Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Bias page

I feel a quote in the 'drug abuse heading would be a fairer way of showing this mans views. The source of the content in that section is very gentle and doesn't do justice to his opinions... it basically plays down his position.

There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country.

this is the first line of text in the referenced article and i think it should be on his wiki.

this website is not here to act as abio in which everyone has to look a nice guy... this man has been spouting this stuff to his audiences and has since been proven to be a hypocrite - you wouldn't get this from his wiki page regarding drug use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.225.6 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • I am no fan of his but including an anchor link to his section on: "See also: Prescription drug addiction" within his views section is a clear presentational bias by someone who dislikes him, and is precisely the sort of unencyclopedic stupidity that results in people not taking Wikipedia seriously!!***

Good point IP. Why don't you remove it? NickCT (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• He couldn't. The page is semi-protected. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama Policy Comments as "Controversy"

As I don't watch this site closely, I'm curious as to why Limbaugh's comments about President Obama's policies are listed in the "Controversies" section (or are even listed on this page at all). Why is it a suprise that a "right wing hack" like Limbaugh would disagree with Obama and want to see his presidency fail? Volumes of books could be filled with politicians and political commentators of both parties disagreeing with their political adversaries and calling them every name in the book - why is this particular incident noteworthy? Simply because he spoke out against President Obama early in his presidency when everything was still peaches and cream? I was just going to delete it, but I thought I'd forestall the firestorm by at least posting the question on Talk. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The question is whether the content has undue weight or whether the event is notable and has receive continuing coverage to be considered notable within the context of the subject, which this is a biography article. The content is referenced to reliable sources, and is a short paragraph, but a debate can still be made that it has undue weight within the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked to the talk page after noticing the exact same thing. Using the rationale behind adding this to the article, anyone who is critical of Barack Obama should have a controversy section added noting such. That's ridiculous. At best this is a case of WP:UNDUE, at worst it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Trusilver 08:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that the content is not controversial. Should the content be moved to the Views section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Views section" would be better. "Liberals consider it an attack when you quote them" says Rush Limbaugh. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rush Limbaugh Theorem

News outlets have picked up on what Rush Limbaugh coins as, "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." But, of course, media outlets do not credit Limbaugh for thinking of this first. His Theorem is that Obama policies (including Obamacare) are very unpopular in America, but not associated with President Barack Obama, himself. Rather, he is seen as fighting the problems his policies cause. Today, Limbaugh modified his Theorem to apply to the elite leadership of the Republican Party, as he puts it. He says they run the party but blame Conservatives and anybody but themselves for their losses in elections. I searched the article here and find nothing on "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Can CES provide reliable sources for this? It may have enough coverage for weight in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cal Thomas of FoxNews Watch TV explained the Limbaugh Theorem about president Barack Obama. ”Well, Rush Limbaugh has a theory on this, expressed again this week. He calls it the Limbaugh theorem, and that is that Obama is above everything. He's out campaigning constantly and never connected with any of the scandals or other things that are going wrong in Washington. And the media won't hold him accountable, because they are all out covering his non-stop campaign." The TV segment is called, "Did the media soften coverage of Obama's [Berlin] trip abroad?" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh may have learned from Larry King

I don't have a source but I remember this from when I used to listen to Larry King's nighttime radio program, probably in the mid to late 1980s. When he took phone calls, he said they were not screened. King said on several days that he had never met Rush Limbaugh. One day King had just told someone that they were off-topic (I forgot the topic). Right after that, a new caller said that this is off-topic too but that he (the caller) is Rush Limbaugh and that he and King had met long ago when Limbaugh was known by another name (maybe his birth name but I don't remember what it was) and was just learning radio and King had given him some valuable advice. In subsequent shows that I heard, when King mentioned Limbaugh King stopped saying that they had never met, and may have acknowledged meeting (I'm not certain of the acknowledgment) although he continued to state his disagreement with Limbaugh. Maybe one of them put this into verifiable print somewhere, either in something for a general audience or in a periodical for the radio industry, or may have mentioned it in a verifiable interview. I only found one hint in Wikipedia that might either relate to or contradict this: Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 10#Mutual. I did not Google this or check literature databases. I posted this, virtually identically, at the other host's talk page, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two questions, can the above be verified to a (or multiple) reliable sources. And if it can, how much weight should it be given in the article, and where?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source, as I noted, but my hope that someone would recognize this information and know of a source is why I posted this in the talk page. As to weight, depending on what the source says, the appropriate amount would probably be some weight but only a little, i.e., a mention in the context of his learning his profession. That King disagreed with Limbaugh is useful for its irony of from whom Limbaugh learned but if we were to list every notable person who disagreed with Limbaugh we might need another article. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting to find a source for the statement above as well, and did not come up with anything. Perhaps my google-fu was not strong when I attempted to use it the other day. If we can find a source, I am more than happy to revisit this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've listened to Rush Limbaugh a lot and never heard him say he learned anything from "Larry King, Alive" (as Rush Limbaugh refers to the Larry King Live TV show.) Also, I find nothing with Google-search. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Content removed by subsequently blocked user

Before The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous was indefinitely blocked for repeatedly violating BLP, he deleted a fair amount of relevant, well-sourced, neutral material from this page. It would improve the quality of the page to restore that content. DoctorCaligari (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, so we can see the content which was removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He removed this content allegedly because it represented prohibited Original Research. I disagree; the stricken content was, in its entirety, a quote from the cited source, written by the subject of the article.

He removed this content based on, as far as I can tell, his singular opinion that it wasn't noteworthy.

He removed this controversy and this controversy because, in his sole judgement, they weren't controversies.

Some of these he has stricken on more than one occasion.DoctorCaligari (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK why does the subject's definition of Conservatism in the United States need to be included in this article? It was tagged with an undue tag, and although the removal can be seen as hasty, I can understand the reasoning behind it. Why include a statement by the subject of this article about an opinion piece written by David Ehrenstein? It does call into a question of WP:WEIGHT? Does the song sung by Paul Shanklin have any major significance about the subject of this article? Again a weight question. A neutrally worded section about the views of the subject on the Obama Administration would be appropriate, but I don't think that it's a "controversy". If anything the "controversy" about Comments on Obama's policies can be rolled into one section under Views within a subsection about the Obama Administration.

As for the removed Remarks at 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference section, does a statement by Michael Steele need to be in this article? Would it be in the article of Michael Steele?

I can understand the reason to oppose the removal regarding the NFL bid, but is that a controversy? Or can it be briefly mentioned elsewhere in the article that the subject made an attempt at being an owner, which was opposed by some others?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Conservatism in the United States You can see the reasoning behind the removal? About how it was "original research"? Can you elaborate, because, again, that's all directly quoted from RL. So, if the objection is to be WP:WEIGHT instead, I'll offer that this is a distillation of the subject's views on what is, basically, the exclusive root reason for his notability.

Paul Shanklin/David Ehrenstein Point about weight taken (and the song has its own page). Your suggestion about a "Views" subsection strikes me as a good one, though then I wonder if that doesn't just beg for such a subsection on his views about, at the very least, the Clinton Presidency, and possibly the Presidency of George W. Bush.

Remarks at 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference - My perspective is that Steele's comment and subsequent apology give a clear picture of the degree of influence RL had/has over the GOP. Does it belong on Steele's page? Interesting question.

NFL bid - Was it a controversy? Unquestionably. His fondness for the football is well established, he clearly wanted to have an ownership role, and when that became known, there was a great deal of publicity surrounding the effort; he was unable to fulfill his wish as a direct consequence of his polarizing public persona. On the other hand, this is *not* in the vein of his basis for notability, and at least on of the original sources on that topic no longer fetches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorCaligari (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked, and the whole Steele kerfuffle is thoroughly documented on Steele's page. (remembering to sign and provide a summary this time)DoctorCaligari (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement by the subject of this article regarding Conservatism in the United States isn't original research, but is it so important to have weight in this article? Personally, I beleive that it more belongs in the article about that subject, along with other promenant conservatives of the modern era and how they view Conservitism in the United States. That way the differing opinions can be shown, and what the range of promenant opinions are be included in that article. In regards to the importance of the subject, as a biography, I think it can be included, but is better located elsewhere on the encyclopedia.

A subection in the Views section of the subject's views of the different administrations would be interesting, but it would have to be done in a neutrally worded and balanced manner. With what complements and criticisms that are promenant that were made of the different administrations/

Here's my biggest concern, everytime something occurs regarding the subject of this article, it is so easily added to the controversy section, something that generally wouldn't be allowed by the active editors at other articles, such as the Barrack Obama article, with most active editors supporting exclusion due to BLP, WEIGHT, NEU, or some other reason. Instead, if significant events occur, if neutrally worded, and stated as matter of fact, it can be included elsewhere in the article. As I suggested, as the subject of this article has been involved in other business ventures, why not include the bid to become a part of an NFL ownership group, in that appropriate section, and include that it wasn't successful due to opposition? This integrates the content far better than creating a sub-section which highlights the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as undue weight of the statement about Conservatism in the United States, I've stated my opinion already, and provided clear logical rational. Perhaps it also fits well into the "Talk Radio and Fox News" section of the Conservatism in the United States on which you are also an active editor. Your idea about the NFL ownership inclusion in a section on business ventures is a smart one, I think. Much better than the act of just unilaterally whacking it out as was done by The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous.

I can see your overall concern of maintaining a uniform set of inclusion criteria and article organization. Applying all of those rules is certainly hard work.DoctorCaligari (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Claims of inaccuracy" should be deleted

This section does not exist in the articles about any left-wing person, including Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, etc. It should be removed here as well. NPOVismymiddlename (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because Moore, Klein and other Libs are never wrong? Seriously, its probably because the fanboys who control those pages don't allow this type of content to appear, while this page has a more balanced following. I would instead prefer that the type of point/counter-point content that is on Rush's page appear on political figures/commentators on the Democrat side, but as I stated, I believe this to be an impossibility. That all being said, I'm a big fan of Rush and I don't see a problem with airing of his dirty laundry - especially since the content is within the context of his larger work and a very small section. His life is what it is and everyone makes mistakes both small and large. Ckruschke (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims

This morning Rush Limbaugh announced his new book, inspired by his wife, Kathryn. This book is a breakthrough in youth education: Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims: Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans — You will be hearing more about it. It is available from (1) Rush Limbaugh dot com; (2) Two If By Tea dot com; (3) Amazon; and (4) Other sites. It is available in hard copy, eBook, and what Rush recorded in three days. Rush Limbaugh says he is as proud of the audio recording as anything he has done. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice advertisement - hope you get a kickback from Rush... Do you have a suggested edit? Ckruschke (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'll leave it to others to add this (or I will at Christmas time!) Here are some references to consider:

• http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/09/05/rush-limbaugh-to-pen-childrens-book/?intcmp=features
• http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/05/Rush-Limbaugh-Writes-Childrens-Book
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/limbaughs-childrens-book-stars-rush-revere.html

Use in good health. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How about: (added as a new paragraph to the end of Rush Limbaugh#Works)

In 2013 Limbaugh announced a children's book titled Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.

Sourced to Fox, Breitbart. I'm not very happy with "announced." It doesn't properly convey authorship. I think "authored" or "published" (once that's happened) might work. Considering the fairly cursory coverage of the other books, this would probably be an appropriate weight to give this one. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about it. As you may have heard, on the first day (yesterday) it went to the top of the of the Amazon "Best Seller" list — the audio book is at #4 (yesterday). Since it is not released until October 29th, there is time to 'wait and see'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to the article. I didn't source to Breitbart as it was really just repeating the Fox News story. Like you said, reception can be added later on. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll watch; thanks, again. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yea - well - since I made such a snide comment originally, I thought I should at least leave you with the impression that I might be halfway decent... Ckruschke (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I never doubted it (that you are great); and I am also 'watching' The Rush Limbaugh Show and his new 3-yr contract. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Link to Ed McLaughlin

The link to the man who produced Rush's syndicated show in the early days points to the biography of a different man named Edward F McLaughlin Jr who was a politician from Massachusetts