Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Surgery

On the Rush Limbaugh Show ("Excellence In Broadcasting") today, the guest host Mark Steyn announced that Rush Limbaugh is in California with the best doctors in the field for his second cochlear implant (to compete the set of two aids for his two ears.) If interested, you can read about this type of surgery at [1] and the Wikipedia article, Cochlear_implant. The surgery takes but a day (probably tomorrow) but hearing adjustment could take a week or more. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing this be added to the article?--Asher196 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be appropriate in a few weeks after results settle in. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the Article herein. Today, Rush Limbaugh was back on the air. He described details about his new cochlear implant; then he talked to some Moms with hearing-impaired daughters. His hour and a half surgery went well but the cochlear implant will not be activated until May 9th. Results will be known after that. Editing can wait. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The RushLimbaugh.com website includes two great links with his transcripts (before and after) with great graphics/explanations on cochlear implants. [2],[3]. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies. Why would this be worthy of being put into the article? Are we gonna go on about what type of coffee he drinks? Or what's his favorite food? Or that he had a sore back yesterday? I'm not seeing it. Tutelary (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Reasons are (1) the importance of the new invention. See the links provided. This is extremely important to those for whom traditional hearing aids would not help. (2) The importance to Mr Limbaugh personally and his career. Had it not been for the progress of cochlear implants just months before he went deaf, his radio career would have been over. (3) Rush Limbaugh has become a spokesperson for the new science, and will continue to promote cochlear implants on his radio show; parents are calling in. There is more that could be said. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A grandfather calls in with a testimonial about his grandson, two years old. [4] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Headline-1: Looking Forward to Cochlear Implant Mapping

• http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/05/05/looking_forward_to_cochlear_implant_mapping

QUOTE: "RUSH: I'll be out on the Left Coast [CA] later in the week. It's actually gonna be an exciting week. It's kind of unknown because it's later this week that I have my new cochlear implant activated and mapped and, at that point, find out whether or not it made sense to do it. (interruption) Well, no, 'cause it can't be any worse. But there are no predictors. It's just three weeks ago that I had surgery to have the cochlear implant put on the right ear." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing (next week).

This week, Rush Limbaugh is at his "Golden Microphone" doing the EIB show, and today he said that right after the show today he goes for on-turning and tuning of his new cochlear implant, on his right ear. He will be broadcasting again tomorrow and I'll put up what he says. Sooner or later, another sentence can go into the article herein. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

He's very pleased; so is Kathryn; "100% improvement." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Headline-2: The Results of My Right-Side Cochlear Implant Activation: Magic Happened

• http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/05/09/the_results_of_my_right_side_cochlear_implant_activation_magic_happened

QUOTE: "The audiologist said she had never seen anything like this!" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

"Scientific Opinion" comment

I reverted John's edit due it actual being the scientific opinion. There is a consensus among scientists that climate change is happening, and humans are causing it. We can discuss it here. Tutelary (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus isn't science; in this case it is political. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I read your 'revert' and it reads fine. It reflects his old position. His position now is much more in line with a growing view of scientists that say the 'consensus' (so called) has no basis in data. Earth has been cooling for more than 15 years. Limbaugh is more knowledgeable than most on the subject and notes that computer models are often bogus. What he says now is that it is a hoax and a fraud to get USA money. Just so you know. Everyone will appreciate that no one puts this into the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC) PS: It is not that Rush Limbaugh says this infrequently--he says this all the time, and more and more true scientists are agreeing, at least with it being a cooling season. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of scientific consensus mentions that climate change is legitimate and we are causing it. Just because he managed to get a few fringe scientists to go along with his opinions, doesn't mean that it isn't the scientific consensus. As well, you need a source for the fact that it's his 'old' position. Tutelary (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right--he has always said it is a HOAX/FRAUD. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We can include that, but as I said before, in order to not engage in original research, and to include that it's his 'old' position, you need a reference to a reliable source. Tutelary (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's really not needed (sentence is fine as it is now) and won't be coming for me, even though the sentence is highly inaccurate. There are dozens of references I could provide to Limbaugh saying stronger things than he disagrees with popular 'consensus'; I have other things to do. --Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember what we were talking about, but here is a link showing the "Hoax/Fraud" view Limbaugh has held for more than two decades! [5] "Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks -- January 27, 2006" is the headline. "Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about "ten years" it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we've got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we're going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just... You have to love these people -- from afar, and from a purely observational point of view." That's Rush Limbaugh. And, of course, as deniers and warmers should know, Earth has been cooling for 15 years. Do these comments and the reference help? I'm not promoting editing this WP article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles, I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be changed; could you be more specific? The article sounds fine as it is, IMO. He is arguing against the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change. It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks consensus is science, or whether climate change should be a political issue, he argues against the scientific consensus. --BittenFig♻^talk 16:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say because (1) It is not a consensus with climatologists saying there is no data to support AGW; (2) After 17 years of no warming, the obvious doesn't need to be stated; (3) I'm tired of this; (4) I need to read the HOAX/FRAUD comments of Rush Limbaugh and then re-review what is in the article here. (5) For now, I don't have the time. Sorry, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014

Rush won the NAB Marconi Radio Award again this year and just needs reflected on his page. Caddius (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Already done Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No Alma Mater

The definition of Alma Mater is a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated. This guy dropped out so we should remove this.Jphustman (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Graduating is not a requirement for a school to be an alma mater.--Asher196 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Asher196 is correct, see wikidictionary:

A school or college from which an individual has graduated or which he or she has attended

emphasis added by myself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014

Please change Limbaugh was the 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005 recipient of the Marconi Radio Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year (given by the National Association of Broadcasters), joining the syndicated Bob & Tom Show and Don Imus as the only other four-time winners of a Marconi award. He was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 1993.

to

Limbaugh was awarded the Marconi Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year in 2014 (given by the National Association of Broadcasters). He had already tied other famed broadcasters the Bob & Tom Show and Don Imus as the only other four-time winner of a Marconi when he had previously been honored in 1992, 1995, 2000 and 2005. He was inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame in 1993.

Here is the source: http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/133371/nab-announces-2014-marconi-awards-winners?ref=mail_bulletin

50.1.165.16 (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating the factoid sounds perfectly reasonable. But I don't really care for the suggested wording. If he's just been awarded it for a 5th time, and is the only person to get it five times, I would think that's what should be mentioned, as opposed to who he used to be tied with. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've updated the article using the source, but not with your suggested wording as I don't feel we need to mention the other four-time winners now they've been surpassed. Cheers, NiciVampireHeart 18:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Still awkwardly worded. I propose changing from "Limbaugh was awarded the Marconi Radio Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year in 2014 (given by the National Association of Broadcasters).[43] He has won the award four times previously (in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2005), a record." to "In 2014, Limbaugh was awarded record fifth Marconi Radio Award for Syndicated Radio Personality of the Year (given by the National Association of Broadcasters).[43] His previous awards were in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2005." Or something like that. DoctorCaligari (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is no citation for the statement that it is a record. In a transcript from Limbaugh's show on the day he announced the award, he says that Paul Harvey has been given the award five times, though this award isn't mentioned on Harvey's page. Moreover, the wiki page for Marconi Radio Awards is *extremely* sparse; one can't corroborate this claim by looking there. The awards for any given year since 1989 can be retrieved from the awarding organization as a web page, but they haven't all been catalogued here. This could use a 'citation needed'. DoctorCaligari (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Error on Family Guy appearance

Where it says that Rush talks about Hoth and Lando Calrissian, the article attributes it to the episode "It's a trap!" when he actually says it in "Blue Harvest." In "It's a Trap", Rush portrays a Sarrlac that Chris Griffin, as Luke, kills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.19.133 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Error about Columbo appearance

"and as Fielding Chase in the Columbo spinoff film Butterfly in Shades of Grey"

First of all, this is a regular Columbo episode and not a spinoff. Second, Limbaugh was not in it. William Shatner played the character, a show host that was like Limbaugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.201.24 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph starts by saying, "His persona has often been utilized as a template..." -- not himself. But, I did make some improvements on the wording. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Fan Website

Rush Limbaugh has a lot of fans. We need to include his fan website. It's http://www.rushlimbaugh.me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.226.166 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Please note that it is not acceptable to delete comments in the TALK page. Discussion is OK; deletion is not. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE:Actually it is ok when editors turn the Talk page into a forum (please see WP:NOTAFORUM). Because of this, I reverted a "forum" discussion about the wonders of the Rush website, about getting a "Rush" e-mail address, how "its the place to go" for Rush fans, etc, etc since the dicussion between you and the anon editor (after the first two sentences) had nothing to do with improving the page (which is what the Talk page is for). You then restored only 20% of what I reverted.

Although the initial request from the anon editor is a legitimate one, there should probably be something here on the Rush website, I think you'll agree there is clearly a difference. Ckruschke (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Yes, we can eliminate fanboy chatter per TPO. I pared it down further. We don't need to extol the virtues of it. Just make the request and stop. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• After visiting [6] I think it is very interesting, but mainly an ad for subscription to eMail, etc. I would not call it a 'fan page'. The circulating globe of Earth (at the bottom of the site) will put a point on from where you log in (your GPS position) plus the others logged on at the time. VERY interesting, but still an ad site. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

With social media, an appropriate fan page: https://www.facebook.com/RushLimbaughAndTheEIBNetwork — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Given Mr Limbaugh's tendency to alienate part of society - some rabidly so - by way of his utterances, nobody should be surprised that another part of society is similarly enchanted. Surely it is enough to acknowledge that the "fan page" exists by way of a mention in the "External Links" section of the article and not to provoke further discussion on the talk page, whether favorable or otherwise to the person. I trust that this discussion will now cease.

Please sign your posts (wp:sign). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC) -- Yes, enough said.

But to carry on, when has being divisive ever limited Wikipedia editing? Especially on TALK pages? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think an online encyclopedic article is an appropriate place to include a link to someone's fan page. Otherwise, every celebrity's entry would be riddled with fan page links. Shabeki (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is now age 64

Happy 64th Birthday to Rush Limbaugh, still young. I have some notes on staff presenting their traditional "White trash" cake and singing to him, if any editor is interest (in improving the article.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) -- It's probably not notable enough for inclusion.

If he died now that would be worth including but a fake corporate simulation of a birthday party would be mainly sad.

Unreliable Source

"Talkers Magazine" is a conservative publication and therefore is not a reliable source. They specifically state "Ratings for talk shows are based upon "the opinion of the TALKERS editorial board" and are "non-scientific projections... and do not represent exact Nielsen Audio or any other ratings service totals." which means they are lies and that is the only source given to claim Limbaugh has any listeners. This article is soaked in paid astroturfers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.66.170 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Spelling error...Under personal life, "taking horse" should be "talking horse". 97.91.190.218 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07^Talk 00:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WOR

The Rush Limbaugh show is no longer broadcast on WABC. Since 2015 it has been broadcast on WOR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.159.218 (talk)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rush Limbaugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110730091536/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/front/story/392895p-333176c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/392895p-333176c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request "Although Limbaugh has little more than a high school education and has an expensive opiate habit to feed, he exerts an outsize influence on American politics. Few men of Limbaugh's girth live to their 70th birthdays and we shall be sad to see him go." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.84.171 (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

military service

What was his draft status during Vietnam war? Born January 12 his lottery number would have been 152.Robinrobin (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Family Guy/Star Wars Parody

This article indicates that statements made by Rush's character during the first Family Guy Star Wars parody (Blue Harvest) were instead made during the third (Something, Something, Something, Dark Side). Rush's character's comments about Hoth melting and Lando's appointment resulting from affirmative actions are in the first parody, not the third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.116.158 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Worksite or venue?

With respect to his second marriage, I read "In 1983, Limbaugh married Michelle Sixta, a college student and usherette at the Kansas City Royals Stadium Club. They were divorced in 1990, and she remarried the following year." It is not clear whether the stadium is where she worked as an usherette, or whether it is the place where they held their wedding. Or both. --Haruo (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

hearing loss and analgesics doesn't concern opioids

Although this links to an interesting story, it doesn't actually concern the subject at hand, namely opioids, but NSAIDs, an entirely different drug category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.41.167 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

Obvious error in net worth (listed as $79 million, reported in the linked citation as Limbaugh's salary for the year, not his net worth). Actual net worth estimated at $350 million (source - http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rush-limbaugh-net-worth/).

Palmetto observer (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you have cited is not considered a reliable source. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Net Worth

The net worth figure is inaccurate - the citation is Forbes Rush Limbaugh Profile, which clearly states that $79 million is his earnings in 2015, not net worth. He signed an eight year contract in 2008 worth approximately $400m, and previously had a $285m eight year contract (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/business/media/03radio.html?_r=0). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themidnightwill (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

New contract

In the lede, the article says "His most recent contract, signed on July 31, 2016" but lower down it says "On August 2, 2016, Limbaugh signed a four-year extension of the 2008 contract." Which is it? 192.235.252.195 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Grammar in the first paragraph

'its 32nd year', not 'it's'. Somebody correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.39.226.237 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea incident as described didnt happen

According to the article: "During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program, Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown. When questioned about it, Limbaugh claimed that it was an accident and that without his permission some technician had put up the picture of Chelsea"

Most of this is false. The incident in question occured not during the clinton administration, but in the last months of the Bush administration.

The rest can be read about in this link:

http://www.lorencollins.net/blog/?p=28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F410:EFC8:F152:6AD7:3858:D0C2 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

Delete Reference 2. Source no longer available. R.lindemann (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out, We normally mark such references as "deadlink", rather than delete them, but the point is covered by 2 other citations, so we don't need three - Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Little more precise wording

Quote: Limbaugh is critical of feminism, saying that: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

This should be adapted a little. Essentially, where's the criticism? As a moderate male feminist, I would say: this is already a very noble goal... I would suggest to say:

Limbaugh is critical of feminism. He has belittled [or: ridiculed] it, saying that: [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.204.37.119 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Belittled" and "ridiculed" are strong words. Do you have an unbiased source that specifically uses the words "belittled" or "ridiculed"? Note that we can't use your interpretation of a source that doesn't specifically use those words; see WP:NPOV. And the source must be reliable by Wikipedia's standards; see WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Conservative political commentator?

In the introductory sentence, why is he a "conservative political commentator"? Why not just a "political commentator"? It seems quite biased that right leaning public figures are called "conservative political commentators" but left leaning public figures are just "political commentators," and not "liberal political commentators." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.11.23 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2016

We would normally expect upon hearing just "political commentators" that they are on the left. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Last section carries WP:UNDUE weight and is biased

I find the last section of the article, "Criticisms and controversies", to be inappropriate, as it places emphasis on the negativity and makes the article appear to have a negative opinion on Rush Limbaugh. Because the criticisms only happened in his show, perhaps, we should move the entire section (under the nonexistent sub-subsection "Criticisms and controversies") under the subsection "The Rush Limbaugh show". At least, that would work for me. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there is no Criticisms section for either Bill Clinton's article or for Barack Obama's article. Conservatives are more likely to receive such a section. #WikipediaBias Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked here after seeing your message at the Conservatism WikiProject. I've looked at that section, and I disagree that there's a problem. Two of the three subsections are summaries of other pages, so those topics are deemed sufficiently notable to have standalone pages. As for your complaints about the pages on two Democratic presidents, WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you would like to add anything that is properly sourced about Limbaugh's responses to these three issues, that would probably be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A better thing that I should have used to back up my argument would have been WP:CSECTION, and to clarify, I did not have complaints that these two articles also should each have had a Criticisms section. I guess that one could say that these two articles better follow WP:CSECTION. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a possibility would be to move each of the three subsections out of there, and relocate each one to somewhere else in the article. But in that case, I wouldn't want to change each one's content very much. To that end, I just made an edit, moving them as a group and shortening the section name to "Controversies" without the word "Criticisms". I'm sure there could be alternatives to that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Net Worth

$79 mill most likely annual salary. More like $470 mill. as seen here: http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/radio-personality/rush-limbaugh-net-worth/Flight Risk (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Further clarification under sub-section "Views/Obama's Policies".

This wiki quotes Limbaugh as says "I hope he fails". In an interview between Sean Hannity and Limbaugh he says, "So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?" It appears to paint Limbaugh's view as much more aggressive than it was in reality.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/22/rush-limbaugh-shocking-words-for-president-obama.html

Mapkin (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Dittohead

I don't see mention on this page of the term "Dittohead." It seems to me to be important. Virago2 (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

acetaminophen is not an opioid, nor is it prescription

"The analgesics found in prescription opioid medications, such as acetaminophen, increase the risk of hearing loss in men."

Acetaminophen is not an opioid, nor is it prescription. It's the active ingredient in Tylenol.

50.1.98.129 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The source has nothing to do with opioids. I removed the entire sentence. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Prescription medications often include combinations of drugs. This is particularly true of opioid analgesics, with an opioid drug and a non-steroidal drug given together for synergistic effect. Tylenol & Codeine for example, comes in many different ratios; or any of the opioids with brand names ending in "-cet" indicating that acetaminophen is in there. (Loricet; Darvocet; Percocet). Percocet is of course one of the drugs used by Limbaugh; it's oxycodone and acetaminophen. The other is Vicodin, which is hydrocodone and acetaminophen. It's the acetaminophen that causes the kidney and liver complications. In 2011 the FDA reduced the amount of acetaminophen that could legally be in these combination drugs, stating "Overdose from prescription combination products containing acetaminophen account for nearly half of all cases of acetaminophen-related liver failure in the U.S., many of which result in liver transplant or death." It's not clear if the hearing problems stem from the opioids proper, the acetaminophen, or from both, but studies have demonstrated that taking acetaminophen two or more times a week can lead to hearing loss. [7] - Nunh-huh 20:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nunh-huh: You are quite correct. But the citation in the article for the information in question was for an article that had nothing to do with opioids, and the paragraph pertains to opioids. I also think it is WP:SYN to cite a medical article that has nothing to do with Limbaugh to suggest a causative relationship. Unless there is an reliable source that links Limbaugh's hearing loss to acetaminophen, or expresses an opinion by his physician about acetaminophen, we can't say anything about acetaminophen in relation to Limbaugh. Sundayclose (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there certainly was much discussion in the press about the possible relationship of Limbaugh's hearing loss to his drug use. (It need hardly be proven to be included, as even one's own physician is simply stating an opinion.) Still, I understand the impetus to remove such information. - Nunh-huh 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey, media hype? Irma a conspiracy?

See [8] [9] [10]. Doug Weller talk 07:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rush Limbaugh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013112425/http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/rush_photos_main/the_american_dream_is_no_myth.guest.html to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/rush_photos_main/the_american_dream_is_no_myth.guest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Under the section "Controversy and claims of inaccuracy" the first sentence reads "Some individuals and groups have criticished Limbaugh's accuracy". Should the last word in this sentence really read "inaccuracy"?Vorbee (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

Under "References", please update link #180 from https://web.archive.org/web/20050930190822/http://www.4hearingloss.com/archives/2005/04/rush_to_get_bio.html

to the original link: http://www.4hearingloss.com/archives/2005/04/rush_to_get_bio.html Alexjchu (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done The original link is preserved in the citation. The web archive link is included to prevent loss of the citation if the original is removed. See WP:LINKROT for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

History of AM & FM Radio

This article includes some historical background on how talk radio came to dominate the AM band while the FM band was dominated by music. And it credits Limbaugh for making AM radio the venue for talk radio. I don't know how accurate this part of the article is, even though I contributed to it. Actually, Limbaugh became a nationally syndicated talk show host 20 years after the FCC enacted rules in the late 1960s requiring locally co-owned AM & FM stations to have separate programing for at least part of the day. It was also about the same time that radios began including both the AM & FM bands. Limbaugh was merely the first national early-afternoon talk show host: he was generally displacing local talk shows (like the one he hosted in Sacramento for several years) more than music programing. And from the beginning, he had many FM affiliates. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Limbaugh's emergence was made possible by the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 which made it possible for radio stations to run partisan political commentary without making room for opposing opinions and the concentration of ownership of radio stations into the hands of a few national chains. The rise of FM took place much earlier. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased POV

The Lede section says:
"Limbaugh has mentioned his audience has continued to grow to 14 million listeners each day and 27 million each week[8]."

That link leads to:
"And then during the week 27 million people, not all at one time, but 27 million cume is what that is. And it continues to spike up out there, and we thank you, and we have the greatest appreciation for it, and we understand why: Me."

Yer kidden me, right? This article needs cleaning up.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8EE:3508:E2F1:A00F (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Just Saying.

I agree with the above, especially now with the added attention. --Ommar365 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Is there any point in listing an "Alma Mater" for someone when they only attended 2 semesters and "flunked everything"?

2601:204:d401:f710:5d30:c22d:67c0:ef8a (talk) 17:15, February 5, 2020‎ (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'll fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He just got the presidential medal of freedom

Probably should be in the article? Victor Grigas (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Deserves to be in the opening paragraph lead as well. This would be the biggest award he has ever received, and will likely be a defining moment in his life. 2601:982:4200:8C80:B421:B2F8:6EEC:6816 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The comment: "Thankfully he is dying"

This needs to be removed. It is unprofessional and mean spirited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jduffy9 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Cochlear implants

I just saw Rush Limbaugh on TV (at Trump's SOTU address) and it looks like he has two cochlear implants while the article mentions only one. Maybe someone can find a secondary source and update the article. I'm not gonna do that myself since I don't follow his activities in general. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:E118 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Article mentions one, then a few lines later mentions he got a second. He went "bilateral" as it is put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.244.10 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Representing Limbaugh's views and controversies in the lead

@Rusf10: Can you please explain your removal of my cited additions to the lead? Your edit summary states "The lead is supposed to summerize article content, not list every single minor controvesial statement a person has made", but my addition of this section is meant to summarize the article content, specifically the "Views" and "Controversies and claims of inaccuracy" section. Qono (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's very simple, the lead is not a place to list every single controversial statement a person has made. You mentioned over 10 different incidents. It's a list, the lead is supposed to briefly summarize, not to mention the fact that focusing a controversy in the lead is WP:UNDUE.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10, My addition was not a list of every controversial statement Limbaugh has made, but a summary of the controversies and views that are listed in the article. As you've said, the lead should summarize the article and there is significant coverage of Limbaugh's views and controversial statements in the article. He's a controversial figure and it's not WP:UNDUE to acknowledge that in the lead. How would you summarize the controversies and views mentioned in the article? Qono (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a good discussion, but the side effect right now is that the lead includes only overwhelmingly positive information about the subject. It mentions his charity contributions, but nothing of his actual views, particularly the controversial ones. The lead does not accurately summarize the article, and it certainly does not reflect the balance of the information available in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 17:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, Thanks for this input. I agree that the lead is unbalanced, and my addition was meant to correct that. Rusf10 may have a point that the list form is not ideal, but I think it is difficult to summarize his views and controversial statements without generalizing them, which may constitute original research and is particularly fraught given that this is a biography of a living person, which Wikipedia has stricter rules on. Qono (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the content that was removed from the lead:

Limbaugh is known for making controversial race-related statements. He has also expressed anti-LGBT rhetoric, is critical of feminism, and dismisses the concept of sexual consent. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and has been a vocal supporter of U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. He has blamed the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on eco-terrorists, and has suggested that the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts and the Christchurch mosque shootings were false-flag operations. He has also attacked Michael J. Fox, saying that he exaggerated the effects of Parkinson's disease, and Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute".

References

— User:Qono

I welcome any comments on how this can be improved to summarize Limbaugh's views and controversial statements as they appear in the article. Qono (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rusf10: You've again reverted my cited additions to the lead that summarize article content with no justification grounded in policy for doing so. Bradv and I agree that this article content needs to be represented in the lead. Can you please explain why you disagree and propose a viable alternative? Qono (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, Rusf10: I've started an RfC on this issue below. I welcome your comments there. Qono (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Birther promoter

Limbaugh was a promoter of the birther movement (Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories) per ES. X1\ (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Why are you using a May 18, 2012 Snopes.com cite? Did you not already read the RSs in this article and our birther article? X1\ (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is not a birther

This is a false claim being pushed by Media Matters for America and unfortunately picked up by a few other publication. While Limbaugh has discussed the birther controversy on his show, he has never himself said it was true. What he actually did say was that Obama himself created the birther controversy when he allowed his publicist to falsely claim he was born in Kenya in order to sell more books. What he actually said is He (Obama) was trying to get a publishing deal or job or some such thing; he knew it would make him look much sexier if he were foreign born. So he lied and told some people he was born in Kenya. [11] And that is actually a true story as verified here. Can anyone actually find a quote from Limbaugh where he says that Obama was not born in the United States? (because I've searched and cannot)--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I shan't bother to look at Limbaugh's website, and so I'll tentatively assume that yes, it says (or it says that Limbaugh previously said) that Obama lied and told some people he was born in Kenya. That Obama uttered such a lie is most definitely not a true story as verified by Snopes. The Snopes article says instead that it was stated in publicity for Obama, that unsurprisingly this was produced by an agency, and that the particular person at that agency who was responsible for the misstatement has written:

“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

-- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary:You missed the point. If Limbaugh said (which he did) that Obama lied about being born in Kenya, then it means he believes that Obama wasn't born in Kenya. What I'm looking for is an actual quote where Limbaugh says Obama was not born in America and I cannot find it.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What really matters is what RS say. The article now uses a few of the RS which state that Rush has spread false claims that Obama was a non-citizen not born in the United States. Whether he "said" it or "spread" it is a minor quibble. Any self-serving denial by him would not undo what RS say, and that's the foundation of our content.... BUT, per a sentence I added to WP:PUBLICFIGURE a while back, a denial should be appended to what RS say about his spread of false birtherisms. Find that denial and we'll add it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on adding Limbaugh's controversial views and statements to the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is include a summary of Limbaugh's controversial views and statements in the lead. This result was achieved through a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS of policy-based arguments.

Several policy-based arguments have been made in favour of including Limbaugh's controversial views, including the fact that WP:LEAD requires the lead to summarize the body. Several editorial discretion-based arguments argue that Limbaugh is primarily notable as a political pundit, and controversies are a notable part of a pundit's career. Some "no" arguments appear to in fact be "yes" arguments that maintain reservations as to the extent of inclusion, such as by stipulating that only a short summary should be included. In total, the "yes" arguments have achieved a rough consensus.

Of the "no" arguments, 3 do not include any policy-based arguments, and one of the said 3 is excluded from this closure as it was made by a WP:SOCKPUPPET. 3 "no" arguments raise substantive policy-based arguments around WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, and due weight. These arguments are policy-based but are outweighed by the number of policy-based yes arguments.

The length of the summary and the exact contents of the summary were not decided in this RfC and a consensus should be formed via future editing and discussion. Jancarcu (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Should Rush Limbaugh's controversial views and statements be summarized in the lead? Qono (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Limbaugh is a controversial figure and these controversies are covered at length in the body of the article so they should be summarized in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Qono (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. Including only positive information in the lead, without any coverage of how controversial this figure is, is a NPOV problem. The lead should summarize the article and the information available in reliable sources. – bradv🍁 22:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• No- Just how controversial is he? Anyone on the radio that making years has said at least some controversial statements. Look at Don Imus who has said things that are even more controversial, yet only one of his controversies is mentioned in the lead. In no article, no matter how controversial the person may be, is it appropriate to make a long list of everything the person has ever said that could possibly be considered controversial. From MOS:LEADBIO- When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Controversies are such a small part of this article, so including a lengthy section in the lead that list every single controversial thing Limbaugh has ever said is clearly done to overwhelm.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment- So there is no confusion here exactly what Qono and Bradv have tried to add to the lead:

Limbaugh is known for making controversial statements. He has used anti-LGBT rhetoric, is critical of feminism, and dismisses the concept of sexual consent. He has blamed the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on eco-terrorists, and has suggested that the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts and the Christchurch mosque shootings were false-flag operations. He has said that Michael J. Fox exaggerated the effects of his Parkinson's disease and has called women's rights activist Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute".--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Right now the lead looks like a hagiography and big NPOV violation. One wouldn't guess he's controversial at all. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and it doesn't do that anymore, so that's another policy violation.

The disputed content can be wordsmithed, but it should not be removed. It is properly sourced so it is not a BLP violation, especially for a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The current seeming "list" is a bit awkward, so follow WP:PRESERVE and fix it, don't delete it. Limbaugh is one of the most controversial extreme right-wing talk show hosts and is noted for his spreading of falsehoods, hatred, and conspiracy theories, similar to Hannity. (Neither is a RS.) These issues must be mentioned in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. What the lead currently says is OK as far as it goes, but it's inadequate. The suggested addition is a compact, coolly written, well sourced, and highly worthwhile addition. Without it, the nature of RL's success goes unexplained until the reader has gone through screenfuls of sections such as "Charitable work". -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but the currently suggested wording needs a lot of work, and I do not endorse it specifically. MOS:LEAD is clear that the controversies section should be summarized in the lead just as all the others are. However, the guideline also specifies that the relative emphasis should be the same as that presented by the article, which the wording above would fail. This RFC is not properly formed to get into the details, but I suggest a careful analysis of how the other sections have been proportionally summarized into the lead and a follow on discussion to wordsmith all of the specifics so that a consensus addition can be made, or failing that another RFC, although I would rather see more effort at discussion to build consensus before jumping straight to an RFC for everything. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Controversy is his brand. He's not known as a deep thinker. He's known as a polemicist and provocateur. And a wealthy successful broadcaster with many loyal fans throughout the USA. All relevant for the lead. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - this is a major part of his enduring notability and influence on the American right, so it should be summarized in some way in the lead section. (The details can be worked out in the course of normal editing, although Qono's proposal seems OK as a baseline). Neutrality^talk 19:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Some Seems to go overboard. The lead should summarize the body and this goes into to much depth. I assume this RFC is should there be mention that he is controversial, not that specific text listed above. If that is the case yes a sentence in the lead would be appropriate, otherwise it is way to POV. PackMecEng (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Voting Yes does not mean include every single controversy. No specific propose was made. Do we need another RfC to decide what to include? I would start a new RfC and at least two opposing editors should make to different proposals for content in the lede. When I start a RfC I am very specific about the content. This RfC does not indicate what specific content should be included. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A new RfC can be started for at least two specific proposals. QuackGuru (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @QuackGuru: I think it would be best to start with a less structured discussion first to narrow down options, and possibly find some consensus first, or at least get some idea of where there is broad agreement. This RFC is apparently needed to establish that the lead include a summary of the controversy section, to me it seems obvious it should under the "lead follows body" principle. The corollary is of course that the proposed addition does not follow the proportionality requirement, although that can be fixed by expanding the lead to keep the proportional focus appropriate, trimming the fat to tighten the wording of the proposed addition or most likely by some combination of the two. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
      • A new RfC can be started anytime. This one does not resolve the matter when there is no specific proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @QuackGuru: Agree, I just don't think it would be wise to do so until after a more free-form discussion. This will not resolve things but it will set a basic principle to lay down one of the ground-rules as things progress. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Limbaugh made a profit from creating controversy, with QuackGuru's caveat, and noting Qono started this RfC. X1\ (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, of course. His views are a key part of his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, though said controversies should not be gone into much detail specifically IMO. I admit to having political bias against Limbaugh, but him being a controversial figure was probably one of the most important parts of his career, though you could argue that comes with the territory with politics. Given that many of Limbaugh's controversies led to direct actions against him (he lost some sponsors because of the Sandra Fluke scandal), they should definitely come up. The mention should go something like "Many of Limbaugh's statements provoked public controversy,..." though hopefully better worded than what I just wrote. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think that we should add some statement about the controversy, but don't go overboard. It should probably mention one or two sentences about his controversies in the lead, something like "However, he has faced much criticism for his controversial statements" or similar. We should not go in greater depth about his controversies in the lead, because those are already mentioned in the article, and we want to maintain a neutral point of view. We shouldn't characterize him as good or bad, we should let readers decide, or else it would lead to complaints of liberal bias. I think a sentence or two summarizing his controversies should be added, but Qono and Bradv's proposal goes overboard. Several other Wikipedia articles have seen complaints about liberal bias and we don't want Wikipedia to be known as "The Liberal Encyclopedia". Sanjay7373 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sanjay7373, if you want to change something in your comments (06:26, 16 February 2020 rm "(see Talk:Fox News and others)" then add "summarizing his controversies" 07:12, 27 February 2020) use a strikethrough. X1\ (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Normally I would say no, but considering his entire career was dedicated to political commentary and the huge impact controversy played in that career- I think it would be remiss not to. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• No This seems rife with WP:COATRACK potential and already seems to be getting out of hand. GirlishDriver (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• — GirlishDriver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Odd that GirlishDriver has only edited on two days: 4 October 2019 and 18 February 2020 with a total-to-date of 12 edits; but citing wp guidance. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? X1\ (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. If Rush Limbaugh is known for anything, it's for making controversial statements. He just recently, right after conservative media went through a very positive news cycle about his cancer, said something so controversial they needed to immediately backtrack and say "wait no he shouldn't have said that". That to me says excluding his controversial statements from the lead fails a pretty basic common sense test. Loki (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, of course! This is his bread and butter, saying controversial things and courting controversy to gain headlines and notoriety. If you gave me a list of his most controversial blathers I could summarize in five or less subject areas. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• NO. Summarize they exist but otherwise leave it for the body and do not go into details. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• No Brief summary only. --rogerd (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• NO. Summarize they exist but otherwise leave it for the body and do not go into details. As stated above. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC) — Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).
• Yes Lead should reflect the content in the body per MOS:LEAD — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• No There's a negative tone to this entry as is and breaking it down in the lead, to reinforce the bias present in the rest of article, is unneeded. The lead doesn't need to be padded to appeal to certain readers who skim through the entry. Especially given that it is paired with the opinion-driven "despite these controversies" statement in the third paragraph. --ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• — ChonokisFigueroa (talk • contribs) has made no other (4 to-date) edits outside this topic.

• Comment. Socks and SPAs, oh my! Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Sort of – There are certainly plenty of characteristics about Rush Limbaugh that suggest that the talk radio host may not be the greatest personality out there, but I do not believe that it is worth discussing every single controversy involving him that has ever existed, let alone in the lead. We could trim down the material to make it say that he has promulgated conspiracy theories as well as statements that are inflammatory or at least perceived to be inflammatory, and then add that to the last paragraph, but nothing much more than that. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 05:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. we should have a brief summary, but nothing too long. The lead exists to summarize the content of the article. Sanjay7373 (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but brief summary. Limbaugh's speech has been scrutinized, and some content should be in the lead, but we should keep the lead short.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 04:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead controversies

With the recent end of the RFC above stating the lead needs to include a summary of Limbaugh's controversial views and statements while not giving an answer about the length and content. What should be added to the lead? PackMecEng (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I will also note that two versions have been attempted since the close. One from Jancarcu who closed the RFC and reverted their own insertion here and one from Qono who purposed the RFC and in the discussion prior had suggusted wording that brought about the RFC itself here which I reverted. I reverted because many in the RFC specifically reject that text, including myself. PackMecEng (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, Thanks for linking to these changes. I support the edit from Jancarcu. Qono (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is the well-cited summary that PackMecEng reverted even after the close of the RfC determined that a summary should be included. I welcome edits, but frankly I think it would be easier to make changes to it in the article itself rather than in a discussion thread. Either way, I'm happy to see alternatives.

Limbaugh is known for making controversial race-related statements. He has also expressed anti-LGBT rhetoric, is critical of feminism, and dismisses the concept of sexual consent. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and has been a vocal supporter of U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. He has blamed the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on eco-terrorists, and has suggested that the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts and the Christchurch mosque shootings were false-flag operations. He has also attacked Michael J. Fox, saying that he exaggerated the effects of Parkinson's disease, and Sandra Fluke, calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute".

References

— User:Qono

Qono (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• bradv Shall we not accuse other editors of whitewashing?[12] Not a good look for anything. PackMecEng (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Why not? The lead should summarize the article and provide an accurate overview of the subject. To only present one side is whitewashing. – bradv🍁 03:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Mostly because it is not very civil and makes you sound like a POV pusher. RFC said wording is not determined and consensus needs to be formed. Onus is on you to get consensus for the changes you want. PackMecEng (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  The RfC established consensus for a summary of the controversy to be included in the lead. What form that takes is to be decided, but we have conclusively eliminated the option of having none at all. – bradv🍁 03:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  The length of the summary and the exact contents of the summary were not decided in this RfC and a consensus should be formed via future editing and discussion. So yeah these is consensus for something. There is not consensus for specific text. As such good old WP:ONUS comes into play. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  So what would you like to change? Have at it. – bradv🍁 03:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sure! Limbaugh has made several controversial statements throughout his career. Perfect right? PackMecEng (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

  Do you honestly believe that accurately summarizes the article? Sounds like the bare minimum to me. We can do better than that. – bradv🍁 03:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is the bare minimum to summarize the section while adhering to a NPOV. Similar to how it is done on the Trump articles. PackMecEng (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

So something along the lines of "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics. Many of his comments and actions have also been characterized as racially charged or racist." That notably excludes the word "controversial" and instead contains specifics about what type of statements he made. Good idea. – bradv🍁 03:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, each of those sentences summarizes a whole section on it's own. Some even having their own articles. So I do not see why something similar could be done here as well I suppose. I do not really have a strong opinion either way honestly. I was just against the original text that kicked off the RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the simplicity of the current sentence, as it simply describes the kinds of things Limbaugh has said without too much commentary. I think we're missing something on how those statements have been received by the public, as in the quote from the Trump article above, but it's a start. It also avoids the "is known for" language from the previous version, which was a bit weaselly. – bradv🍁 04:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well lets take a look at the sentence. Limbaugh has made statements in favor of controversial viewpoints, including race-related statements, anti-LGBT rhetoric, criticism of feminism, and statements relating to sexual consent. Limbaugh rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and has supported U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. Kind of unwieldy. Also why these views and not others in the controversy section or the rest of the views controversial? I just like the KISS principle for complex and subjective subjects like this. PackMecEng (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bradv So which way do you want to go? PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The current two sentences seem appropriate. Let's just keep them and get on to other things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am more a fan of the shorter version. I will implement that later to see if others comment. PackMecEng (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

? I thought that what's there now is the shorter version. How much shorter can it get without turning this into a hagiography and huge NPOV violation? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps read the discussion above, RFC, and edit summaries in the article the issues with the two sentence version and longer version above. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support the short version as per user:PackMecEng. From the beginning I've opposed a long list which is simply not appropriate for the lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  I prefer the version currently on the page. You're welcome to suggest improvements to it, but you can't keep reverting to the version which clearly does not have consensus. – bradv🍁 00:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Where is the consensus Brad??? I see roughly the same number of editors in favor and opposed to your preferred wording. You're adding the content so the WP:ONUS is on you to gain a consensus. Please self-revert until it can be discussed further, perhaps with more input from other editors.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, I also prefer the version on the page. I support further refinements, but not reverting back to no mention of his controversial statements, which goes against the result of the RFC. Qono (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Rush Hudson III Limbaugh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rush Hudson III Limbaugh. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

His claim then the response is a clear violation of "no original research". Unless the lines:

'The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that "The virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is not the same as the coronaviruses that commonly circulate among humans and cause mild illness, like the common cold."[201]'

directly mention the subject it is an attempt to lead the reader. Since this is a BLP it needs to be removed immediately.

And any established editor who watched this lage needs to check their POV for letting this creep in.

I added the line, "It has been disputed whether Limbaugh's statement is misleading" with a citation to Washington Post. The WaPo article does cite Limbaugh's direct quote ("Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. [[sic*] ..] Yeah, I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.")

(*) The ellipsis is in the WaPo article, and is not my own.

Other than this, I'm not sure what should be done about this. I suppose it's like the "ancient Wikipedia problem" of what to do about a person who goes on record as claiming that "1+1=3" (given standard set theory) - and what exactly the definition of "common cold" is.

<semi-humorous> To play Devil's advocate: I suppose one could legitamately conclude that Covid is a "common cold". A majority of the other coronaviruses - 2 out of 3 (?) - do causes (short) diseases colloquially known as "the common cold". Thus the phrase "cold" as commonly understood (weasel words here) could be understood as indicate an illness caused by any coronavirus.

"Cold" as generally understood appears to refer to an illness that is "relatively short duration", as well as "relatively mild". However both "short" and "mild" are possible weasel words. If "short-duration" is taken to mean "(in a plurality of cases) less than a year, but not necessarily less than 2-3 months, and "mild" is taken to mean "(in a plurality of cases) anything short of death", then I suppose the colloquial word "cold" could refer to any (known) coronavirus.

Thus, a plurality of Covid illnesses do seem to resolve in a "relatively" short period of time of less than a year, although longer than "colds" caused by other coronaviruses. Though there is still debate over that, and there is evidence that in some patients symptoms appear to persist much longer. However, that could be said about many viral illnesses that induce a long-term post-viral phase.

Whether the above means the specific illness (or symptom cluster) cause by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 means that Covid (the recognized name of the symptom cluster) can also be referred to colloquially as a "cold" is up for interpretation.

Since Covid has been officially recognized as a "pandemic", it is by that definition "common".

If that all adds up to "common cold" is therefore debatable. What did Wikipedia do with the "HIV does not cause AIDS" debate? "AIDS" technically refers to "acquired immune deficiency syndrome" - which can be caused by the virus technically known as HIV, but can also be caused by other things.

As for my edit summary line "The murky NPOV debate and the meaning of English colloquialisms", does anyone know of a epistemiology journal that regularly publishes off-the-wall articles on April Fools' Day? Similar to the April Fool's day joke about reverse transcription of proteins being discovered in 2011.

(I personally wonder about this. Is it possible that a mechanism could have evolved that would be able to unfold a protein, and then reverse transcribe in a way similar with "reverse transfer RNA" that recognizes amino acids and constructs codons from them? (And then a way to transfer microRNA thusly generated to the germ-line cells?) Granted, it seems that if such a mechanism did exist, it surely would have been "noticed" by now. Jimw338 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 is not "the Common Cold". To call it a "common cold" is to adopt a fringe scientific view. We have policies on fringe scientific views at Wikipedia, and the policy is to indicate the mainstream view - in this case, that COVID-19 is not the common cold, which is a syndrome caused by a number of viruses only some of which are related to the class of viruses of which COVID-19 is also a member. Also, the reference already cited in the article calls Limbaugh's statement "wildly irresponsible" not "disputed", so I've corrected that. - Nunh-huh 16:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even a cursory Google search finds MEDRS-compliant sources directly refuting this trope and explicitly stating that COVID-19 is not the common cold. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Slate article re: Limbaugh's tactics and 2020 election

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/rush-limbaugh-donald-trump-right-wing-media.html This may be relevant here or at other articles, I'm not sure. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This arrival has many errors 17 February 2021 (2)

This article must have been written by leftist liberals denying that what Rush said is the truth. Expect no more contributions from me. penelopekennon@yahoo.com 47.223.45.6 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show Got Started Talking About Clinton Involvement In Vince Foster Death

This is where Rush Limbaugh started picking up right wing conservatives on his radio talk show. Again and again, the same issue, every week.

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavenaugh investigated the Foster case in 1993 and he, like Limbaugh, was not convinced it was a suicide until four years later, in 1997.

Former president Bill Clinton has written that in a way, the trouble Kavenaugh had getting confirmed to the Supreme Court was "payback" for the problems with conspiracy theories both Kavenaugh and Limbaugh stirred up for so many years about the case.

Not a mention of this in this article, providing no context to the popularity Limbaugh received from catering to right wing conspiracy theories, something most people other than the likes of President Donald Trump would have condemned before presenting Limbaugh with a "Medal of Freedom" for doing so.

As I write this, the conspiracy theories about fraudulent voting surrounding the November 3 2020 election have all crumbled into nothing as well. Fraud should not be rewarded, nor should conspiracy theories. If you don't know something for certain, either find out before making outrageous claims as Limbaugh did, or else do us all a favor and shut up.Danshawen (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)danshawen

Danshawen, you'll need to provide reliable sources making this connection. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh distances himself from Trump

Can a confirmed user add something about the 2020 Presidential election and Limbaugh's present attitude towards Trump. See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/24/fox-news-laura-ingraham-tucker-carlson-rush-limbaugh-trump 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:34AD:DD71:3826:5B33 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets wait till the dust has settled.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Confusing parenthetical in Personal section

On the paragraph about his death, there's this parenthetical that confused me, "he did not make that prognosis public." It reads that he announced he was terminal but not publicly, which is obviously not accurate. I think it's trying to say that he didn't publicly announce the time frame that the doctors gave him, but if that's the case, I think the wording could be better. But I don't want to even request a change without some clarity of what the parenthetical was meant to be saying? CleverTitania (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021 (3)

Under "Charitable work / Leukemia and lymphoma telethon"

change "Limbaugh holds an annual fundraising..."

to "From 1990, Limbaugh held an annual fundraising..."

Jamienkatz (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Builder018 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021 (4)

Change "is a" to "was a" in the beginning. 66.215.81.126 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Builder018 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

Change "Limbaugh has become widely recognized as one of the premiere voices" to "premier". The required meaning is most important and the word is then spelled without the "e" at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:804B:1500:C5E2:9566:C325:AE3E (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Rush does not deny climate change. He does, however, deny "man made" climate change. 2600:1006:B041:F80F:E992:A61B:F0B9:CC1F (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

He denied it altogether. Here is an example transcript!2603:8081:2603:E100:A5D4:9674:BC84:4A8A (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I request the article protection be upgraded to Extended

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Already done

---

Good Afternoon, fellow Wikipedians. As you all know, Rush Limbaugh has passed away today and there is a massive spike to this page in particular. The main forms of vandalism to this page are changing words, names, blanking, other types of edits, adding pictures of person(s) dabbing, and pictures of genitalia. Therefore, I am requesting that administration change the semi-protection to Extended protection to reduce vandalism. Thank you. WiiBoi (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I'm not even a Rush fan, and what's happening is disgraceful.Daggerfella (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems appropriate given the current level of vandalism; the appropriate place to make the request however is not here but at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Builder018 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021 (5)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

That is absolutely gross. 98.117.206.60 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

user Timelordedit who is now banned, put a picture of a dick that is now removed Daggerfella (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

REMOVE THAT DISGUSTING DISRESPECTFUL PORN PICTURE IMMEDIATELY!!!! 104.175.86.157 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

user Timelordedit who is now banned, put a picture of a dick that is now removed Daggerfella (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, you are allowing pornography on the Limbaugh page? Bpjohnjordan (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you people talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No pornography is being allowed, and the user who posted it has not been banned.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

user Timelordedit is now banned, he had put a picture of a dick that is now removed Daggerfella (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is kind of my point, we are not allowing it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove the inconsiderate , returned to the pits of hell, line from his death announcement 66.187.172.10 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The page for Rush Limbaugh states that upon his death he returned to the pits of hell. I request this be removed. 2601:1C0:8601:C9E0:D0:76D5:D8C0:39F3 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove commentary such as Limbaugh returning to the “pits of hell”. This supposed to be informative, correct? Not judgements or opinions. Thanks. 47.185.52.162 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Looks like this has been handled, and the user that introduced it has been warned. SQL^{Query me!} 18:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

In the 1st paragraph, please change "has" to "had" (tense). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Tense is changed. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done PackMecEng (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Final Broadcast

Rush's final live broadcast was on Feb 2, 2021. The final broadcast mentioned under Death was the final broadcast of the year 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmjohn6217 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Pursuant to WP:OR (and RS, technically) can you link a citation for his last broadcast? Does he publish them somewhere or have a schedule? Thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't do anything, any more. Neutron (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a source: https://heavy.com/news/rush-limbaugh-last-show-words-final-broadcast-video-audio/ An Inhumane person (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Heavy.com is a poor quality source. See its listing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That website is basically an aggregator of gossip. If there is anything of value there, you should be able to find it on a more reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just died

Found Here.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, I could not find anything on a quick search.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rush-limbaugh-dead-talk-radio-conservative-icon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.26.19 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Add a notice that this article covers someone who recently died. Darubrub (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Darubrub:, There was one, I'm not sure what happened to it or why it was removed.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Positive reactions to his death

BLP Security is now over for him Lovemankind83 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP also covers recently deceased. PackMecEng (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how BLP makes a difference when it comes to "positive reactions to his death." BLP means we have to make extra-sure to get the article right. If someone dies and then a prominent person goes on tv and basically says "good riddance," as I saw Al Franken do earlier this afternoon, and there is a reliable source that says he did so, that's a fact and it can be in the article. Neutron (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

indeed. there's no policy against this, but it has to be due weight, which isn't totally clear at this point. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am against that; internet trash talking in general is not included in Wikipedia articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Franken's statement would only be due if more than a few reliable sources were actually talking about it. If/when that happens, it could be included. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021 (2)

Change year to 2021

“In January 2020, Limbaugh called the GameStop short squeeze "the most fascinating thing" to happen in a long time..” 68.193.182.127 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Already corrected. AngryHarpy‍^talk 05:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1988 - Rush Comes to the Greater Houston Area

In 1988 Rush Limbaugh could be heard on the airwaves in the Greater Houston market after signing a syndication deal to appear on KSEV (700 kHz) a commercial AM radio station which broadcasts a talk radio format and is owned by Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick . (Patrick is not related to sports radio and TV host Dan Patrick.) Patrick would later say “We started out together in 1988, he with a new radio show, and me with a new radio station. He was the greatest talk radio host in history and built the conservative movement in America. I owe everything I have to him” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evandando (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft dodger False!!!!!

Why is there no mention of the fact he dodged the draft in Vietnam? (86.131.7.8 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

Do you have any RS for this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

He has been been widely condemned for criticising Vietnam veterans in view of his refusal to serve. (86.131.7.8 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC))

Then it should be easy to provide a source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently he dodged the draft because of an anal cyst. Snopes rated it as "unproven", though Davidxu160801 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is one thing, but this language is ridiculous

"Limbaugh was known for making controversial race-related statements with regard to African Americans." Really? Yes, controversial, like the statement Jefferson Davis made towards African Americans was controversial and race-related. We have a word for "controversial race-related statements". The word is racist. We can't dance around it, just because some people liked the guy. If the references all link to discussion of Rush Limbaugh saying racists statements, eliding what those statements were is not NPOV. It's lying. 2603:8081:2603:E100:A5D4:9674:BC84:4A8A (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The article covers the quarterback statement controversy enough; people can decide for themselves if he deserves that label or not without the encyclopedic voice doing the thinking for them. Another thought... are his fans and listeners completely white? Why support him if he is a racist? And his work with James Golden (radio personality) also doesn't fit with the label.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, I think my proposed wording below avoids any WP:LABEL and/or neutrality concerns. Like I said, it's essentially the same sentence, but doesn't use the artificially constructed "race-related statements". I think it's also a bit more grammatically sound. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fairness to the IP user, we could tweak the wording a bit, to something more like "Limbaugh was known for making controversial statements, perceived by some as racist, toward African Americans." Which says essentially the same exact thing, and is still quite neutral, but doesn't water down the intended meaning as much. While a bit terse, the IP user is correct in pointing out that the current sentence is almost a non-statement, and that it doesn't quite reflect what the sources are saying as accurately as it could, per WP:NPOV. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

He made a variety of comments which were intended to provoke. The comments vary in degree as to how suspect/off-color/problematic they were. Replace "controversial" with "problematic" and replace "perceived" with "judged" and then add my support your proposed tweak.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, problematic would be a violation of NPOV. Perceived is also usually standard practice to use instead of judged, but "controversial" is almost undebatable. Builder018 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Problematic is defined as "constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty" by Oxford. That existence of difficulties people had or found in his statements is demonstrated in the sources already. This satisfies NPOV. Problematic is better because controversy doesn't necessarily imply censure, while in this context, "problematic" will be better understood to imply censure. (For example Martin Luther King Jr. made controversial race related statements, but they are not considered "problematic" today.)

Judged is better than perceived, because punditry of this sort is not merely perceived; the audience is an active and dynamic element. A thermometer is read; a car in the distance is perceived; punditry requires more context than these to interact with it. There is something inherently subjective about the process involved. Other good words instead of "judged" would be "appraised" or "deemed".Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

I wish to edit this page to help maintain accurate information 174.250.145.152 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you can describe what changes you’d like to make, another editor may add them if they follow our guidelines. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 03:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2021 (2)

In Charitable contributions please add that following his death over $250,000 was donated in his honor to Planned Parenthood through an Instagram fundraiser by @quentin.quarantino.

(Please see Instagram handle @quentin.quarantino for confirmation) Eastcoast112 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this would have to be reported by a reliable source. (One requirement for reliability is independence from the donor.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

AIDS section

Probably next week I plan to add a bit to the AIDS section. I don't think this (currently) encapsulates his views on AIDS and has too much hit-and-run/out-of-context quotes (especially for a encyclopedia). I plan to quote primarily from his books 'The Way Things Ought To Be' and 'See I told you so'. If any regulars on this page want to see a draft first.....let me know. Don't want any edit wars. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think a draft would be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for getting back to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - a draft would be helpful. Not implying anything, but its amazing how the content smiths come out when someone dies about things that happened a long time ago. Ckruschke (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

Under "Funeral and tributes" change "Rush Limbaugh Memorial Scholarhip" to "Rush Limbaugh Memorial Scholarship." Scholarship was spelled in incorrectly. 124.218.7.190 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lung Cancer

Does anyone know if Rush Limbaugh was a smoker? 108.16.207.46 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that he was. He often refered to his "formerly nicotine stained fingers" on the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a piece about Limbaugh's health scare back in 2009, and the picture I used was actually a TIME magazine cover of him with a cigar in his hand. It was the first thing I thought of, when I saw he'd died of lung cancer. Doing a search of the title on the cover (Is Rush Limbaugh Good for America), the issue looks to be January 23, 1995. If you're looking for a reliable source on the topic, it's possible there is something about his smoking habits in that TIME piece. CleverTitania (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Every picture of him had him holding a cigar. The fact that he smoked like a chimney isn't controversial, and nor is the fact that he continuously denied smoking was connected to cancer.2603:8081:2603:E100:A5D4:9674:BC84:4A8A (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cigars are puffed, not inhaled. You typically don't get lung cancer from smoking cigars, though in rare cases people have developed oral cancer as a result of many years of cigar smoking.

he continuously denied smoking was connected to cancer

I listened to him for decades and never once did I hear him deny that smoking (presumably cigarettes) could cause lung cancer. So at least provide a source for your statement.

Gotta love left-wing wikipedia. Smearing Rush Limbaugh never stops, even after the man is dead. Tpkatsa (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If you click on the little numbers in brackets behind sentences in the article, you will be led to the sources for them. I copied them here for you: he did deny it, probably when you were not there. And he smoked cigarettes once.

But maybe, since the domination of the right by people like Limbaugh, checking facts instead of relying on one's own subjective impressions has really become a "left-wing" thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Rush is being misquoted above. He never denied smoking causes cancer. What he did deny is that SECOND HAND SMOKE causes cancer. The UK Daily Mail published a quote of his in this respect on the day he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Final comment. I think what may be happening here is that editors are not differentiating between Rush's humor and Rush's beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Direct quote from Limbaugh, in the first of the sources: "Firsthand smoke takes 50 years to kill people, if it does." Well, it doesn't take fifty years. He did not deny smoking causes cancer, but he did downplay the danger. The article was not quite accurate here, using the distorted carrot quote, and I corrected that. Actually, Limbaugh did not say "the risk was not greater than", he said that everybody dies, smoke or not, carrot or not. Of course, he was using a strawman argument himself.

Yes, it was mainly about second-hand smoke: "Limbaugh also falsely stated that the World Health Organization had “disproven” the dangers of second-hand smoke." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Looks perfect to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

RACIST

Geez, this page reads like it was written by Limbaugh's publicist. In the intro, his views on race are considered to be "controversial." Every mainstream publication from the Wall Street Journal to the NY Times clearly identifies his comments over the decades as racist. "Controversial" is incredibly euphemistic and an insult to the people of color he has continually disparaged. Can we update to indicate that he has made numerous "racist" not "conversational" statements over the years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Taquim, can you please point to an article from the WSJ and one from the NYT calling him or his views racist? (Not just that he was or they were accused of racism.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That wouldn't adhere to the neutrality policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Funeral and tributes

Would a registered editor please update the 'Funeral and tributes' section of the article with details of Rush's funeral? There are many news links to this. Here is one: https://www.semissourian.com/story/2868048.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.164.163 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to add, what do you think we are missing?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem with influence and legacy

I have a problem with "condom updates", "caller abortions" and the photo of Chelsea being in this section rather than controversial behavior. How are any of these influence and legacy?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That raised my eyebrows too when I reviewed the article. It should be removed from this section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at what I've done. It's not ideal but it's a start. Someone will likely want to make changes. All the content at least stayed in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I like your work.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ugly picture of Rush in sidebar

Why such an ugly depiction of Rush was chosen as the side bar photo? I mean the one with his mouth open. There's plenty of other flattering photos you could have used. 44mm16cm (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually for someone known to be as verbose and outspoken as Rush was, I thought the photo was pretty appropriate. That being said, I'm sure there are others. However, the trick is getting it past Wiki's photo guidelines. You can't just take a photo off Google and paste it in. If you think you have a better one, please look at making it happen. Ckruschke (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

44mm16cm, could you suggest a photo?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Article not summarized in lead

Per MOS:LEAD "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Most of the lead details his wealth, accolades, and popularity, while only about two sentences mention what he is actually famous for, which is the content of his shows. But about half the article details his "views" and "inaccuracies". As already noted on this talk page, the lead appears to betray some PoV with the phrase "expressed controversial viewpoints". This is out of step with the obituaries in the mainstream media. To keep a world PoV, here's an obit from a conservative French newspaper: "...spokesman for a popular and conservative right, mixing mockery and provocation in an explosive combination that revolted his opponents and delighted his supporters" (translation by Deepl). I'm not saying this quote is what should be in the lead, just giving a typical example from mainstream media obits. I've added a template to the article. --Cornellier (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sentence fragment needs revision

This is a sentence fragment:

   In July 1988, after his success in Sacramento caught the attention of former ABC Radio President Edward McLaughlin, who produced the new show Limbaugh began at WABC (AM) in New York City.[40]

I propose instead this:

   In July 1988, after his success in Sacramento caught the attention of former ABC Radio President Edward McLaughlin, Limbaugh began a new show, produced by McLaughlin, at WABC (AM) in New York City.[40]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D5E0:1640:75B2:A179:406D:58DE (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 

Thanks. Fixed, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form. --Cornellier (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Attempted to rework lead for neutrality

I just wanted to let you know that I am a uni student and I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia. I decided to remove and modify aspects of the lead section and in doing so, two citations from The New York Times were removed. I just wanted to apologise in advance if I have overedited some parts. Feel free to revert some of my edits, and hopefully find another way to cite the deleted references.

So I just wanted to explain why I deleted some of the elements of the lead article, based on what I have read on this talk page. I also looked at Alan Jones, a controversial Australian radio broadcaster to help me edit this section:

Limbaugh became one of the premier voices of the conservative movement in the United States in the 1990s, aided by the repeal of the FCC fairness doctrine. He became known for his bombastic, derisive tone and reliance on grievance politics

I initially changed "premier" to "prominent" but I felt that this section could be deleted, especially the second sentence. It detracts from what he is most known for and overstates his role as a conservative personality figure.

Limbaugh expressed controversial viewpoints on race,[8] LGBT matters,[9] feminism,[10] sexual consent,[11] and climate change.[12] He supported U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.

This part was tacked on to the lead section and as Cornellier mentioned, the wording seems to border on breaching neutrality for an obituary. While my suggestion may not be adequate, I felt that it manages to restore some of the neutrality while preserving the contents of this section as I felt that it was significant.

He was among the most highly compensated figures in American radio.[1]

This is a bit of an overkill considering that subsequent sentences refer to his wealth and successes. Also, I felt that the citation does not prove the judgment made in this article.

Again, thank you for your patience as I attempt to make some adjustments. Feel free to consult me on my talk page if there are any issues pertaining to my edit. Ericisheretohelp (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed the formatting of some sentences in your contribution because spaces at the beginning lead to the text running out of the screen on the right side, at least in some skins.

the wording seems to border on breaching neutrality for an obituary But this is an encyclopedia article and not an obituary. Removing negative stuff may be alright for obituaries in old-fashioned and/or right-wing publications, but here it amounts to whitewashing. In Wikipedia, "neutrality" does not mean what most rookies think it means. If reliable sources agree that something is wrong, then Wikipedia says it is wrong. That is WP:NPOV.

The lead of a Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the article itself. His unreasonable attacks on science, for example, are elucidated further down and are important enough to be mentioned in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Why is this page on Rush Limbaugh non-editable?

He was a celebrity first and a thinker last. The page should be editable by all who will. Isn't that what he represented. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/17/rush-limbaugh-obituary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:400:8710:BC27:B687:B81B:936C (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Because someone put pornography on the page. In case he has another sock account up his sleave with enough edits/experience, this keeps him from repeating the stunt. I support this for now, at least until the view counts go down and the payoff for vandalism is reduced.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with [[[Epiphyllumlover]], leaving the page non-editable is a good idea for now given the recent attention to the article given his recent death. Other articles of well know persons (especially those with controversy) seem to have a lot of vandalism immediately after a major event dealing with the individual. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The page is not "non editable". It can be edited freely by any editor in good standing with an account at least 30 days old and with at least 500 edits. Other editors can submit edit requests. The reason is that the article has been subject to horrific and pornographic vandalism, and this protection level is intended to prevent such vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be temporarily blocked from view completely, then.

Seems like no information at all would be better than misinformation.

74.95.43.253 (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft controversy

Why is his draft controversy not mentioned? (Westerhaley (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC))

Because there isn't one. He was qualified 1-Y and then 4F for a legitimate (if minor) physical condition. Anyone who says otherwise, has a POV axe to grind. As someone who works in the USAF, I've seen people be marked "undeployable" for having bad teeth - as such there are MANY medical reasons which would preclude someone in 1970 with 1970 medicine from being drafted. Ckruschke (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

Presidential Medal of Freedom

An editor has made it their personal mission to "add context" to every Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded by Trump by making sure every mention includes Trump, even in the infobox. I have not found a single example of the awarding president being shown in the infobox prior to these changes. Any thoughts? –CWenger (^ • @) 19:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is obviously heavy-handed, WP:POINTy, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and disruptive editing. Please don't disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is not needed in the infobox. This is not done for other recipients who received it from other administrations. And the editors argument that this is for context given that Trump awarded the fewest medals doesn't work for me, since a similar note had not been used for whatever administration previously held this distinction. If how or to whom Trump awarded the medal was notable, I would still argue that it does not belong in the infobox, as noted in similar discussions at Talk:Mariano_Rivera#Trump_Historical_Context_Removed and Talk:Jerry_West#Trump_Historical_Context_Removed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I also believe we should treat all medal-holders equally and there is no need to list the awarding president unless we do it for all. I find the fewest medals rationale unconvincing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to mention Trump on this. Eruditess (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)