unacceptable. The change in emotions that Clinton was expressing as he looked at the camera was really what made this notable. Without that detail, this reference loses it's significance. I would have reinserted the phrase yesterday, but I was loathe to start an edit war and I hoped I could track down a copy of the video. It is a fact that Clinton was expressing positive emotions before noticing the camera; and it's a fact that he was expressing negative (grieving/mournful) emotions after noticing the camera. There are very few things that we can know for certain in this life, but these facts are beyond dispute. Although I've seen this video clip a number of times, and I'm certain of what it shows, I was hoping to track down a copy online so that we could review it, frame by frame, to eliminate any doubt that a single contributor might retain. Gregmg 19:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the emotions that were apparant on President Clinton's face may be agreed to by most people (positive vs unhappy, etc). What we cannot know is that his change in emotional appearance (1) is reflective of what he really felt (we all laugh at unfunny jokes, don't we?) (2) that any change was due to the presence of cameras. It may be really obvious that they are the most likely cause, but we can't really know that. Bjsiders 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And thus, it is non-encyclopedic. Eleemosynary 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it may be. But Wikipedia is chock-full of goodly-sized bits of information that are completely non-encyclopedic but are here anyway. This one is a minor offender. The incident may be worth mentioning in the sense that Limbaugh brought it into the public eye, but the description of the video cannot be presented as being definitively a "gotcha" moment where Clinton was caught engaging in buffoonery only to sober up when he saw cameras. We simply can't know that. Bjsiders 13:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has held onto the video. [17] The incident is recalled by many, many of Clinton's critics in hundreds of web references often giving credit to Limbaugh for making it widely known. It is very encyclopedic as a milestone in the power of the new media to draw attention to a story the Clinton-covering MSM ignored. patsw 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your extreme POV against the "MSM" has been noted. Eleemosynary 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether ir not Patsw has an axe to grind with the mainstream media shouldn't really matter as far as finding a consensus on this topic. The mention of the "Clinton incident" can be included, in my opinion, so long as we do not turn our assumption into a fact. That is, we are ASSUMING that his mood change is due to the cameras. Based on the man's personality, that may even be probable. But we can't know that, and barring an admission from Clinton, or mention of a firm consensus among analysts/experts, it's unfair to state it as a fact here. Your attitude needs some tweaking, Eleemosynary. Bjsiders 13:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim is not the cause of Clinton's observable change in mood, but the coincidience that it occurs when we observe in the tape that he observes the cameras. Are you going to believe Eleemosynary, or your own lying eyes? (As Groucho Marx asked in another context.) The reader can make his or her own judgment tha3t others have made regarding the cause. patsw 15:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely, whole heartedly, 100% agree with Bjsider's last comment. We should not in any way, shape, or form try to read Clinton's mind in this incident and we should assume nothing. We should simply state the facts as evidenced by the video and let the reader come to their own conclusions. That's why I think it's incredibly important that the text describing the pivotal point in the video be reinserted. The description of this incidence must indicate that he noticed the camera and his facial expressions changed. Gregmg 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I have added some context to the hanging mention of this incident in the article. I added the following statement without editing the existing description of the event: "Limbaugh believed that Clinton's mood changed in response to the presence of news cameras, which he said was evidence of both the President's insincerity and the tendency of the national media to overlook it." I feel that this statement adds much-needed context to why Limbaugh aired this particular segment, without compromising the neutral description of the event himself. I think this statement makes a clear differentiation between Rush Limbaugh's take on Clinton's behavior and what we can objectively observe. If anybody disagrees, please feel free to discuss it here, preferably in a new section, as this one is getting huge. Bjsiders 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BJsiders NPOV edit. Eleemosynary 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Three times"

Where in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032838/posts is the appearance of the "Millie" with the audio of "Chelsea" stated as occuring three times? patsw 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Go to the link and search for the word "third." You'll see Limbaugh flatly stating it. Eleemosynary 05:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Rush_Limbaugh/Archive1 where this was worked out here and elsewhere years ago. What Limbaugh describes as the third time is not the appearance of "Millie" with the audio of "Chelsea". patsw 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. It's simply unproven assertion. It wasn't worked out at all, and has all the appearance of frantic spinning. "Assume Good Faith" does not mean "Suspend All Disbelief." Eleemosynary 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A note on sources

The sources that cover politics and media like Limbaugh and Franken, themselves are commenting on politics and media. This includes National Review and Free Republic on the right, and FAIR on the left. Do not expect that the mainstream media such as the Associated Press or New York Times are going to provide verification on the whatever we find significant about Limbaugh and add to the article.

Clinton's taking notice of the cameras and reacting to it is not disputed. It gave everyone who has seen that videotape an great window into Clinton's insincerity. But did you really expect Reuters to include it in their coverage of the Brown memorial service? patsw 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the POV. Your first paragraph is oversimplistic, and doesn't address the edit. Your second paragraph is more of a "great window" into your reasons for reverting my edit. You find the man insincere. And you don't much like Reuters either. Okay, fine. Wikipedia articles are not a place for you to vent your POV. "Clinton's taking notice of the cameras and reacting to it is not disputed" is not simply true because you say it is. Further, the article's previous edit contends that Clinton faked his expression in order to look more "mournful." That is completely disputed, though not (of course) by you.

Please try to adhere to a NPOV standard in the future. Eleemosynary 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1990 TV Guest-Host Appearance

[18] This video clip of Limbaugh being verbally abused in 1990 deserves mention on the main article, as it is a turning point in Limbaugh's career, and explains Limbaugh's present censorship of his callers, and his increasing drug addled ranting.

Ratings Decline

As of March 2006 Limbaugh's ratings are apparently declining, and he was canceled at WBAL in Boston:

"WBAL, fourth among adults in its market and fifth among listeners age 12 and older, has seen Limbaugh's ratings decline. According to Arbitron, which rates radio stations, Limbaugh's audience share on WBAL dropped 27 percent last fall compared to fall 2004."

[19]

• While I can not reply to the cancelation in a meaningful manor, the drop in ratings is as much an issue with selection bias as with overall audience share. The fall 2004 data point used for comparison was during the leadup to the 2004 presidential elections, a period of extremely high political interest in the US. A similiar drop off was seen after the 2000 elections, with Limbaugh making a comeback during the next election cycle. As anyone who has ever read How to Lie with Statistics knows, care is needed with statements such as this one when determining what the statement actually means. --Allen3 ^talk 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad fact about student loans

There's a statement following one of Limbaugh's quotes in the article that says, "student loans are federally insured, banks take no risks." This isn't actually true. There are types of student loans that are federally insured, but uninsured private student lending is an enormous, multibillion dollar business. Even in this case, some states will refund part of a defaulted uninsured loan to a creditor, but in general, billions of dollars of uninsured private student loans are issued each year. I'd like to alter the phrasing of this statement to be more accurate. Something like, "only private student loans are subject to risk, the federal government insures all loans issued through the Department of Education" or whatever. Thoughts? Bjsiders 18:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, this whole section of comments is suspect. It's a mess of uncited out-of-context comments and basically a link farm to mediamatters/David Brock. patsw 04:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine witih mem, I think Media Matters speaks for itself. I just don't want the article to contain factual inaccuracies. I made a minor correction to that statement but left the original tone intact. Bjsiders 15:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Human events timeline

The HE time-line only covers the year 1993, and it is preceded by very POV material (pro RL). Since RL chronicles the drug cotnroversy, why not just have the one link? ````

name pronounciation

Can we get a phonetic version of his name which doesn't involve IPA? IPA usually comes out as boxes on my browser, and no one but a tiny minority of obsessed linguists can actually decipher it anyway. --MacRusgail 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

the simplest phonetic rendition I have seen is: "lymp-bawls"

Archive?

Anybody else think we're due for an archive on this beast? Bjsiders 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing of Controversial Remarks

On American Indians:

"There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?"

I'm party Native-American and I found these remarks extremely offensive. I wrote this to elaborate on it while trying to be neutral.

"This remark is particularly inflammatory, as it is not only factually incorrect but propagandistic in that it suggests Native Americans are better off today. America was originally populated only by "Native Americans," it was European settlers who took it over from them by force. There are actually less Native Americans today than there were pre-Columbus. Native Americans are also the poorest and smallest ethnic group in America, and the least likely to intermingle outside theirselves. In particular, the giving away of smallpox blankets to Native Americans and Trail of Tears are incidents in history which show the insensitivity and factual innaccuracy of Limbaugh's remarks regarding whether or not America engaged in racial genocide against its first inhabitants."

This remark was repeatedly edited only, finally commented on as "Removed non-neutral POV remarks, vandalism"

For the person who edited, my problem with the page is that it's -not- neutral, it's mainly written by listeners/fans of his show who pretty much agree with what he writes and want to portray a positive image of him. Like this-

"Not at all a stranger to controversy, Limbaugh has drawn fierce criticism over the years for remarks that he has made, though most are humorous or sarcastic in nature."

Are they? That's just a biased opinion of them, some feel that he is racist and insensitive to others, and often dishonest. I don't see how him telling a black caller in the 70's to take that bone out of his news can't be considered to have been in a racist context. If someone's deleting my remarks for being "non-neutral" they should consider that the entire page was basically written by Limbaugh's fans who are in favor of him. The controversial remarks is a section for things Limbaugh's said that have offended people, some of which that need elaborating on.

The fact that it's actually been debated that, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." (to a black caller) does NOT belong in this section clearly illustrates that Limbaugh's page is edited primarily by those with a positive bias non-neutral point of view of him if there are people arguing that that remark doesn't belong there.

On the subject of Native Americans (that many people don't know about) I have now added in,

"This remark is considered controversial as it is not only factually incorrect about population numbers but it seems to suggest Native Americans are better off today then they were before Columbus. In American history the entire continent originally belonged to the Natives but it was taken from them by primarily European settlers. Also there are actually less Native Americans today than there were pre-Columbus and Native Americans are also the poorest and smallest ethnic group in America, and the least likely to intermingle outside theirselves."

I've changed it to be neutral and only explain why the remarks is offensive, which it originally wasn't since 1. I'm new at wikipedia and 2. since Limbaugh was being dishonest or wrong about the genocide of some of my ancestors. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted now, because it explains facts most American don't know about Native Americans and is needed to understand the context in which the remark is considered offensive.

Also, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." belongs in there as controversial because it is controversial. The fact that he said he later felt guilty about it and that it happened a long time ago doesn't change the fact that it's still a controversial remark he's made.