Talk:Rush Limbaugh

Archives of older discussions:

Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive1 October 2003 - September 2005

Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive2 September 2005 - April 2006

Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive3 April 2006 - May 2006

Franken and weightloss

The whole purpsoe of this section is to suggest that Franken's book title inspired Rush to go out and lose weight. That seems like maybe the most blatant example of post hoc ergo propter hoc I've ever heard of. And the evidence is that three years later he lost weight? That's pretty silly so I'm removed it. I realize the section cleverly avoids making the unprovable assertion that the book caused Limbauhg's weightloss but its entire purpose is to imply that. I also tried to tighten up the writing by, for example, changing "critisize" to the American spelling, removing the queue/bumping redudancy, and by trying to make the Kennedy/alcohol sentence a little less mangled. Thoughts?

Rushwire

Limbaugh keeps a (see[[1]]) running update on his website of court decisions and transcripts, legal positions, and media and editorial coverage of his case.

I removed this because the link is broken and it seems to me the whole feature has been removed from the site. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fraudulent Colonel Interview controversy

I noticed that a section has been added to the article today claiming a new controversy involving Limbaugh. When I performed a Google search looking for news articles on the controversy the only relevant link I found was from the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America. Does anyone have any reliable sources that Limbaugh's use of a fictitious character has caused an actual controversy, or is this just another case of a partisan group disapproving of Limbaugh's shtick? --Allen3 ^talk 23:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the American Air Force cared enough to actually investigate, don't you think that it merits mention? An official Air Force investigation doesn't deserve mention?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.195.232 (talk • contribs) 03:26, June 6, 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that such an investigation took place, or are we still stuck with a partisan accusation as the sole basis for the claim? Also what type of investigation was performed? The Media Matters press release does not claim that any investigation took place, only that "Pentagon officials and the Air Force" reported having no record of the fictitious officer or his unit. Based on the press report it is possible that this alleged investigation is nothing more than some airman basic working in a Pentagon public relations office answering a phone query from Media Matters. Until independent third-party sources are found to verify the section's claims, this section will have the problem of giving undue weight to a partisan claim. --Allen3 ^talk 11:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh reported about this on-the-air, surely somebody heard the broadcast and can quote from it? Bjsiders 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A show transcript would be an appropriate source to verify what was said on the show. In addition to a transcript other sources will most likely be needed to provide confirmation of the sections claims regarding alleged Air Force statements or that the incident has caused a real controversy (the section header implies one exists). Please understand that I am not questioning the truthfulness of the sections claims, only the section's ability to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites without resorting to original research. --Allen3 ^talk 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been my experience that Media Matters is quite reliable and well-sourced. Instead of assuming that because the issue was breached by this site, it must be suspect, it would be more appropriate to consider this site's presentation with the same assumption of veracity as other news sources. 152.31.193.132 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Black Max

An internal Air Force inquiry does not constitute a controversy by itself. Finding no mention of this in the main stream media, or in fact, from any source other than mediamatters.org, I removed the offending text. Gregmg 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for your edit was uncalled for. The Media Matters site has audio proof of this claim in the form of a recorded clip from the Rush Limbaugh broadcast in question. That would make Rush Limbaugh himself a source for the complaint, and I don't think it gets much more authoritative than that, unless you believe Rush makes up things to discredit himself. The only reason I'm not returning the text is because I think it better falls under the category of "General Complaints" which is already on the page anyway. --208.41.98.142 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1980s

The article states regarding the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, "This emboldened many radio stations to modify their line-ups in order to attract those wishing to hear varied points of view." This is ridiculous, and misrepresents the entire effect of the repeal of the doctrine. In fact, the repeal of the doctrine encouraged conservative radio owners to "pack" their talk lineups with right-wing hosts and either reduce the role, or simply fire, their left-leaning hosts. Limbaugh would have been far less likely to have experienced the success that he has enjoyed if he, and his employers, had been constrained by the "equal time" provisions of the doctrine. 152.31.193.132 16:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Black Max

How would you like to see the section rephrased? Bjsiders 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

order of height measurement

Since Rush Limbaugh is an American, shouldn't the imperial measurements be listed first and the metric second in ()s? 168.166.196.40 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily...even in America, SI is the "preferred system of measurement", even though casual usage still favors the American (not Imperial) customary system. Note, however, that scholarly usage (which would seem to apply to Wikipedia) favors emphasis on the worldwide standard measurement system. It's a good point for discussion. Thanks.... Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDB as a primary source

A much bigger concern than the ordering is the use of a site that accepts anonymous contributions as the source of the information. While I appreciate the sentiment that people are trying to help find useful additions for the article, compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and online sources is also important. --Allen3 ^talk 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point...if so, then any material drawn from the IMDB would be suspect and should be avoided (at least as a primary source)...the subtext is that IMDB is not so much a factual source, but rather a direct competitor to Wikipedia (at least for information about celebrities)...definitely worth further review and discussion. Thanks.... Albanaco 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Mike Stark of CallingAllWingnuts.Com's Call-in Campaign

Rush article or show article could use mention of recent campaign by Mike Stark to call in questions to Rush and then post the audio on www.callingallwingnuts.com

Deletion and change

I deleted the following:

"On November 6, 1992, three days after the election, in reference to who was in and out at the White House, Limbaugh joked on air that he didn't know Bill Clinton had a pet dog, and held up a picture of Chelsea.[citation needed]"

Because here is a (partial) transcript of what really happened:

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...

_____

(and, as you can see, Rush did NOT hold up any photos. All photos were flashed on a video monitor. The only thing Rush was holding in his hands was the article from which he was reading (which contained no pics)

Also, the following reads:

"On a later broadcast, Limbaugh played a video clip of then-President Bill Clinton laughing on his way into a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown with Tony Campolo and then looking mournful (see [3])."

The part of that which reads: "Clinton laughing on his way into a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown" was wrong. Clinton was videotaped LEAVING the memorial service after it had ended. Not going to it. So I changed that to:

"Clinton laughing on his way leaving a memorial service for Commerce Secretary Ron Brown"

Rush bragged that he didn't need viagra

I am not a Rush fan but used to listen to him occasionally. Some time in the last few years I remember he was discussing medical care and he said he was proud to announce that he did not need Viagra. Anyone have a way of finding the exact quote?

Give it time. Every thing Limbaugh has ever said about Viagra or impotence will be in the media within 48 hours. I'm sure he's fired off plenty of remarks. Lately he's been making fun of Democrats for not being able to "finish the job," and implying this makes them poor lovers. Bjsiders 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He probably wanted a little reassurance. AFter all, after three ex-wives, what man trusts his tool to work?--Bedford 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Palm Beach International Airport

Rush Limbaugh's Attorney Roy Black Responds to Media Inquiries

MIAMI, June 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, issued the following statement today in response to several inquiries by the media:

While going through routine Customs inspection of luggage at Palm Beach International Airport upon his return from an international trip, Rush Limbaugh was detained by customs agents after they noticed a non-narcotic prescription drug, which had been prescribed by Mr. Limbaugh's treating physician but labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes. After a brief interview, Mr. Limbaugh was permitted to continue on his journey.

patsw 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So we're now posting every little incident of someone's private life? Is this an encyclopedia or just a gossip column? The Viagra incident is irrelevant until that joke of a prosecutor decides it's all he has to nail Rush.--WinOne4TheGipper 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the above is true, and it is the end of the matter, it would be hard to make the case that this detention is even newsworthy, much less encyclopedia-worthy. So please, make the case it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. For guidance, see articles on living persons, "let the dust settle", and what the Wikipedia is not patsw 17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"If the above is true" is indeed the question. The source is Roy Black, Limbaugh's attorney. Hardly objective and neutral. Limbaugh may have violated his plea deal, as press reports today say. It merits inclusion. Eleemosynary 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't. There is no arrest. Viagra is not a narcotic. In the end, all we have is an event that Limbaugh's political enemies think make him look bad, which I suspect is why everyone is so intent on keeping a non-event like this in the article. If you want to beat your chest over Limbaugh's private life, I suggest you do it at some dumpy little website where people actually care about that sort of trash.--WinOne4TheGipper 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Viagra is not a narcotic, however it is ILLEGAL to bring ANY medication into the United States without the bottle being properly labelled (The bottle had the name of a doctor, not Rush). An arrest WAS made, the only immediate news source I see (after google-ing the event)that claims that there was no arrest, seems to be FOX.

The matter is still under investigation, according to news reports. You are misrepresenting the facts, and assuming your fellow editors are not acting in good faith. And please, no personal attacks. Eleemosynary 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this belongs in his article. Given that Limbaugh is a tough "law and order conservative", every time he is detained is newsworthy. --Asbl 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's newsworthy doesn't mean it's worth printing in an encyclopedia. We're not even sure he broke the agreement. We're not sure that it's a breach of the law, and it's Viagra, for crying out loud!

Without a doubt, it belongs in the article. Transparent attempts to whitewash it will be called exactly that. Eleemosynary 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that it belongs. There have been no charges (yet) and there's no evidence of any wrongdoing. It was a routine stop at airport security. I've been detained before. I'm sure many of us have. It's a reality of air travel, especially when you come back into the country with prescription drugs that have odd labels. Bjsiders 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Provide a source that it was a "routine" stop. I doubt "many" of us have been detained at airports, especially in possible violation of plea agreements. And Roy Black's spinning on behalf of his client is hardly objective truth. This was covered by hundreds of news sources, including Fox. More to come, I'm sure. Eleemosynary 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, if you have come under police scrutiny for abuse of prescription drugs, you should take special care not to transport bottles of prescription drugs with "odd labels" through airports. Viagra is, for better or worse, a controlled substance, and transfer of a controlled substance to a person other than that for whom it was prescribed is an offence. If anything, this is likely to bounce back to Limbaugh's physician, since Limbaugh's lawyer says Limbaugh's doctor prescribed the drug but didn't put his name on the bottle for privacy reasons. And, of course, from now until eternity, Googling "Rush Limbaugh Viagra" and "Rush Limbaugh, sex tourist" now produces results.... - Nunh-huh 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, we assume good faith, if Black's version of the incident is false, then offer evidence it is.
• There is no obligation to keep prescription drugs labeled and in the original container.
• The existence of material on the internet and its appearance in Google is not per se a reason for inclusion. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
• Viagra is not a controlled substance. patsw 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• We are not under any obligation to "assume good faith" by outside advocates not even posting to this page. Thus, we are under no obligation to accept Black's statement at face value, nor to mount evidence disputing it. Black is Limbaugh's lawyer, with obligations to his client. Consider the source.

• You have not provided any source or evidence for your second assertion, particularly as it applies to Limbaugh's plea bargain.

• The Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are just 3 of the hundreds of news organizations who have reported the story. It is a legitimate news item.

• Whether or not Viagra is a "controlled substance" is not the issue. The issue is whether Limbaugh violated the terms of his plea bargain. That is the matter that is currently under investigation. The incident deserves inclusion here, as Patrick Kennedy's drunk driving did on his article page before any charges were filed. Eleemosynary 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The original quote described the incident as a "routine" search. Define "many" and "us." When I say, "many of us" I mean a good number of people who travel frequently by air. I've been detained once, searched three or four times, and had my luggage taken and searched and had items removed from it (once they took my Christmas present for my sister - a candle - they were convinced it was a jar of explosives of some kind). This sort of thing is indeed routine. Admittedly, I've never been detained for three hours. Why is Fox some magic arbiter of what goes into Wikipedia and this article in particular? Just because something made the news doesn't mean it belongs here. I agree, there's more to come, let's see what happens before we engage in a bunch of editing now, when it's all going to be re-written as soon as more details come out, no matter what actually comes of this. I haven't checked on the story again today, so there may be some new information out there that I'm not aware of, but when I read the briefs this morning, the story was simply that Limbaugh was stopped and questioned and released, a bottle of pills taken, and no files charged, no arrest, nothing. If that's what it was, I don't think it warrants inclusion. If there's some new info out there, it might warrant inclusion. Bjsiders 19:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm changing my vote. Read up on the newer stories and this does indeed appear to have a possible bearing on Limbaugh's previous prescription drug issues. I vote that it be kept. Bjsiders 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

.

The question I have is, what was Limbaugh doing alone in the Dominican Republic, without his wife, with Viagra? This is potentially a much more interesting aspect of the story than the fact that the bottle wasn't labelled properly, considering his preaching against sexual immorality. If there is anything to this, presumably the press will dig it up shortly. --Xyzzyplugh 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rush is not currently married. He could easily have a secret rendezvous with a new girlfriend.--Bedford 20:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh doesn't preach against consenting adults having wahtever sort of sexual relationships they wish, including homosexual. He has articulated this many times. What he objects to is "children" (by which he means teenagers) doing it and being "encouraged" by their parents, teachers, and government. Limbaugh announced his trip to the D.R. on his show last week, and said, "we're going" there, suggesting he's bringing somebody along with him. It's hardly the clandestine under-the-cover-of-darkness trip that it sounds like. Bjsiders 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is to show that Roy Black lied. The burden of proof is to show that placing some doses of Viagra into a container without a personal prescription label and entering the United States is an illegal act, or a substantial violation of the terms under which Limbaugh's not guilty plea was accepted. (Nunh-huh argued for inclusion of the story on the basis that Viagra on a mistaken claim it is a controlled substance.)

Apparently, this is a story that's evaporated in one news cycle -- it potentially becomes a story beyond mere suspicion only if there is an allegation of criminal behavior. There is no story if it is merely poor judgment on Limbaugh's part to put some doses of Viagra into a container without a personal prescription label because it trigger a brief detention by Customs or embarrassment.

I personally experienced a detention such as Limbaugh did. I never learned the reason why I was detained but I was simply thanked by Customs for cooperating and free to go.

We are not obligated to parrot every Limbaugh story that crosses the wires. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat room for whatever interests the editors, such as the curiosity as to why Limbaugh was in the Dominican Republic. It's news for a 24 hour news cycle but not encyclopedic (given what's been reported so far) patsw 03:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's far more than a "24-hour-news-cycle" story. Today's reports indicate there will be a decision by the Palm Beach attorneys in a few days. It hasn't evaporated, and wishing will not make it so. We are not obligated to scrub the article of any story that might cast Limbaugh in a less than hagiographic light. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Eleemosynary 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a Content tag to this section of the article. Crockspot 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why my content tag was removed? I am adding it back in. Crockspot 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let the dust settle and wait for the next improper leak from the office of Barry Krischer. If there's no legal consequence to Limbaugh, what's makes this merit inclusion in this encyclopedia? The Wikipedia is not a hate or harassment site. patsw 23:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

People are seldom searched like that, and given the fact that the authorities could not wait to tell the media shows that it was pre-planned harassment. One has to be extremely naive or stupid to believe it wasn't a set-up.--Bedford 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bedford, you are in strong violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Take that back. --Asbl 05:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever gone through customs? People are routinely searched like that. My bags are taken from me and hand-searched about 50% of the time when I leave the nation, either when I arrive at my destination or when I'm coming home. Especially when I'm coming back from Mexico. In fact, I got searched coming back from Canada once. I was detained and questioned briefly in the Toronto airport once for writing "America" as my nation of origin. Because there's "no such country as America" in the world according to Canadian customs. You play along and do whatever customs says. Especially when they're bored and want to hassle some tourists. So a famous celebrity comes back from the Dominical Republic, they're going to search his bags, especially given Limbaugh's love of cigars. It would not surprise me at all if they were actually hoping to dig out some Cubans and found the pills instead. Bjsiders 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As of now the story is in the headlines and many people are talking about it, so I don't see how anybody could consider the Viagra story to be irrelevant. Perhaps in a couple of months when the smoke has cleared it will not be considered so important, but most people looking up Limbaugh's entry on Wikipedia recently are probably looking for the Viagra story.--Bunbury18 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Every gotcha news storm doesn't get into the Wikipedia -- especially in this case which lasted precisely one news cycle. This is an encyclopedia and not a blog or a substitute for Google News. patsw 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically I suppose, but if you look up any current news event it inevitably has a Wikipedia article, and the latest news is always incorporated into an existing article. Why should Limbaugh get special treatment?--67.20.253.97 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh Sex Tourist?

should be a link to sex tourism in article, as news reports are describing Limbaugh's destination of Dominican Republic as a sex tourism destination. If so, will there be an investigation as to the age and gender of the prostitute he hired?

Go to Google news and type +"sex tourism" +"rush limbaugh" and you get two hits. One is to a blog, and the other is to the Huffington Post. Where are these "news reports" that he went for sex tourism? He stayed at Casa de Campo, it was a the prize he won in a charity auction event for prostate cancer research sponsored by Cigar Afficiando. Not surprisingly, the purpose of the trip was to roll cigars. [2] The sex tourism charge is pure speculation, and a crystal ball is among the many things that Wikipedia is not. Bjsiders 13:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

but google for DR+sex tourism and you get 550,000 hits, including this very interesting pdf paper [3] describing many case histories of perverts not unlike el rushbo.

I stand corrected, he did not win the Casa de Campo trip at the auction. However, he did mention on his show that he stayed at Casa de Campo, went to Santiago to visit the Fuente cigar farm, and that "they're doing some amazing charity things" there. He also went with a bunch of the crew from 24. Certainly this doesn't rule out the possibility that some sex tourism was going on, and a guy who packs Viagra is clearly anticipating some kind of intimate activity, but for all we know he's got a stealth girlfriend who met him there (admittedly unlikely, he described the trip as a "guy's weekend"), or he was just being prepared. I don't think it's unheard of for single men who are heading out on vacation to bring condoms. And I'd expect a guy in his 50's to pack Viagra. The real story here is whether or not he obtained the Viagra legally, and if not, how does it impact his deal with the Palm Beach County prosecutor? In any case, I found no legitimate news source through Google that is reporting on the sex tourism angle. Bjsiders 13:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some edits and added more information about what Limbaugh claims he was doing in the D.R. over the weekend. I also added the only legitimate source I could find for the "sex tourism" story, complete with a quote and reference. Cleaned up the organization of the section a little bit. I tried to describe his rather braggadocious attitude about it on his show, I used the term "unabashedly." It's not exactly flat and neutral but it is pretty accurate. Bjsiders 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if this were not mere speculation and suspicion but verified and accurate, what makes it notable, significant or encyclopedic? Are there any news media references to Limbaugh or Limbaugh-on-Limbaugh references that would not be included in the article? patsw 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is beginning to get rediculous. I am tempted to remove the entire Palm Beach Airport section, it is not encyclopedic, and is filled with minute details of a non-event. The discussion on sex tourism is all conjecture. How many people visit the DR every year, and what percentage of those people go there for "Sex Tourism"? My grandmother went to DR, does that mean she was cavorting with hookers? I will hold off on my editing of the article until Limbaugh's doctor confirms that he intended the prescription for Limbaugh. When that happens, this section goes bye bye. Crockspot 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the "sex tourist" stuff is out of line. But the rest of the sirport incident is valid. And, if it goes "bye bye" based on your unilateral reasoning, it will just as soon reappear. Eleemosynary 19:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Come on, people. That's an obvious cheap shot by a group that has made attacks in the past. Don't let it transfer to Wikipedia, if we wanted to be a place for left-wing commentary, it'd be included in the mission statement. --Mrmiscellanious 16:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note, Crockspot and Mrmiscellanious, there's a double standard on the Wikipedia: any criticism of standard bearers of the conservative movement which appears on CNN, Reuters, AP, etc. in a single 24-hour news cycle, becomes a defacto Wikipedia notable item regardless of the Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. and given permanence. patsw 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"First of all, we assume good faith." Except when we don't, apparently. Telling. Eleemosynary 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The "wikipedia hatez teh conservatives" screed gets old. I'm a conservative-libertarian and I'm accused constantly of trying to spread my "liberal bias" across Wikipedia in defending the intellectual integrity of articles that I think people are trying to slant. Bjsiders 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned, helpful perspective. Eleemosynary 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're being paid by Rove to freep teh wiki with false liberal bias. But seriously, if Jeannine Garafolo was detained at the airport because she had yeast infection cream that was prescribed to her GYN, would that warrant note on her Wiki article? The sex tourism thing is clearly out of left field, and the detention is simply not noteworthy in an encyclopedic sense. Half the section is what jokes he cracked on the air about it.Crockspot 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it that personal insults are fine, as long as they are done in the edit summary?Crockspot 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal against you. But the analogy is moronic. And classless. And to answer your question, if Garafolo was potentially in violation of a plea bargain, it would indeed be relevant. And no doubt some of those in high dudgeon about including Limbaugh's airport detention here would be fighting hard to get it onto her page. Eleemosynary 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept that it wasn't personal, but I have to dispute two things. First, treatment for a yeast infection and treatment for erectile dysfunction are valid comparisons. Both are of a personal, slighly embarrasing gender specific malady. The analogy is not, in my opinion, classless nor moronic. Second, there was no "plea bargain". A plea bargain results in an offender pleading guilty to a lesser charge. Limbaugh entered a "not guilty" plea. And the agreement he did have specified that he could not be rearrested. He was not arrested. If his doctors confirm the subscription, there is not even a potential "violation", and therefore it would not be relevant, by your standard.Crockspot 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He was arrested, after turning himself in after a warrant was issued in his name. He was photographed and fingerprinted, and has to submit to drug testing as part of the plea bargain. One man's "plea agreement" is another man's "plea bargain." Let's not split hairs, or use Roy Black's spin as evidence. The airport incident is encyclopedic. The sex tourist speculation is not. By the way, I don't see any of the folks wanting to strike the airport incident from the article trying to strike the rumor (from one and only one source) that he's dating Mary Lynn Rajskub. Why? Because the Rajskub speculation paints him as virile, and the Viagra incident paints him as impotent. Pretty simple to understand. Eleemosynary 01:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He WAS NOT ARRESTED at the airport. I am not disputing that he was under arrest in the previous case. But he did plead "not guilty". Under a "plea bargain" or "plea agreement" the prosecutor gets a conviction, albeit to a lesser offense. Limbaugh entered the same plea that he would have if there had been no agreement at all, a plea of "not guilty". The prosecutor had nothing on Limbaugh, or he would have pressed further charges. He announced this "agreement" to save face. Do you really believe that the prosecutor made this "deal" because he thinks Rush is a good guy? Crockspot 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought the reason the dating story was left alone is that there's a photograph that shows them kissing, which at least lends support to the possibility. The warrant was actually not issued before his appearance at the jail. As I (admittedly, weakly) understand how those types of warrants work, they're issued ex post facto to keep the information out of the legal system to prevent a media circus from forming around the police station and/or courthouse and disrupting the normal flow of business. Other people have dealings with the cops and courts besides Limbaugh. In any case, it's all semantics and I think a reasonable person would agree that, as written, the description of the "plea bargain/deal/arrangement/thing" is fair and accurate. Limbaugh was not "arrested" in the sense that a cop went and "arrested" him but he could certainly be described as being "under arrest" during the actual booking. Bjsiders 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to insist on arrest to refer to a voluntary appearance, go ahead. And if you want to insist that a plea of Not Guilty accepted by the court is a plea bargain, go ahead. Put that into the Eleemosynary blog -- the Wikipedia can use standard definitions; the anti-Limbaugh spin does not here.

The speculation on why he was in the DR is merely blogworthy. The speculation as to whether he will be in violation of the agreement he made with the court should be settled by Friday. Let the the settle The burden of proof still remains for you to show the Black's statement was false. patsw 02:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, won't wash. Independent news reports (and not me) are the source that Limbaugh was arrested and agreed to a plea bargain. There is no "burden of proof" on me to show Black's statement was false. You are trying (unsuccessfully) to frame the argument to your advantage. The burden of proof is on you to show why the statement of Limbaugh's attorney should be taken at face value. See how easy that was?

You're welcome to post an impassioned celebration of Limbaugh's life and accomplishments on your blog. But Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic. A word to the wise.

By the way, is the Rajskub speculation merely blogworthy or encyclopedic? If the latter, why? If the former, why don't I see you arguing to have it removed from the page? Eleemosynary 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite these independent news reports that specify a "plea bargain"? I would like to read those. On the Rajskub issue, honestly, I didn't even know about this until I read it in this article yesterday. But there is a publish photograph of him kissing her at an event, so it would appear to be true. Personally, I think the entire "relationships" section is irrelevant. Whould you like me to tag it for you? Crockspot 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh was technically "under arrest" when he went, voluntarily or no, to the police station to turn himself in under the terms of the arranagement. The term "plea bargain" should not be used on this page, it's a very well-defined legal term, and Limbaugh's agreement is mostly certainly not a plea bargain. We don't ONLY report on things that can be proven to be true on Wikipedia; we write about all kinds of things that can't be known for certain. Entire articles are dedicated to controversial topics about which the truth may never be known. Who Limbaugh is dating, according to one particular rumor magazine, does not belong in the article. I'd guess patsw isn't arguing for the removal of that piece of information because he just doesn't care about it. I certainly don't, and I don't want to debate somebody about it. I don't think it belongs but I also don't think it damages the article's integrity to leave it for now. Bjsiders 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Technical or not, to say that Limbaugh was "under arrest" imparts to the reader a misleading image of what happened: a warrant was issued, he made a voluntary appearance, and was processed or "booked" and the appeared before the court, thus satisfying the warrant. Again, technically, a "warrant" is the authorization of force given to an officer to compel an appearance before a court, and an "arrest" is the action of an officer to compel that appearance. In the 50 minutes between the time he voluntarily appeared at the PBC Jail and was photographed, fingerprinted, and posted bail, he was not free to leave. So that was the full extent of the arrest and the present text explains that.

Anything controversial is not matter for an standalone article or a section in a biographical article. Let the dust settle on this one. patsw 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh was arrested. The media reported that he was arrested. The article is VERY VERY painstakingly clear on EXACTLY what happened in that incident. It's very clear that Limbaugh voluntarily showed up. There's nothing misleading in any of it. It's very accurate and almost exactly matches Rush's own description of how the deal went down. Saying Limbaugh was "under arrest" is accurate than saying he was "arrested" is less accurate. I'm not clear on what you're arguing to have excluded from the article. Bjsiders 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bjsiders, thank you for your reasoned commentary, your open mind, and your good faith edits. For a few editors on this page, the sad truth is "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Eleemosynary 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Limbaugh is a controversial figure and it's difficult to maintain one's neutrality. I tend to dislike and distrust the media and when the story broke I immediately went into eye-rolling mode over what appeared to be a non-story. And really, I still think it is a non-story, as is all celebrity gossip. However, there's a very good section in this article about Limbaugh's pass drug problems and this story may directly bear upon it, and that warrants a mention here. Bjsiders 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

May is the operative word. Let the dust settle and wait for the next improper leak from the office of Barry Krischer. If there's no legal consequence to Limbaugh, what's makes this merit inclusion in this encyclopedia? The Wikipedia is not a hate or harassment site. patsw 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Including the airport/Viagra incident is neither "hate" nor "harassment." To imply that it is is disingenuous, to say the least. Eleemosynary 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's my sincere belief that the public disclosure of his detention by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office was harassment. It is an opinion shared by many in the media. We're not all at disingenuous. Deal with that, and let the dust settle. The airport incident without an allegation of a criminal act or legal consequence to Limbaugh is not encyclopedic. patsw 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your beliefs, but they are only that. And, outside of Fox News (and ersatz media such as "Newsmax"), you'd be hard-pressed to find any legitimate media who found the Sheriff's actions "harassment." Thus, more disingenuousness. The airport incident was a legitimate news item covered by a variety of media, and is completely encyclopedic.

I'm beginning to see a pattern from some (but by no means all) editors. It goes something like this: News items that portray Limbaugh favorably = encyclopedic; news items that portray Limbaugh unfavorably = nonencyclopedic. Let the dust settle, indeed. Eleemosynary 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities who are caught at customs with questionable items are routinely reported to the media. How many times do we hear about some rocker or actor caught with a tiny bit of hemp or something? It may be "harrassment" in their cases too, but Limbaugh is a very strange public figure and he's part of the celebrity gossip circuit like any other. I don't think he's being singled out here. And the story really does appear to be basically nothing. I didn't even see Fox report this as any kind of harrassment, about 90% of Fox's content is off the AP and Reuters wire like every other news service. Bjsiders 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's not harassment. And your comment about celebrities is important. On the Harry Connick, Jr. page, there is mention of his airport arrest for carrying a gun, which was later dismissed. If that's encyclopedic, so, too, is Limbaugh's airport detention. Though not an arrest, it was a further chapter in a previous arrest and plea agreement. Eleemosynary 04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If there has ever been a media statement issued by the New York City Police Department or the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, regarding the detention of a celebrity for the possession of non-addictive non-controlled substance prescribed drugs -- let us know.

The fact was Connick did possess an unlicensed 9mm handgun and didn't deny it. It was a criminal act, and he was, and should have been arrested. Arrests are publicly disclosed. For Limbaugh's airport detention, even now, there isn't a public allegation of criminality.

I don't accept the next chapter theory unless it is to highlight the harassment of Limbaugh by the state attorney. Limbaugh's possession of Viagra at the airport wasn't a threat to the safety of the citizens of Palm Beach County and the detention media release made by the Sheriff's Office was not in the public interest.

Other Wikipedia biographical articles of celebrities don't document private embarassments which occur in their life. If the airport detention doesn't involve a criminal act bearing on his agreement with the court, it doesn't belong in the article. patsw 14:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's just the thing. It may indeed involve an act that beasr upon his agreement with the court. We don't know yet. The article documents what we do know. Wikipedia articles are chock full of embarassing details that occur in the private lives of celebrities, I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face. I don't understand what Limbaugh's threat level to society has to do with the inclusion of the information here. Nice try with the specificity shift. I said "celebrities who are caught at customs with questionable items are routinely reported to the media." You then asked me to, not provide an example of this, but to provide an example of exactly what happened to Limbaugh - one a specific number of government agencies issuing a formal media statement about a celebrity possessing a specific type of drug. Well yeah. Whe you make it that specific, I can't find an example. Actually I might be able to, but I'm not going to waste my time looking, so we'll never know. I can't find another example of a President fornicating with an intern and having it leaked to the media by her friend only to have the President later lie about it under oath and then wind up in a Senate trial over impeachment. I mean, that's only happened once ever in the 230 year history of this nation. Clearly, the media and the Republicans were trying to harrass and embarrass President Clinton. That whole incident should be struck from his article, since he was acquitted, it was his private affairs and none of our business, and he was never found guilty of anything. Right? Bjsiders 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clinton certainly was found guilty of perjury. He was impeached by the House for it. The Senate chose not to remove him from office. He was disbarred from the Arkansas Bar for being guilty of perjury. I really hope you are joking here bj, because if you don't know the facts about that, I really question your ability to be an effective editor. Crockspot 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He was NOT found guilty of perjury, he was fully acquitted in the Senate trial. Obviously you don't understand how the impeachment process works. He was never found guilty of perjury. Clinton's disbarrment was something he agreed to as part of the settlement in his various legal problems. It certainly was NOT result a result of any guilty verdict because there never was one. Please don't preach to me about facts and question my editorial integrity. Bjsiders 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. Upon further investigation, I see that you are correct partially correct. However, The man did commit perjury, whether he was convicted of it or not and he was found in contempt of court, fined, and disbarred. There is absolutely no question of that. We ALL saw the tape of him under oath, and we also saw the tape of him admitting to something that contradicts that statement under oath. The Senate chose not to hold a trial, because they were under the consensus that it had gone far enough. At the time, I myself did not feel that he should have been removed from office. I actually voted for the man, twice. His impeachment was just. If you have or know teenagers, you must be fully aware of the damage he did to our culture, both in terms of sexual morality, and in terms of honesty/integrity/lying.Crockspot 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course he committed perjury, that's pretty obvious. To bring this back to Limbaugh, the articles of celebrities, both in and out of politics and entertainment media, are chock full of tidbits that are strictly private in nature (as patsw points out on my talk page, Clinton's situation is unanalogous in that he was a public figure who was actually charged with something, which weakens the comparison somewhat), I see no reason to exempt Limbaugh from this same scrutiny. The motivations of the editors are, in my opinion, irrelevent (harrassment, embarassment, etc) if the edits are fair, accurate, and relevent. I originally felt that these weren't, but since it may bear on his drug deal with the state, I think it rather clearly is relevent. There's no inappropriate crystal ballery in the summary, it's a small, brief blurb about the situation and the possible implications. Look, I'm a Limbaugh fan, I'm listening to hour two of yesterday's podcast as I type this (a former black ops Marine guy just called, I had to pause it to type this so I wouldn't miss it). I'm not engaged in some kind of bash Limbaugh war here. I just can't see a legitimate case for excluding this material at this time. Bjsiders 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You make a decent point. If Rush were reading this now, he would shake his head and wonder why we are even wasting our time arguing over this. I am holding to my position that, if the prescription is confirmed with his doctor, then this section becomes irrelevant and should be removed. Time will tell.Crockspot 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also vote for its removal at that point. Bjsiders 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems encylopedic to me. I'm a big Rush-hater but what bothers me is that the section is written to leave you with the impression that Rush went there to buy hookers, all that stuff about "guys weekend" and "wish I could tell you about it." The issue isn't whether he said it, it's whether that stuff is being pieced together to give an unfair impression--and I think it's indisputable that it is.

More on the sex tourism charge

An IP editor added a line about sex tourism. I added a fact tag to it, and also replaced the content tag (again) on the section.Crockspot 17:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I went back and checked news.google.com again and there are still only two "commentators" who suggest this. One is a blog and the other is the Huffington Post. I suggest that we either source and quote these commentators or remove the implication. I originally put it into the article, with quotes and citations, under the theory of maximum information, and it was removed with a decent consensus on this page. Does it need to go back in? It's pure crystal ballery, in my opinion, and maybe a little wishful thinking. Bjsiders 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That user has made several edits to other tangentially related pages today. I created a talk page for them and told them to source the info. I also mentioned that, after more thought, I may just remove it. I've given it more thought. I'm removing it.Crockspot 17:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Being verified is necessary but not sufficient for being added to any article. patsw 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you would need very compelling evidence to remove. You have yet to provide anything compelling. --Asbl 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does this compelling standard originate? It would be useful to know when editing the biographical articles of people on the political left, for whom, oddly enough, their articles are regularly scrubbed of private and insignificant but nonetheless verifiable information. patsw 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you prove that somebody didn't do something? The charge is, "he went to the D.R. for sex tourism." Other than getting eye witness reports of what Limbaugh was doing for 100% of his time spent in the D.R., how on earth do you gather compelling evidence that this is not the case? I think a more reasonable standard is that used in journalism - that the editor has the responsibility to provide compelling evidence for his story, rather than just saying whatever he wants and defying everybody else to prove him wrong. Bjsiders 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

busted at the airport

its funny how conservatives are the ones who initially come up with these laws and regulations that have the potential to violate peoples rights. then when it actually happens, conservatives are complaining that they are being picked on. my response....boohoo. cry me a river. youre the ones who come up with these stupid laws to begin with. left wingers try to warn people that these stupid things such as homeland security and patriot act have the potential of violating peoples rights but conservative fools ignore them. if youre going to complain about getting hassled at the airport why support these stupid rules to begin with?

Your unsigned partisan argument is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is, is the incident noteworty/relevant/encyclopedic enough to be included in the article.Crockspot 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Slant

The Rush Limbaugh page fails to represent much of the criticism that Limbauch has recieved. It can be factually demonstrated that Limbaugh both fails to adaquately consider all the factors in his arguements (such as ignoring any facts that contradict his viewpoint), as well as never permitting liberals to pass his call screenings, flat out lies, and deliberately goes out of his way to insult anyone who opposes him based on completely non-political evidence.

One of the people where I work listens to his ranting, and he has never presented one argument that I could not find at least 3 fallacies in, even based only on the evidence he presents.

Limbaugh relies heavily on emotionalism and verbal shock tactics to verbally ause people who disagree with him, as well as compensate for ny evidentiary lackages.

I am not strongly liberal. I actually think that the liberal, optimistic viewpoint is rather impractical, and Limbaugh still manages to offend me.

68.6.113.146, July 02, 2006, 3:54 AM PST.

yes, that is because Limbaugh is a classic demagogue along the lines of Joseph Goebbels (i.e. replace 'liberal' with 'jew' in Limbaugh's rants and the similarity becomes downright uncanny), but the PC admins will not allow the use of the objective term demagogue in the main article, leading to the average reader's confusion that you describe so well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.122.233 (talk • contribs)

To the anonymous editors, why not go the policy pages and argue for a policy change: let every biographical article of the Wikipedia be filled with blog-like original opinion criticism from every editor? patsw 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

QED see what I mean? To add a link to demagogue in the Limbaugh article is to inject blog-like original criticism, but to sanitize the Limbaugh article so that it contains no such objective references is, or course, to be fair and balanced. Welcome to 1984.

A short-lived opening paragraph, nice try though

how did this intro ever survive more than a day?:

Rush Hudson Limbaugh III (born January 12, 1951 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri) is an American radio talk show host. Violently conservative, he "discusses" politics and current events on his show, The Rush Limbaugh Show using a style that bounces "between earnest lecturer and political vaudvillian".

I altered the intro; the previous was definitely left-wing kool-aid drinking drivel.--Bedford 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)