Jump to content

Talk:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Term "backlash" in the lead

The word backlash can refer to an "averse reaction", but as a sociological term it refers to hegemonic opposition to progressive movements. For instance: "In contemporary American usage, the term backlash appears to refer to recurring attempts by a privileged class to rescind recently won rights and liberties gained by an underprivileged group or class."

I changed the word "backlash" to "criticism". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that is just a strange justification. Backlash is any widespread adverse reaction. That what it is is sometimes directed to one group does not make it the only definition. Backlash to RL, backlash to the Dems, backlash to the Reps. Simply don't get your point.209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to back up #209 here, http://www.google.com/search?q=define+backlash "1. A strong and adverse reaction by a large number of people, esp. to a social or political development. 2. {the mechanical meaning} -- with assorted other dictionaries for your perusal.
I would suggest in answer to Sonicyouth's quote that the term backlash appears to have that reference in contemporary American usage because of who is most often backlashing in contemporary American events. That is, since about 1960,* underprivileged groups or classes have kept winning rights and liberties, even if two steps forward one step back, and privileged classes have kept backlashing to take them away again.
Where the opposite side wins, and the other opposite side reacts adversely, then the sociological reference would likewise flip.
E.g. Wisconsin contemporary events, where for a while the GOP had a firm grip on all three branches of government, and quickly used its majorities to enact an agenda that upset many other Wisconsinites. Tens of thousands protested at the state Capitol building; hundreds of thousands signed recall petitions. So here the term backlash appears to refer to an attempt by an underprivileged group or class to regain rights and liberties recently denied by a privileged class.
Since the above mentions current events, I wish to stress it's not here for a political discussion; this was about the meaning of the word. Raven (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
*Why say then and not earlier? Sonicyouth's writer cites a discussion of the advance of feminism from the 19th century. This advance was discontinuous: post-WWII, "Rosie-the-Riveters" were sent home from "men's jobs" to be housewives and mothers, the Baby Boom began, and TV announced that "Father Knows Best." Need it be added that for, say, blacks, the entire first half of the 20th century (rebirth of the KKK, white-on-black race riots, lynch law, let alone Jim Crow) is even less an argument for continuous advance from Emancipation? Raven (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Insincere apology

Many WP:RSs have said that his apology was an insincere non-apology. I think this is one of the best of those statements:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2012/03/rush_limbaugh_s_apology_to_sandra_fluke_was_awful_here_s_what_he_should_have_said_.html How Not To Apologize Rush Limbaugh’s statement on Sandra Fluke was a textbook example of what not to say. By Emily Yoffe|Posted Monday, March 5, 2012, at 11:16 AM ET

--Nbauman (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Grin - I just got off the phone with a woman who was impressed with the sincerity of his latest apology; she heard it on-air. Let's be neutral about this and not try to judge his sincerity or (as I tend to dub it, mentally) his insincerity. It would be better to summarize (or quote) statements from various RS's who have commented on the "sincerity question".
My take, based on an utterly non-extensive random sampling of online news stories, is that it went like this:
  1. Rush ridiculed Fluke's reasoning and called her filthy names.
  2. People protested, and Rush repeated these at higher volume.
  3. Protests reached their zenith, and Rush (possibly realizing he was outgunned) started damage control
    • He combined (a) a summary of his rebuttal to Fluke's arguments with (b) an apology for his insulting personal attacks on her
I haven't checked today's news, but that's how I remember the last few days. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The sincerity (or lack there of) of a statement is by it's very nature unverifiable. The only WP:RS that could possible verify something of this nature would be the person who originally made the statement or apology. Diraphe (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed that while Wikipedia(ns) should avoid making judgments (that would be OR), quoting judgments from RSs is fair game.
Please take note that judges and ordinary jurors make judgments about honesty all the time, in cases about perjury, fraud, and other forms of deception. Prosecutors keep bringing jurors' attention back to discrepancies: was what the defendant said here consistent with what he said there? and with what he did there? (Note Uncle Ed's point #4, long rebuttal first, short apology for word choice second.)
With a few volumes of Suzette Haden Elgin's The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense series digesting in your brain, you will at least be less likely to take the rustiest old insincere apologies at face value, like the infamous "I'm Sorry You...." (Example: "I'm sorry you took offense." That puts the blame on you, for taking offense. In fact, it's apologizing for you!)
Now, paying close attention to words, what did Limbaugh apologize for? "Word Choice." Not the substance of his attacks over three days, not the meanings of the words he used, no, just the particular words chosen. Apparently synonyms would have sufficed. Any doubts about how sincere an apology that was? ... Raven (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Background information giving summary of work experience is relevant

Rehash of previous discussions

#5 Sandra Fluke needs too keep her own page

#10 Redirect

#15 Sandra Fluke's notability?

#16 RE: Background is the Bio from the deleted Sandra Fluke page

#29 Article must remain focused on the actual subject of the article

#30 Sandra Fluke biographical info

EXCEPT that consensus NOW is that there is NO NEED of a biography of Ms Fluke, just lead-up to testimony/controversy and RELEVANT TO CONSCIENCE CLAUSE / HEALTH INSURANCE items209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Her work at the charity and her work at Georgetown is relevant. It provides context. It gives some insight on why she was called be a witness in the first place. In other words, the Democratic perspective was that this was someone who spent her adult life advocating for a certain view point. Working with women and concentrating on similar issues at Georgetown is what would make a good witness, they would argue. In that respect, the information is relevant. I think it is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Casprings (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The SOLE reason actually put forward by Democrats for her inclusion was her GENDER. The only people claiming she was an experienced radical left-wing feminist activist are right-wing conspiracy blogs seizing on the mis-statement of her age as 23 by the Democrats, which was more likely a simple mistake. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The point is that is does not do what you are saying without wandering freely through the land of WP:OR. exactly how is her work at an abuse shelter relevant to testimony regarding health care coverage? how does a paper about employment discrimination qualify someone to talk about medical coverage? and if it is " Working with women and concentrating on similar issues at Georgetown is what would make a good witness, they would argue. " - then WP:PROVEIT - find a source that says that is why the democrats picked her. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Work is irrelevant, yes. Paper, though is DIRECTLY Relevant. The stories she delivered, all in her review paper. Limbaugh refers not just to her 2nd speech, but to her paper. Criticism directed at her paper, not just the 2nd speech. Only INSURANCE-RELATED record attributable to Fluke except for 2 speeches.209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Her background isn't relevant to the article, since it provides no necessary context in understanding the controversy. In the greater scheme of things, she herself, is barely relevant to the article. Her background is already too expanded as it is. - Xcal68 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that you are correct on the paper. That isn't really relevant. However, the reason the Democratic party picked her was because of her activism on women's issues. According to this article ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/19/sandra-fluke-wanted-to-speak-up-for-women-before-congress.html ) democratic leaders contacted her because of seeing this video ( http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/Contracep&showFullAbstract=1 ) A Washington post article states:

The Democrats did, however, invite one woman to speak: Sandra Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown Law and past president of the school’s Students for Reproductive Justice group.

Here again, it is her activism that gets her noticed and thus presented to testify. I firmly disagree that she "isn't important". I think that this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Rather one agrees with her or disagrees with her, she continues to engage the media and she, as a person is relevant to the story.
However, what I would suggest is that the level of background information isn't needed. I would suggest the following rewording:

Sandra Fluke is a former employee for Sanctuary for Families and current Georgetown Law student. She is an advocate of women's rights and LBGT Rights.

I don't think anything beyond that really needs to be said. Who she worked for/where she is at school and then what is important to her on the issues. That is all the context this article really requires, given the focus of the article. Casprings (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If there IS a Bio, work and college are pro forma. IF NOT, then NO, are irrelevant and should be out. Student "activism" at Georgetown is pretty questionable if you are trying to say it was a success and labeled her for greatness, leading to the invite, as you imply. In the sense that if you were looking up students to speak in dissent at a student event, there may have been reference to her name, OK. Her actual activism pretty much fizzled at Georgetown, and was rejected and even mocked by student papers and government, and ignored by the University. She had already quit after 2 years and was trying to instead get published by the time of the Kennedy-Townsend press event.209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
One final note before bed. This isn't WP:OR . Georgetown University is a WP:Verifiability. Moreover, there are other sources that verify these facts. For example http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/remember_the_cl.php or http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/meet-law-student-and-contraception-advocate-sandra-fluke/ both verify the work at the nonprofit. Casprings (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Uhhhh. The "sources" that you say VERIFY her self-authored Law school application assertions ACTUALLY do the opposite. If they had any sources, or wished to claim attribution (translation from journalist speak; if there was ANY secondary source), they would not have put them in quotes and said instead that the blurbs Fluke wrote "CLAIM" that..... That is a way of DISAVOWING any assertion that they are true.209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think of it like this: If you didn't know her name, or anything about her, and saw the news story, would it change your reaction to Limbaugh's comments (since it's the reaction/controversy that this article is about)? For me, the answer is 'no, she hardly matters to the subject.' - Xcal68 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
yes there are sources that verify the facts. big deal. this is an article about the controversy and the OR is is placing "facts" in such a way as to support and make a claim not made in the original publications. What do those items have to do with the controversy - on their face they dont even support any reason why she would be testifying. When you remove the stuff that isnt directly relevant to the actual subject of the article, everything left in the section can be easily incorporated into the following section with something like "Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown who had been involved in student protests to get the school's insurance to cover contraception, was invited by the democrats to speak ... blah blah blah." -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. See what you think of my last edit. Casprings (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
yes, thank you for your work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


RE; ACTIVISM. First, total consensus that the Kennedy-Townsend student event at the National Press Club is in. Democrats refer to it, Issa remarked that it was the only thing anyone knew about her at the time of the Congressional Hearing, repeat of 2nd speech but with anti-Catholic rants out, plus is ACTUALLY her only real "testimony", having been entered into the Congressional Record by Isssa as an acomodation to Democrats. Also, Limbaugh refers to both this and the published paper, though mostly to speech 2.

Actual activism? Questionable, but that she entered Georgetown with the INTENT to force the school to abandon its moral objection is confirmed by her, referred to by critics and proponents, including Limbaugh, and relevant to how she ended up at the press event. Don't have to refer to the success or failure, which inevitably goes straight to WP:POV209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This section begins with 209.6.69.227 providing six non-working links to who-knows-what and then asserting with no evidence at all, "consensus NOW is that there is NO NEED of a biography of Ms Fluke." Where is that consensus? In fact, I myself launched a debate on this question nine days ago in the section #Sandra Fluke biographical info above, which I began by saying, "There is a nascent edit war over how much Sandra Fluke biographical material should be included. I believe that, while her personal life should be minimized, information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career are appropriate." Not counting comments by unregistered users, only three users have weighed in substantively on the question of how much biographical info there should be. I, Anomalocaris, called for "information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career." The Red Pen of Doom seems to favor limiting Sandra Fluke info to her work related only to healthcare or insurance. Casprings said "It needs to be a one paragraph brief concerning her life. Not a few cherry picked facts that make some happy." Sorry if I missed someone else's substantive comment, but it looks to me like in nine days, only three registered users weighed in and there is no consensus at all.

In this section, we have The Red Pen of Doom and Xcal68 calling for minimizing or eliminating Fluke biographical info, and Casprings favoring inclusion of biographical info including charity and other work. Again, no consensus at all. I don't know if Wikipedia has policies on how to weigh the opinions of unregistered vs. registered users, but I for one place little or no weight on the opinions of unregistered users. I encourage unregistered users to register and I encourage people to weigh in on this question, but at this time I see no consensus.

I continue to favor the inclusion of information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career, including universities attended, degrees earned, papers authored, employment (including self-employment), positions and responsibilities, and programs started and managed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Casprings has been relentless in demanding an effusive Sandra Fluke Biography section at the top of this article. Debate has been endless, and 80% from Casprings, much of what is being included criticized for relevance, self-authored, reliability, verifiablility. The CONSENSUS that I referred to is that it seems the pro-Biography editor(s) is the same one that took the Biography DOWN, to merge with Background. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
All of 209.6.69.227's links starting this section are just entries on this page. The links may not work, but you can simply scroll to the top and associate each one quite easily in the contents. 5 goes with 5, 10 goes with 10, and so on.
For the record, I've not advocated for the elimination of biographical information. I've expressed my wishes to have it shortened. At this point, I feel the only necessary information about her would require just enough to provide context in to why she was invited to speak. It could probably be done in two sentences or three, really. There's a reason her personal article was deleted. She's not notable. Other than opinion based media, there is just about zero coverage of her unless it's a newspaper covering its local event - which the MSM doesn't bother picking up. This article is about the controversy, to which she is barely relevant. You could insert <woman's name> and it would have just about the same impact. - Xcal68 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
One more thing.  Regarding "I continue to favor the inclusion of information that helps the reader understand her academic accomplishments and career..." etc.  Why?  This is not a SF advocacy article.  It's about the controversy.  Why do you feel the need to educate readers on things outside of that? - Xcal68 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Does Ms. Fluke qualify for her own Wikipedia page yet? I don't think the huge amount of background is all that good. It's not like Limbaugh gets that much space to introduce himself on this page (he has his own page). I would support some brief summary of her interest in the matters to which this article pertains, but a mini-biography to me seems to overstate the case. Ideal would be her own page. But again, are we inclusionists or deletionists? It seems completely irrelevant to this page to give long discussions of her charity work, as though that would somehow endear the reader to Ms. Fluke. A minimal explanation of her involvement in the present concern would seem enough. A couple of sentences. That's my two copper pieces. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Has she suddenly become notable between her original article being deleted and now?  I haven't seen anything new that would suggest she should have her own page again. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bio Needed

There needs to be more biographical information about Sandra Fluke on this page. Without such foundation, no one really knows why she was invited to speak in front of Congress, or understand the full background behind Rush's remarks. Just wanted to give my .02, and hope a biographical section of Fluke is included. Thanks! JR00576 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the controversy. There is nothing in her biography that adds to a readers understanding of the subject of the article. And I have seen no third party reliable sources that place her background as a reason she was selected, for Wikipedia to try to do so without it coming from the third party sources, is not allowed.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, the only third party commentators who DO reference her biography as influencing the Democrat's actions are of the Coulter/Breitbart/Beck variety. Arguably she was chosen mostly for her LACK of qualifications; there is no evidence that Democrats actually wanted her to speak or be added, rather, the focus was on making sure she was NOT added, since they, the politicians, had their "outrage" speeches all written. Issa has been criticized in Republican circles for not simply adding her to the appropriate, second, panel on the effects of conscience clauses on institutions and individuals. If he had, we would never have heard of her.209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

209.6.69.227, do you have any reliable source to support the claim that Democrats focused on making sure that Sandra Fluke was not added to the panel and that they had prepared their "outrage" speeches before proposing her? If so, this should be added to the article. If not, you should admit that you're just making stuff up. By the way, it's very easy to register a user name on Wikipedia, and I encourage you to do so. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

references

Organization

Why exactly are there three, count 'em three, sections on reactions?

  • 3 Reaction to Limbaugh's remarks
  • 6 Democratic response
  • 7 Republican response

(there is four if you count 5 Loss of sponsors) -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The three have been present since sections were added on March 4, with a "Republican criticism" section before the Democratic section. My guess is that the latter two were intended to identify breadth of condemnation across political parties. Do you propose a change? —ADavidB 18:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I dont have a suggestion about a specific alternate option, but the current structure appears to run afoul of Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure as well as being unclear to a reader as to why responses should be broken up and categorized in that manner. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Different political constituencies have different responses to these things. Isn't that a normal way of breaking it down? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
while it may unfortunately be common, per Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure Wikipedia shouldnt be setting up "he said/she said" structures. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not organization but the one-side criticisms - there were also reasonable criticisms of Fluke. The bias is evident in that this entry - as it stands - only contains criticisms of Limbaugh. Controversies have two sides. An example of a reasonable criticism of Fluke is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/will-cain-sandra-fluke-contraception-cnn_n_1341497.html -- User:dukenemmy 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticisms of Fluke by other than Limbaugh were previously included in this article – some of which I believe to have been 'reasonable' – though they were removed repeatedly with claims of non-relation to the subject of this article, victimization, etc. (See this talk section) —ADavidB 10:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
"Controversies have two sides." you are correct. the article doesnt include people on "the other side" saying "It was appropriate for Lindbaugh to call her a slut" primarily, because there arent people holding that position publicly. To be accurate, the article should probably be renamed to Lindbaugh's slandering of Fluke. -- The Red Pen of Doom
Criticism of Fluke, by Limbaugh and others, was not exclusively "calling her a slut"; that's just what got the most (not all) press and attention in the controversy. Variance from Fluke's perspective on mandated contraception coverage does not equate with support for Limbaugh's slander. —ADavidB 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The argument here is not necessarily the merits of Fluke's speech, which was pretty insubstantial and full of logical and factual problems. Sure, if you want to talk about broader issues, critiquing her speech is like shooting fish in a barrel, and would be included. Problem is, this is ONLY supposed to be about a media flap centered around Limbaugh. There has already been discussion of whether the article needs to be broadened, and mostly pro-Fluke editors have successfully made the point that it does not. Article DESPERATELY needs to be trimmed, not added to.209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you suggest a more logical breakdown?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
per the "This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry." tag I am thinking that instead of printing the "oh gosh thats terrible" from every Tom Dick and Henry, combining the responses into a single section that contains the most salient and representative responses would be a good first start. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying there is too much "response" right now? I don't see how. You're obviously trying hard to live up to that username... The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
See below. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a separate question. You just raised a question about Fluke and Limbaugh's being over-quoted, right? I don't think they're over-quoted. All other quotes would be simpler paraphrased etc. though (not to say all of them should, but you get the idea.)The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Cyrrk removals - Congressional hearing had one panel that was "all-male"

The panels' gender population provides relevant context for the discussion that follows in the very next paragraph, and the "advertisers" sentence is an accurate summary of the paragraph's listing of dated, sourced, advertisers that dropped the show. AV3000 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The UNSUITABILITY of plastering "all-male" all over the Congressional Hearing has already been discussed. That it was a Democrat talking point, there is no doubt. That the panel was constructed to BE "all-male", as your phrasing implies, is ludicrous, the very DEFINITION of POV. If you want to say this was a political ploy, fair enough, if you want to say the gender of the panel is what defined it, then please also add "excluding jews, blacks, men, muslims, lutherans, and all persons without a liberal feminist political position" to the description of the Democrat's press conference witness list the next week. Both are ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We could add "excluding jews, blacks, men, muslims, lutherans, and all persons without a liberal feminist political position", but we need a source. Is there one? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The panel was reported as "all male" by many different sources. The fact that it was a talking point or whatever is non-relavent. Nor is the fact that one could use other means to describe the panel. It is important that the panel was "all male" because a lot of news sources reported it as all males and therefore it is notable. Those are the standards to judge this by. Casprings (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a complete non sequiter: it addresses nothing I spoke of. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The text still seems biased against Fluke

For instance, what is inappropriate in the remark "He insulted me more than 50 times over three days"? She is just stating the facts so why did an editor say that this was inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.145.130 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've missed it, but where did an editor say that was inappropriate? I see

During a three day period, Limbaugh attacked Fluke a total of 46 times.

at the end of "Remarks by Limbaugh" in the article (Jonathanfu (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC))
It's actually the following phrase in the article:

She said Limbaugh's comments were not of "one person who went crazy" and made one inappropriate remark, "He insulted me more than 50 times over three days," and also pointed to other right-wing commentators such as Glenn Beck who made similar personal attacks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.145.130 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, since it's up there now, I guess whoever thought changed their minds? Shrug. (Jonathanfu (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

Total consensus that it needs to be mentioned that the comments were not isolated, but part of 3 consecutive shows. HOWEVER, there ends up being NPOV issues when you call them "attacks" or simple "insults", and leave it at that. They were part of a broader critique of the views and facts Fluke put out, not just some random unrelated name-calling a la Maher or Schultz209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a better reference than MediaMatters for the number of times Limbaugh made sexual references? The repetitive nature needs in, the number seems plausible, but if anyone disputes the number, it is a highly unreliable source. Plus, the snipe a Beck needs to come out. Either the many dissections of the speech need to go in, or need to be all out, unless they are a repetition of the "slut", etc. remark. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters has never been shown to be unreliable. — goethean ॐ 19:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "never". Here's a case from a year ago where they were. —ADavidB 18:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
MMFA is considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. — goethean ॐ 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you direct me to the part showing consensus? I can't seem to find it. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Plus, in typical fashion, you have not addressed the ACTUAL question. That is a discussion of NOTABILITY, not RELIABILITY. Might give you that because of their massive partisan funding they are big, and therefore can be considered notable, aka a player in politics, but the board only discussed them as a source of OPINION, not reliable fact (which has always been a big problem). Even if we suppose that in other things they MIGHT have been reliable, in this case, they are an involved party. The campaigns are theirs, they are "reporting" on their own campaigns. That is inherently SELFSOURCE , and to be excluded here. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You know, if you are not going to take the time to read the passage that I linked to (which explicitly treats the rather elementary fallacy in which you are engaging), and you are not even going to understand the Wikipedia policies which you are citing (Notability has noting to do with article content), then I don't have to take the time to respond to your poorly-construed rants. — goethean ॐ 14:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Loss of Sponsors Cleanup

This section needs a bit of reorganization - there are notices of loss of sponsorship interspersed with notices of gains of sponsorship and somewhat long-winded explanations of sponsor activity, with little or no transition in-between. Not to mention an awful lot of unsourced/unreliably sourced/etc. notations. I'm a little busy for the next few days but if it hasn't been addressed, I'll work on it. (Jonathanfu (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC))

Probably best to work on redundancy first; Then quotes (most don't add anything, and say the same thing), then work on sourcing the OVERALL picture (almost all reports are from some unreliable source on either side), which is going to be the POV battle. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we want statements from the sponsors that are dropping or adding? Or just a sort of notification with date? (Jonathanfu (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC))

ALMOST definitely not. If sponsors dropping say something new, OK, maybe, otherwise it's just a collection of "me too" quotes. Perhaps just group sponsors by those who dropped for specifically what was said, those who automatically stop ads when any program becomes controversial, drop before vs after apology, and then station cancellations. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move ; rename article with different hyphen spacing, keep location

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per MOS:ENDASH -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy → Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy – En dashes should only be spaced when the endpoints of a range contain an internal space. See MOS:ENDASH; the example "New York–Los Angeles flight" does not have a spaced en dash, and neither should this article. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Howz about we use a "/" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk • contribs) 17:14 (UTC), 26 March 2012‎

The WP:SLASH guidance suggests we should generally avoid joining words with slashes (and states why). —ADavidB 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. [Let it be noted that Tony's contribution is a support also.] WP:MOS is quite clear about this matter of style. Of course there is no perfect solution, as Tony and others suggest above. In the long and arduous process of reaching a consensual set of recommendations for dashes in 2011 (under ArbCom direction and supervision), there was a well-organised and very well advertised community consultation. The results, with slight subsequent modification, are to be found in the present section called WP:DASH. The matter of spacing with en dashes was the hardest to resolve, but the recommendation arrived at has firm support in both Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) and major British style guides such as New Hart's Rules (NHR). Their rationales differ, but they converge on no spacing for the case we are considering. Only a minority of guides (somewhat smaller: from Cambridge and in Australia for example) support a spaced en dash for our title here. If there were a national or regional component to the determination of style in this case, it would go the American way: the CMOS way, definitely with no spacing. Finally, it is not true that WT:MOS is a "morass" (see a remark above). But Wikipedia values four things in style matters: commonality (agreement with existing best-practice standards), consistency, certainty, and stability. These desiderata could not be achieved if it were easy to alter the established recommendations. Nevertheless, anyone approaching WT:MOS with a genuine request for reconsideration can be sure of a fair hearing. In the unlikely event that this fails, I for one want to hear about it.
    Wikipedia's consensually developed Manual of Style is perfectly able to settle the present matter of pure style. There is no consideration that overrides it here.
    NoeticaTea? 23:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support And also good to know for the future. I should have looked at naming conventions before suggesting this name. Casprings (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – I too might prefer spaces, but we had a big powwow on this and decided not. It would be chaotic to revisit this question on every article where someone wants to have such a preference reconsidered. And in guides and sources that I surveyed, without spaces was by far predominant, so there's nothing odd about our house style. It only becomes a bit of an issue for those readers who see the article with a poor font that makes en dashes look too much like hyphens. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Conforms to MOS default, and there is no good reason to depart from it in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Insult count

A lot of the insults alleged against Fluke are, in fact, alleged against Georgetown co-eds in general. Examples:

  1. “the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown”
  2. “to pay for these co-eds to have sex”
  3. “Maybe they're sex addicts”

I don't know why Fluke thought she was personally insulted so many times. It seems she never looked beyond the reported count. A law student would understand the difference between general and personal insults. As much as I think Rush is pond scum, and leaving alone that DailyKos was active in the calls for sponsor boycotts, and whoever wrote the article is a blogger writing a blog "diary" entry who IS NOT A REPORTER OVERSEEN BY AN EDITOR, we can't be taken in by reporting that is prima facie bad. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"I don't know why Fluke thought she was personally insulted so many times." as one of the "georgetown coeds" those insults are certainly personal attacks on her as well. "i dint insult you personally by name, just every member of the group you are affiliated with." -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The group argument is weak. Giving the context of the comments, insulting groups she is part of is an insult on her. A common person would look at it like that and media matters did also. Casprings (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we have a PURE editing problem here; perhaps it is best to say what everyone agrees on.

1. Rush did not yell slut or prostitute in an isolated way, a la Maher ad hominiems, but offensively sexualized and personalized the debate
2. This was NOT a single quip, but an integral part of commentary over 3 days and several hours
3. Though we all agree that that aspect has to be included, there are problems with assigning an actual number, even though it gives an arguably better picture of the Limbaugh testimony, because a) all the "quantitation" is being done by unreliable partisan, and most importantly INVOLVED parties b) including the partisan sources introduces additional POV, such as characterizations of the remarks that don't exactly fit.
4. Finding a proper wording that accurately describes what ALL the inappropriate remarks were. Have a problem with "attack", because it is such a general term; could be used to describe a philosophical dissection, an ad hominem, could describe the whole show, and numbers become even more debatable. As ArtistAKA says, some were inappropriate BUT were taking Fluke's comments, and that her comments were meant to describe the general condition of Georgetown students, and saying that therefore _____ is a general property of GT coeds. Not directed at Fluke, but still under the umbrella of the KIND of remarks you are talking about.

Problem was with inappropriate sexual remarks; I know that sounds bland, but am open to a better term, as long as it describes what the remarks WERE, bearing in mind it has to be a LARGE umbrella to describe all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think we have that already. The lead now says "Rush Limbaugh called Georgetown University Law Center law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute", and continued his attacks for another two days." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I read that and I still do actually see that Casprings has a point. Lead or body of the article is another matter, but at some point you have to let the reader know that this was an integral part of HOURS of radio, that large numbers of sexual references were made; a long-running theme. Again, they varied, they don't fall as easily into categories as you might want and the reference used is problematic, but the lead still doesn't get the scope quite right--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead already says "continued his attacks for another two days". What else you need for a lead? Details better in the body. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It needs to provide the reader with the depth and some idea of the amount of the attacks. It also needs to provide the reader with an idea that this wasn't one statement or one use of the word slut in three different programs. A number does that nicely. Casprings (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
A reliable source gave the inslut number as 47. A reason person would assume that those insults were directed at Fluke, given the content of the program. The number of insults is important to show the depth of his attacks. For those reasons, I think the number is important and it should be in the intro. To say that he simply called her a "slut" is misleading to the reader.Casprings (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The source (MM) is reliable only for certain things. What constitutes an "attack" is opinion. MM exists to try and dismantle conservatives. Surely if this were a verifiable, concrete assertion (the number of "attacks") it can be found in another source? - Xcal68 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
One reliable source has been found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_65#Media_matters_.2825th_time_asked.29 . Do you have another source that contradicts the statement or do you just have WP:OR and your own opinion? The statement are there and a reasonable person would assume that the statements were directed at Fluke. Some of the statements may be directed at groups, but she is a member of any group mentioned. Given the content of his comments, that is directed at Fluke, as a reliable source suggests. Casprings (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at that link that you're using as "proof" of MM as a RS? Goethean failed to direct me to the part of that page that shows consensus. Will you also fail to do so? From what I've seen, they're a RS given the right context. To use them as a RS for counting "attacks," that is very questionable, given their partisan leanings. - Xcal68 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The number of attacks doesn't need to be in the intro. For me, the 'continued the attacks for two days' language is sufficient. However, the repeated assertions that Media Matters is not reliable have not been backed up with anything --- not with Wikipedia policy or with any evidence at all. Media Matters is a reliable source on this topic as well as other topics. Arguments to the contrary need to cite some evidence in order to be taken seriously. — goethean ॐ 17:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)}{}{od}}
MMfA is dedicated to the destruction of conservative figures like RL. They are simply not a reliable source for anything in any objective manner regarding this article. Arzel (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The main issue for the lead seems to be weight. MMfA is a RS in general, but in this case they are the instigators of the ad boycott. They have skin in the game. What they regard as important has a lot to do with their prestige. There is also the issue of weight in general. Who besides the left wing echo chamber picked up on the insult count, accurate or not? If the NYT or WaPo did, then it should be in the body, if not, then it's almost a tree falling in the forest. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

New source from Washington Post added. Reliable source and takes care of the references to groups.Casprings (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is against having a count in the lead, whatever that count might be. We've already had 53, 46 and now the weird count of 20 from an opinion writer. And, while we're at it, the WaPo source doesn't say 20-the headline does, but it has 21 attacks detailed and the body says "upward of 20". Anyone catching an inconsistencies from the refs?) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

21 attacks are detailed in the article. 47 are detailed in another reliable source. More then 20 is perfectly useable. While I think it belongs in the opening, the amount of attacks is an important aspect of the story and need to be in the section detailing his attacks, at least. Casprings (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was not addressed, but we should use a cherry picked number from an opinion page? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is there for a number to be included. Just not in the intro. Washington Post is a legit source. Moreover, the number is very conservative. THe pervious number of 47 was in the comments section long term, before I moved it to the intro. Casprings (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus is there for a number to be included". Proof needed. And how is the 47 reconciled to the 20+? This is cherry picking. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, your argument concerning groups were dismissed by two editors. General agreement is found that it should be in the RL section of the article. The number from media matters is still a legit count, just not for intro. The words of his statements are presented by Media Matters. It is a better list then the WP list. Casprings (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"concerning groups"? I'm lost what that refers to. Who says MMfA is a "legit count"- besides you-and who doesn't? How did it get to be "a better list", is there an RS to establish that? Is it that you're just sure MMfA has their shit together waaay more than the WaPo? You, know, we should rely on your opinion on this one. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Media Matters always a problem, either SELFSOURCE or other. Uncomfortable with their numbering it, though OK with giving a better picture of scope. WashPost more reliable, even if in headline; should be in body, not lead. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Double standard discussion - relevant? counterclaims about Maher etc.

Can anyone explain why the almost-irrelevant counterclaims by Republicans, that some Democrats have said nasty things about women too, take up twice as much room in the "Reaction to Limbaugh's remarks" section as the actual reactions to Limbaugh's comments do? Talk about a quote farm! For starters, the paragraph-long quote from Karl Rove about Maher ought to go, as it adds undue weight to a peripheral point. Recent edits have greatly trimmed the actual reactions to Limbaugh, while leaving untouched the "you're another!" comments about people other than Limbaugh. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree One or two sentences detailing the defense is really all that is needed. Casprings (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY wrong. The REACTION is the whole point and title of this article. That the remarks generated strong, and largely justified reaction is the story. It is ABSOULUTELY relevant that the reaction was NOT elicited previously by others; goes to how important this controversy is. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

To partisan single-purpose accounts, broadcasting party talking points are ALWAYS the most important aspect to an article. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that reaction is important to the article. But are you claiming that the "you're another!" defense by Republicans is more important than the ACTUAL reaction to Limbaugh's remarks? Because that is what we have in the article now. I'm not saying to delete the reaction by Republicans; I'm saying to bring it into balance with what people said about the actual Limbaugh-Fluke controversy which is the subject of this article. Right now the actual reaction to Limbaugh/Fluke consists of 108 words, supported by five citations. The "you guys do it too!" defense material consists of 220 words, more than twice as much content, supported by only four citations. This is out of balance. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I trimmed the section - retaining the basic points about others, particularly Maher. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The editorial decision to allot space is at least partially dependent on whether the points being made are actually DIFFERENT. Person X saying the same thing as Person Y saying the same thing as person Z should be noted and summarized, with the universality also included, and therefore takes up less space. Commentary that brings up novel points, address directly the relevance of the controversy discussed, and elevates the debate are more noteworthy than "me too" repetition.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The university is HER university, and so the reaction from the university is important to include. They are not just another talking head. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, the complaint about double standards has been made by columnists of all political stripes, as well as partisan Republicans. I particularly liked that the primary quote was from a liberal columnist, who has been CONSISTENT in condemning sexist misogynistic slurs from politicians and commentators of all flavors. It is a fundamental question about whether this RL-SF controversy is just partisans trying to "get" someone on the other side by cynically using an issue, or if there is a larger, legitimate debate that ought to be the focus. I am in the camp that this should (and most editors have previously agreed on that focus) be this article's focus, namely, on the sexist and misogynistic remarks, and the comparison to other instances, where the press was disturbingly silent, elevates the debate and improves the relevance of the article.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And that is where the article stands now. Someone deleted the comparison paragraph; I restored it. So it sounds like we agree that it should be in the article, and nothing more needs to be said. (You are quite wrong that the "press was disturbingly silent" about the other people cited in the paragraph - for example, Ed Schultz was suspended for a week for using an insulting word about Laura Ingraham [1], and Keith Olbermann has been fired from both MSNBC and Current TV, while Clear Channel has done nothing about Limbaugh's days-long diatribe against Fluke - but this is not the place to argue about it.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure there are many other events equivilent to a nationally syndicated entertainer calling a college student a slut for three days that have occured to make comparisons to. Comedians making fun of people on the national political stage, maybe, but this is a completely different scale. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Red; nice to see you back. There is probably LOTS still to be cut, and you would like to do slightly more trimming than I. The comparisons to other sexist diatribes just would be the LAST one I would cut. That she is a college student is unusual, I agree, but the fact that an obscure college student, who (let's be honest) didn't really have much to add, would be universally be held forth to be the ONE spokeswoman for the entire Democrat machine is odd in the extreme. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No more odd than an article editing effort going on and on long after it's been out of the news and basically forgotten. I'm not sure I've ever seen a controversy of this short a duration get the magnitude of attention that this one has. Now that is noteworthy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 21:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, getting the reports of its demise is next [2] "stations are standing by him, advertisers are trickling back to his program and the news media have moved on." on the agenda - probably be a real dogfight, but can't be denied, as the "loss of sponsors" part pretty much SHOULD be governed by NPOV--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fluke's reaction to Limbaugh - content dispute

The following paragraph has been deleted twice by user:The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous - once from the "Fluke's reaction and Limbaugh's apology" section, and then from the "Reaction to Limbaugh's remarks" section:

On March 2, Fluke was asked by The Daily Beast if she was considering legal action against Limbaugh, and she said she hadn't decided.[25][26] Legal experts have said Fluke could "definitely" sue Limbaugh for slander.[27]

IMO these two sentences should be retained. Her comment is clearly a reaction, it is neutrally stated and sourced, and it was said by one of the principals so it is totally relevant. It MIGHT be relevant to his apology, which came the day after she hinted she might take legal action, but that is an assumption so I am OK with moving out of the Apology section. However I think it needs to be there somewhere, and I don't believe Mr. Anonymous has provided any valid rationale for removing it. His first edit summary said non event and not related, I mean no relation given at all - to apology. OK, so I moved it to the Reaction section, and this time he said non event, it didn't happen, not notable, and bloat trimmed - Strunk and White, read it. I think it should be restored to the article, and per Wikipedia policy I am bringing this content dispute here to be decided by consensus. Please let's keep the comments to this specific paragraph and not get off into tangents about what Rush said. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a non event. Period. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
All of the reactions in the "Reactions" section are non-events. Why is this a reason to delete Fluke's reaction? --MelanieN (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I saw the hubbub on your talk page and came here expecting to support your position. But on this point I just can't. Saying she will or will not take legal action would be a reaction. Saying she hasn't decided yet is saying nothing notable. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't see how this is relevant, plus, has been discussed before. It is a report of what has NOT happened, or at best a report of what someone thinks MIGHT happen. Wikipedia does not have the room nor the editorial policy to include all of what MIGHT happen. Called Crystal Balling. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus is to leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a commentary by Rachel Maddow

User:Arzel has twice deleted the following addition to the article:

Rachel Maddow commented "I think Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what birth control is. I think he doesn't understand what he's talking about." She said Limbaugh's remarks suggest that he thinks a woman must take a pill each time she has sex, so the more times she has sex, the more birth control pills she needs and the more it costs. In fact, a birth control prescription consists of one pill each day for a fixed monthly cost, regardless of how frequently or infrequently the woman is having sex.
(Reference: Rachel Maddow: Rush Limbaugh A 'Dummy' Who 'Doesn't Know What Birth Control Is', Huffington Post, March 3, 2012)

The first time he removed it, his edit summary said Undid revision 486194595 by MelanieN (talk)Are her comments notable in the grand scheme? This has been commented on by pretty much everyone, no evidence that her comment is special. I reinstated it with the edit comment Reinstating a point which is NOT currently made anywhere in the article, namely Limbaugh's falsely equating the cost of contraception with the frequency of sex. He promptly deleted it again, this time saying Undid revision 486205812 by MelanieN (talk)RM making a false conclusion about what RL said is not notable, and certainly no more than anyone else. He also posted at my talk page saying "Rachel Maddow made a conclusion which has no basis in the argument that Rush made. That she is clueless and simply is trying to make political points is not relevant to the article. With the number of people that have made comments about the incident it would be quite easy to fill up the article with people that have made what some could describe as novel interpretations of Rush's statements." His description of Maddow as "clueless" betrays the fact that he is merely POV pushing in trying to keep a valid and novel point out of the article. Everybody else quoted in the article is simply criticizing him in general terms; Maddow is making a specific refutation of one of his central points, namely his insistence that Fluke's contraception costs are high because she is having a huge amount of sex. (“She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.” ""She was not allowed to testify because it was not about women at Georgetown who have so much sex they can't afford birth control." "So the woman comes forth with this frankly hilarious claim that she's having so much sex -- and her buddies with her-- that she can't afford it. And not one person says, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?") I do not wish to get involved in an edit war but I don't believe he has any valid basis for repeatedly deleting this novel and relevant point.--MelanieN (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

But couldn't Rush's argument be twisted as true? For example, if she stopped having sex for a year while in law school? Less sex would be less cost in that case. Anyway, the quote from Maddow just seems unneeded to me. The article would be a much bigger pig than it already is if every quote was tossed in to make us personally happy. - Xcal68 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
are you actually being serious? even if you give RL the greatest assumption of good faith, there is no way to interpret "it's amazing she can still walk" "Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?" in the manner you suggest. Of the excessive quote farm, that is one that should remain.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I wasn't being that serious. :p I was being intentionally obtuse to play devil's advocate. But I am serious about the pig thing. - Xcal68 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You said it yourself, Xcal; this interpretation would amount to twisting Limbaugh's argument. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
How about a rewrite along these lines - to make it clear that this is a factual correction rather than just another piling-on criticism?

Rachel Maddow pointed out two factual errors in Limbaugh's remarks: He said Fluke wanted taxpayers to pay for her contraception, when in fact she was talking about private insurance paid for by the university; and he suggested that her high cost of contraception meant that she must be having sex very often and could reduce the cost by "backing off the amount of sex that you have," when in fact a prescription for contraceptives pills is taken once a day at a fixed monthly cost, regardless of the frequency or infrequency of sexual activity.

--MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't that constitute OR? - Xcal68 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. I can source both items. The second (about the cost of birth control) is already cited by the ref I linked above. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I reduced it to the essentials, RL screwed up his analysis, birth control is taken once a day regardless. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RL is talking about condoms, not birth control pills. No sane person would think otherwise. RM is simply trying to make an absurd point by making a false analogy. Regardless, who says that her comment is notable in the grand scheme of everyone that has said something about the incident. Arzel (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
As I have pointed out several times, Maddow's comment is not simply piling on with more of the same criticism as everyone else. It is making a factual point which is not made by any other source. A simplified version of the Maddow point has now been added to the article, not by me, per discussion here. Please respect the process and do not delete it again. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
"...which is not made by any other source." - Ask yourself why no other source makes that point. Also, deleting content is part of the process. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In this case, user:Arzel and I were engaged in a content dispute, which I quite properly brought here. That is the process I am talking about - resolving content disputes at the talk page. The result of the process was a compromise post by user:The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool, but I was talking about this, obviously: "Please respect the process and do not delete it again." - Xcal68 (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
So was I. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, then we agree. - Xcal68 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, argument is getting silly. FIRST, the scope of this article is NOT about the rightness and wrongness of Limbaugh's OR Fluke's arguments or lack thereof, just about the controversy. If you want to change the scope of the article that has previously been agreed to, don't just throw in an argument you read and like, without regard for whether it fits in this article, ALSO make the argument that you want the larger issues of mandates discussed.

If you want to EXPAND the scope of the article (I was ambivalent about this, though have supported the decision once made), you bring in the SUBSTANCE of criticisms, both of Limbaugh and MANY others of the terrible arguments Fluke brought to the table.

At least part of this would be WHY Limbaugh speculated about Fluke's sex life. This is not to justify Limbaugh's use of sexual terms, just to explain it. Fluke had made a claim of the COST of contraception that cannot be supported by any reliable party. The range of her OVERESTIMATION of the cost of contraception was generally put at 10X-2X. The speculation was as to why Sandra Fluke believed contraception to be so much more expensive than any other normal person's contraceptive costs. Limbaugh's speculation was basically, that either she just had no idea how much contraception cost, or she was deliberately fudging, or that MAYBE her personal contraception needs were so much more demanding than those of any normal woman. THAT is what was being talked about. Does it need to be argued in the article, maybe not. If the article is to be expanded, then absolutely.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What you say does not appear to be true. According to Time Magazine and Slate, the cost of birth control pills at a college clinic is in the $30 to $50 range per month. Over a four-year college education, that would cost $1500 to $2400, so her estimate of $3000 is not wildly off the mark . --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie; The issue of the cost of contraception has been debated over the last month and a half, within this article and the talk pages and the previous pages' talk pages several dozen times. The fact that that debate is not in the article is NOT because no-one though of it, but because several previous consensus-es have agreed to exclude it. It used to occupy two whole sections of the article. I highly encourage you to read the voluminous prior discussions before re-hashing. Short precis goes as such; Planned Parenthood was the most partisan source, and still gave the more reasonable range of $15-50, with the usual range being $20-30. Target, Wal-Mart etc. , which are the sources for the budget-minded, such as students, offer $9 contraception without insurance, much debated here. Also, for women actually of modest means, contraception is free and freely available in Washington under the federal Title X program. Now, no debate that if you want some of the newer designer contraceptive formulations, you CAN spend several times that, but as has been extensively discussed, the cost of a Ferrari roadster has no relevance to the cost of a car used for transportation, aka a "need". --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of this Maddow quote was not the actual cost of the contraception (and BTW the $9 contraception story has been debunked; that price is not available to the general public). Her point was that Limbaugh does not understand how contraception works; that he thinks the amount you spend for pills depends on the amount of sex you are having, and that is the basis for his constant claims that she has "so much sex". He made that connection, over and over, explicitly: "Her sex life is active. She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That's what she's saying." And that is the point made by Maddow. The current sentence in the article - Rachel Maddow said Limbaugh's cost analysis did not factor that birth control pills are prescribed to be taken once a day, regardless of how often Fluke was having sex, which he had speculated was often.[23] - may not make that clear. It could be clearer that it was not the actual cost she was talking about, it was Limbaugh's erroneous belief that the cost of pills is determined by how often you have sex, and his conclusion that she must be having an enormous amount of sex because of the cost of her pills. If you feel the current sentence is reviving the cost-of-contraception debate, I will revise it to make clear that it is actually about Limbaugh's erroneous reasoning. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I reworded the sentence to make it clear it's not about the actual cost of the contraception; it's about Rush's conclusions. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither you nor Maddow have made such a point. You can't get to $3000 JUST with oral contraceptives, or at least with anything prescribed for a normal cost-conscious woman. To justify a $3000 price tag, one would have to be using two or three types of contraception SIMULTANEOUSLY, aka the "gold-plated" contraception quip. Even at that, one would have to be a HEAVY user of (for instance) condoms and spermicidals to even approach that number, even with the use of an average oral contraceptive.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Like Limbaugh, you don't know what you are talking about - but since this is all Original Research on your part it won't go in the article and need not be debated here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Melanie; PLEASE read previous debates on these very issues. (PS; are you hitting the Save page button multiple times? several server hangups - sometimes happens when two people are simultaneously submitting) Article used to have extensive discussion of Limbaugh's cost analysis and logic, BUT to include material on Limbaugh's cost analysis and logic, you then have to include Limbaugh's ACTUAL cost analysis and logic. It isn't anywhere on the page, not because nobody knows what it was, but because the controversy being dealt with in this page is ENTIRELY about sexist and misogynistic language. Consensus has been established several times on the subject, and always coalesces around excluding it. PERSONALLY, I do NOT want to have to include the math through which Limbaugh came up with his calculation s that Fluke was having sex at least 3 times a day to justify the number, and I cannot believe that you want to renew the debate. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't. I simply want to include a relevant, sourced reaction in the section about reactions. Please quit changing the title of this section; it is simply about an edit conflict I was having with someone else, about whether or not to include Maddow's reaction. The talk page is NOT a place to argue about the overall validity of Limbaugh's remarks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say that it is you that does not know what you are talking about. RL clearly was refering to Condoms as well, he is even quoted as much in this article with the following statement.

"I'm going broke having sex. I need government to provide me condoms and contraception. It's not fair." He asked, "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?"[19] After mentioning that Washington, D.C., Department of Health "will send you free condoms and lube", Limbaugh said:

So I reiterate. Maddow is clueless and does not know what she is talking about. Her cost analysis is based off of a false premise not based off what RL actually said. You can debate whether or not Fluke was refering to other forms of contreception, but that is a different aspect. RM has a tendency to make these kinds of statements so I am not that suprised. Arzel (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
if he was talking about condoms in a discussion of health care coverage of contraceptives, then where the hell was he coming from. I dont know of any insurance that covers that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Red; Ordinarily, true. HOWEVER, while no major health insurance plan that I know of covers condoms, and it wouldn't make sense anyway, since they are so cheap no-one would buy them that way and incur a co-pay, THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE ; the mandates that the Obama administration has set in place to become effective this fall would now compel ALL health insurance plans to cover condoms without charging a copay, aka FREE. That is the mandate we and Fluke and RL are talking about--209.6.69.227 (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This does not appear to be true. The plan mandates coverage of PRESCRIPTION items such as BCPs, IUDs and the morning after pill. It specifically does NOT cover condoms. See, for example, this pro-condom site complaining about the lack of coverage for condoms. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Exact wording is "All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." ZERO debate that condoms for non-contraceptive purposes, such as preventing STDs are NOT covered. Also true that condoms are basically never prescribed, since it makes no sense to do so. Until August. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I provided a reference saying that condoms will not be covered, and others are available. You have provided nothing, just what appears to be somebody's assumption. (This topic is irrelevant to the discussion here, but I hate to let statements that appear to be factually false stand without contradiction.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice try, Arzel. He clearly said "Her sex life is active. She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That's what she's saying." Maddow made a valid point and the only issue here is exactly how to word it so as to reflect what Maddow said accurately. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

With the Maddow content we need to be careful that when using direct quotes it is clear which are direct quotes from Maddow herself and where we are directly quoting the Huff Post paraphrase of her words. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is my own transcript of the actual tape from the actual Maddow show.[3] It illustrates (1) that Limbaugh thinks the number of birth control pills you need to take is related to the number of times you have sex, and (2) exactly what Maddow had to say. Let's try to extract a one-sentence summary that conveys in her own words exactly what she is saying. It's worth the effort. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh, Wednesday, day 1: Fluke testifies "she's having so much sex she can't even afford her own birth control pills". (minute 8:33 on the tape)

Limbaugh, Thursday, day 2: "Have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?" (Thursday, day 2, 9:30 on the tape)
Limbaugh, Friday, day 3: "It's no different than if somebody knocked on my door, that I don't know and said, you know what I'm out of money. I can't afford birth control pills and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight." (9:40 on the tape)
Limbaugh (not sure which day): "The women in her law school program are having so much sex, they are going broke buying birth control pills." (13:50 on the tape)

Maddow (11:00 on the tape) Mr. Limbaugh is trying to be provocative, he is trying to outrage you, he is trying to get you to talk about him. … A person says a thing like that to provoke outrage…. This is what he does for a living."

Maddow: (13:00 on the tape) Here is what I think might actually be the more important point here. … It exposes a big, underappreciated, and potentially embarrassing fact at the center of all of the politics on this issue, which is, I don't think he knows what birth control is."
Maddow: (14:15 on the tape) I think Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what birth control is, I think he doesn't know what he is talking about, I don't think he understand how contraception works. I think that Rush Limbaugh thinks you take a birth control pill to avoid getting pregnant each time you have sex. So the more times you have sex, the more birth control pills you need. But I mean, we're talking about birth control here that is prescribed, okay? That's the whole point, it's prescription medication, that's why it would need to be covered by your health insurance. …It's a prescription deal, all right? You just take one birth control pill every day, even if you're not going to have sex at all that day, or even if you're going to have sex a thousand times that day, you just need the one pill for that day.

Maddow (15:30) Yes, Rush Limbaugh is acting like a jerk to make us all mad… But more importantly, in showing his ignorance, he is helping us get back to the real problem with this debate. Generally. The heart of this issue is the fact that you're bad at this, Rush Limbaugh. You don't even understand how babies are made, let alone how people can have sex without making a baby. And you would like the government to take over decision making on these issues on your say-so. And you don't get it. You biologically don't get it. You just don't understand it.

the quotes above frequently mention her interpretation of RL's motives "to be provocotive" etc. That is something that is not yet and should be included in the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem is with the fake points she peppers the commentary with. NO problem with the commentary on Limbaugh's inappropriate comments being a byproduct of ALWAYS trying to be provocative. "Mr. Limbaugh is trying to be provocative, he is trying to outrage you, he is trying to get you to talk about him. … A person says a thing like that to provoke outrage…. This is what he does for a living." is better than some of the quotes already there, and if there wasn't consensus that the number needs to be cut DOWN, would be fine with its inclusion; totally valid observation, and novel to this article. Saying that Limbaugh said something he didn't to set up a non-existent easy point is NOT a valid observation. Plus, as I have been TRYING to explain to MelanieN, there is not a need for normal NPOV when writing about the almost universal condemnation of the sexist and misogynistic aspects of Limbaugh's tirade. With the exception of Bill Maher, who just thinks Limbaugh's comedic gold wasn't delivered properly, NO-ONE supports it; there IS no other side. When you start trying to RE-INTRODUCE arguments about contraception in general and the financial issues of mandates, THEN the article has to balloon to incorporate NPOV, and the larger debate. SEVERAL consensus-es have decided no.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To The Artist AKA Mr. Anonymous: Please stop trying to insert "mendaciously" into Maddow's comment. As you can see from the direct quotes above, she did NOT call him mendacious or a liar; she just called him ignorant. I would still rather get our reporting closer to what she actually said, rather than using one of your paraphrases of how you interpret what she said. IMO an earlier version by RedPen - " Rachel Maddow said that Limbaugh's attacks seemed to be based on the idea that the cost of birth control pills was proportional to the amount of sexual activity, and that such a belief showed ignorance of how birth control works." - would be better than what we have now, because it reports what she said more directly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that 209.6.69.227 has changed the comment to "he is trying to be outrageous" (a fairly obvious comment about any talk-show host) and deleted Maddow's real point, that "he doesn't know how contraception works." I consider this to be unjustified, unilaterally changing the content of a sentence which is under discussion on the talk page. I will add the other comment so both parts of her comment are represented. I don't think either should be removed without consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering Maddow's inability to report pretty much anything accurately I still question this inclusion. Even those on the left comment on her terrible reporting. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Target $9 Pill Updates

In the section "7 Criticism of Fluke" there is a paragraph on Target selling $9 contraceptives. Target has spoken up on the availability of that rate. It isn't available to anybody, and Georgetown Law students don't qualify. Updated The Daily Caller article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/sandra-flukes-testimony-contradicted-by-9-birth-control-at-target/

3/8/12 12:00 PM: This article has been updated to include a response from Target showing that the $9 per month rate for Ortho Tri-Cyclen is available only to discount prescription cardholders.

I'll let someone who is more versed in wikipedia's page formatting, policies and neutral to edit it into the page. Bogo999 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm throwing it up there now as it seems a fairly important bit of info for this particular section. Hope I did it right. (Jonathanfu (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

I agree that the Target data should stay in. It helps to understand the plausibility of Fluke's "testimony" on the $3,000 amount -- an exaggeration at best. This page should also highlight that her "testimony" was that "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy" -- this so-called testimony is ridiculous and should be out there for all to see. Gettingitright57 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)gettingitright57

"contraceptives" are available at every gas station in the country for about a dollar 97.91.179.137 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's Fallacy of Equivocation: you're bringing up the cost of condoms as a rebuttal to the cost of hormonal-controlling medications used to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis, because both come under the heading of "contraceptives." By that reasoning, anyone who supports the Second-Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" must be in favor of terrorists having the right to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US, because pistols and H-bombs are both "Arms." (And "Pigs Is Pigs.") Raven (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Testimony"

The section describing her statements in front of the committee give the false impression that they were official, sworn testimony when they were not. This needs to be changed. 184.7.160.27 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't see why 'testimony' would necessarily mean sworn testimony under oath, except in the case of investigative hearings. (Jonathanfu (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

If asked to "testify" in Church, it wouldn't imply sworn testimony, but if you "testify" in Court, or Congress, or before a Congressional Committee, yes, that means sworn testimony. Hope that helps.209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh. That's odd, because page 25 of this odd military info thingy that appears to be for servicemen that are asked to testify before Congress mentions that "some committees have developed a practice of swearing in all witnesses, even when it's not an investigative hearing", leading me to believe that some committee hearings do not require individuals to be sworn in, yet it is still referred to as 'testimony' (Jonathanfu (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

YES, there are exceptions. Atheists are allowed to give "affirmed" testimony, solicitation of opinions is often added without swearing, though usually in written form, and military are given some leeway to state the official armed forces position rather than their own. Still clearly implies "sworn" and carries the same penalties as penalty under oath. 18:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk)

Any chance you have a source for this information? I'd love to take a look at it, I can't seem to find any clear explanations of the guidelines and rules of what constitutes "testimony" before Congress myself. (Jonathanfu (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC))
Not all "Congressional testimony" is sworn. http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/CU/The_Legislative_Process/Stage_3.htm ("Stage 3: The Bill Goes to Committee"): "The chair invites witnesses to appear at hearings to testify on the subject, but only at investigative hearings do witnesses testify under oath. Testimony at a legislative hearing or at an oversight hearing is not sworn testimony and often consists of political posturing." (emphasis added) Sufficient to make this a non-issue now? Raven (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger into Rush Limbaugh - March 13 discussion

While this seems to be big news and all, is it truly needing it's own article? Seems superfluous, as Fluke, other than her testimony here, and the resulting flap, she lacks notability in and of herself.

Secondly, in the Big Picture, this has little serious notability. Enough for perhaps a section in the Limbaugh article under controversies, but I honestly can't see how important it is for a global world-view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.252.153.82 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also unsure of what constitutes notability and what is just news, but I don't think all articles need be important in terms of global interest, e.g. this village's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanfu (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTE covers notability. WP:NOTNEWS covers the notion that the project should not be a dump of current news. I'm not intending to imply that this situation doesn't deserve coverage at all, but perhaps not an entire article, in and of itself. WP is a global project, and things should be presented in a global context, to all English speakers (Or, German speaker for the German project, etc). The article suffers from recentism, that's my entire point, and would be better served as part of the Limbaugh page. 67.252.153.82 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Limbaugh is hardly the only notable involved here, nor the only one to lie in major media about her testimony, are you saying that he's more important than Congress? I don't think this belongs under Limbaugh at all. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is, when taken as a global project, does this controversy really bear the same notability as the Sun? No, it doesn't. The article is heavily skewed by recentism, that's all. How you could draw that to mean I think Limbaugh is more important then Congress, I'm not sure. 67.252.153.82 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Limbaugh is hardly the only notable involved here," Yes he is - the only actual impact on or by others is an attempt to jump into the limelight "Me too me too me too! I think its awful that he called her a slut" -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's way too soon to delete this article or merge into Rush Limbaugh. In a few months, if Limbaugh's career is back to normal, we could look at it then. If the loss of advertisers leads to employment changes for Limbaugh, it's a permanent article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your point proves that it is actually way to soon to have an article. Once the notability is shown then we should have an article, not vice versa. Just because there are a lot of mouths flapping making wind doesnt mean that there is any substance to them.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Even a month later, I look at the above "way too soon to have an article" argument... and still don't follow it. When the topic is hot, as it was then, is when people are curious and want to know more about it and may turn to Wikipedia to find answers. Sources abound in the current (not paywall-archived) news stories, and interested editors abound on Wikipedia to write and watch over the page. But this is too soon to do anything with all that? We should instead wait until the topic cools off, readers have given up and gone elsewhere for answers, the online news stories are expired or paywalled, and the editors are all onto something else? I think the way to phrase that wish is, let's never ever have this article, or at least not one as good. --Raven (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh–Sandra_Fluke_controversy/Archive_2&oldid=1142776642"