Talk:Rush Limbaugh

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rush Limbaugh page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikiquote? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the page's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

---

/Archive 1

Cleanup

This version is after a cleanup. Look okay? Cirt (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Update [1]. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think these edits go too far. There were many quotes here that were sourced from the Rush Limbaugh website; by only leaving quotes that were cited by other sources, you are more likely to find quotes that are critical of Limbaugh, since those are the ones most often quoted. This is a huge step backwards for WikiQuote if all of these quotes are removed. The Vidiot 23:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. On an controversial topic like this one - best to avoid primary-sourcing altogether, and only rely on secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Cirt here. Tiptoety ^talk 04:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Cirt (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is a person, not a “topic.” There are numerous, well-document primary-sourced quotes. By only allowing secondary-sourced quotes (which, by the way, is exactly how the fake quotes got added here), you are necessarily biasing the page with quotes that are unfavorable to Limbaugh, since those who oppose him are the ones who are most vehement about quoting him. And this secondary-source limitation handily restricts anyone from adding primary-sourced quotes which may be favorable to Limbaugh, because those will not be “notable” by those limited standards. Congratulations: You are promoting the very problem that Wikiquote caused in the first place. The Vidiot 06:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is a topic. And we should only allow the highest standard of sources on a controversial topic. If you have sources of quotes to suggest, please do so. Otherwise, by using primary sources, we leave open anyone to cherry pick and choose from the primary sources, which was also part of the problem. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So instead, people are free to cherry-pick and choose from secondary sources? The Vidiot 06:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that? No, I did not. I am sensing some serious inappropriate attitude from this user TheVidiot (talk · contributions), who quite frankly is a Single Purpose Account on this website with a singular focus on this one page. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First, there is nothing wrong with having a Single-Purpose Account. Secondly, if you look at my edit history, you will see that it appears to be an SPA because I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get those false quotes removed. I posted discussions, called for votes, tried to gain consensus…all according to Wikiquote policy. However, I was eventually blocked from removing them, and they had to be put in a “Disputed” section. Perhaps if they had been removed, Wikiquote would not be under the scrutiny it is now. The Vidiot 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to know what the rules are -- don't ask me to look in the rear view mirror and ask "does it look ok"? The obvious observation to make is that the appearance of a Limbaugh quote in a book does not demonstrate that the quote is accurate. Wikiquote just got burned by that. patsw 12:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, this page is a farce. The quotes from Limbaugh himself would make you think that all he ever talks about are racial issues. Even the "I hope he fails" quote, in context, which is actually used on Barack Obama, would be something. I haven't listened to his show in years, but unless it's vastly different than what it was then, he hardly ever talks about race. [2], for instance, has some other quotes. That last one ("I love being able to say what I think ...") is something I remember hearing him say a lot (or variations on that theme). The quotes about Limbaugh are almost completely negative and in some cases, petty personal attacks. There's plenty out there laudatory that could be used to present both sides. For instance, when the Republicans won congress in 1994, Limbaugh was praised by the GOP as the "Majority Maker". Just because nobody on here agrees with the guy (and I don't agree with him either about a lot of things) doesn't mean the article should be an attack piece. --UserB 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and suggest some sources for quotes then, if you think there are others that belong on the page. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have little concern for biased or uninformed agendas, but I saw numerous clips of Limbaugh mentioning that the solution to an oil spill was to simply let the ocean naturally take care of it. He might've revisited the discussion, but I want clarity on his discussion - many people look to this site to find recent news in regards to Limbaugh and the protection against the article stops them from doing that. Please, someone, for the respect of truth and information, reveal, in reliable wikipedia tradition, what Limbaugh said in regards to the oil spill, and whatever other relevant information to the position that might exist.

Also, I do not want this idea of discussion to be subject to the "recentism" argument - Should there be any others aware of Limbaugh's discussion in regards to off-shore oil spills, I desperately want to discuss them as is appropriate. Should this be Limbaugh's sole position on off-shore oil spills, however, than it should be discussed as it's part of his political perspective.

There should also be mention of Limbaugh's accusation towards Shahzad being completely false. This is not sensationalism, recentism, or even bias - Limbaugh claimed during multiple occasions that Shahzad was a registered democrat, which, has since been proven that he is not, and that Limbaugh, along with others, were incorrect in their assessment. This should be included with the Shahzad article as well as the Limbaugh article, presuming, of course, that the pursuit here is truth.

—This unsigned comment is by Mkoat (talk • contribs) .

Dueling dubious sources

Let's please avoid dubious sources w:Media Matters for America (leftist POV) and w:Media Research Center (rightist POV). Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so now “certain” secondary sources aren’t valid? Is any site that provides a positive quote about Limbaugh a “rightist POV source”? The Vidiot 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we stick to independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally I agree with Cirt. --Aphaia 06:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please elaborate on why a group which has a political point of view is dubious, or are MMA and MRC being singled out here? patsw 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "reliable" and "POV", and also don't assume that something that looks "leftist" or "rightist" is automatically not nPOV. For example, for w:global warming, the IPCC is reliable and nPOV even though almost anyone would realize that their conclusions support the left more than they support the right. AySz88 15:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

They both have a specific agenda for pushing out specific quotes. Best if we only rely on independent reliable secondary sources. Let's do some research and find quotes in reliable books, newspapers, magazines, etc. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have four questions:

• What are you suggesting as an example of a source without an agenda when it comes to covering Limbaugh?
• How did having an agenda become a disqualification as a source of quotes?
• Your justification for the cleanup was that MMA/MRC was that they were dubious. Are you backing off from that? If not, how are they dubious?
• I think we have a disagreement on what independent means. Are you suggesting that there is coordination, communication, or other activity giving evidence to a lack of independence of MRC from Limbaugh? patsw 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am saying we should avoid such polarizing sources, in favor of others that are more reliable and less POV. Feel free to suggest some, here at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• More reliable and less POV, like Keith Olbermann and Doonesbury? Leuchars 03:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• @Leuchars - are you suggesting those be removed? Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, I would let them both stay, along with all other verifiable quotes regardless of the perceived bias of the source. The fact that these quotes are being sourced to Olbermann or Doonesbury doesn't make them any less reliable, as I very much doubt either source would actually make up a quote out of whole cloth. Similarly, I doubt that either of Media Matters or Media Research Center would open themselves to libel charges by fabricating quotes. Accordingly, unless there is reason to believe that a source is mischaracterizing someone's statements or otherwise providing inaccurate information, I think it should remain. Leuchars 06:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is a difference though, if the quote is in the About section, than the section of the quotes by the individual himself. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see no clear reason to exclude either Media Matters for America or Media Research Center as a source of quotes, if they are clearly cited as the source and more information as to original sources are provided, and they are not making generalized claims of someone "once saying" something without specific citations of their own. They might not be a preferred source, but to exclude either seems a rather extreme position, which I cannot accept as justified, no matter what their respective agenda. I also noted "snopes.com" was earlier being declared as "unreliable source" in removing some quotes — I cannot for the life of me perceive why this rather presumptuous assertion was being made, nor why some of the discussions which are as yet only a day old are already being archived to a different page. ~ Kalki 19:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay Kalki (talk · contributions), you seem to have a different view on the matter entirely. Would it be alright for me to let you take care of further observation of the cleanup and debate over this page? Cirt (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

None of us are actually required to get involved in any of the discussions or cleanups, we do so of our own choice. As I stated on my talk page in response to your similar comment there:

I might have a wholly different view, and you certainly are free to de-watch or watch whatever you wish, but I don't think too many of us here actually enjoy having to wade into many of these messes which arise on the pages on the more controversial subjects and people. I don't wish to strip the page down so much as some would, but I do expect that I am going to have to keep more of an eye on it anyway for some time to come.

I don't expect any of us to be fully able to exclude all dubious material on any of the pages, but I don't want legitimate material excluded merely because some might presume it dubious. ~ Kalki 20:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Kalki (talk · contributions), I'll defer to your judgment for the rest of it. Have fun! Cirt (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per this comment by Proabivouac (talk · contributions) [3], an admin that was previously involved on the page, indeed, reinserting disputed material, would not be the best one to mediate there. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For the remainder of the editors here, is it a consensus that MMA and MRC are not dubious? patsw 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. there is no consensus. Let us not use them. We don't want this page to turn into a Battleground for liberals and conservatives, as it was before. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't just assert they are dubious, make the case that they are dubious. The page already is a battleground. I'm just trying to find out what the rules are. patsw 17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

They both have an agenda. They are not independent of the subject matter. They can be seen as primary, not secondary sources, as they are both injecting themselves into the dispute in real-time and attempting to negatively affect Rush Limbaugh's life, or promote the agenda of the conservatives. They are not written by authors that are authorities on quotes, politicians, or public figures. There is not adequate editorial review. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dubious: The section heading includes the word dubious meaning engendering doubt. How are MMA and MRC dubious?
• Agenda: Of course they have an agenda! When it comes to Rush Limbaugh and the conservative movement, everyone has an agenda. Having an agenda defines being engaged in political discussion and advocacy.
• Independent: MMA and MRC are not funded by Limbaugh. They are not coordinating statements with Limbaugh. They are independent of Limbaugh. MMA has a political alignment on the left. MRC has a political alignment of the right. Is the definition being proposed here that any group or person with a political alignment is not independent of Rush Limbaugh?
• Primary Source No, the secondary sourcing by MMA and MRC does not magically transform them into primary sources. I don't see how the "injecting" rule would not also equally apply to ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, For News, etc. which have their own ideological agendas.
• Authorities on quotes, politicians, or public figures I have no idea what this means. As their names imply MMA and MRC are experts on how the Media covers media and political issues and Limbaugh is a major media figure. It was CNN and MSNBC that ran with the false slavery and James Earl Ray quotes, not MMA/MRC. Who exercised editorial review with respect to those quotes?

I think the idea that there is some sort of agenda-free authority of the quotations of Rush Limbaugh that can be identified, consulted, and summarized by Wikiquote editors is a total fantasy. In the real world, real rules have to be composed and enforced that can be applied to politically controversial persons who are going to have a superabundance of quotes that need to be filtered down to what is interesting to the reader, balanced, and in some way comprehensive. The rules Cirt is enforcing are not going to get us there. patsw 18:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dubious: MMA and MRC are dubious because they only exist to promote their agenda.
• Agenda: Their agendas are even more defined and problematic, as with regard to Rush Limbaugh they have a vested interest in either pushing out or promoting and attacking the left, or attacking a living person, Limbaugh.
• Independent: MMA and MRC are both not independent, as they have a vested interest in the subject matter and are wholly injected into the topic. Their sole purpose of existing is to alter the topic's perception.
• Primary Source Sources that exist at the same time period, and interact with and comment on the subject, and have no editorial review, can't really be seen as secondary sources.
• Authorities on quotes, politicians, or public figures MMA and MRC are not experts on how the Media covers media and political issues, they are just organizations set up to push out their own agendas.

Cirt (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position. patsw 20:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquote is

Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works in every language.

Too bad. On an controversial topic like this one - best to avoid primary-sourcing altogether, and only rely on secondary sources.

Please clarify the purpose of Wikiquote : "quotations from notable people" or "quotations about notable people" Stg3095 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Both. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikiquote:Quotability - we include quotations from notable people, including quotations by notable people about other notable people, within reasonable limitations. We would not include a quote from a non-notable person unless the quote itself was widely used (bearing in mind that some people are indeed notable for their quotes alone). BD2412 T 19:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it best to avoid primary-sourcing altogether Stg3095 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Best to let the secondary sources determine which quotes are noteworthy, if we use primary sources, this judgment call falls on individual Wikiquote users instead. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this apply only to currently controversial topics and/or people? Stg3095 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the Wikiquote community arriving at a consensus as to the quoteworthiness of quotes found only in primary sources. I'd rather not see them included on the sole judgment of a newbie, a single-purpose account, or an anon IP, however. BD2412 T 19:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly agree with you that they should not be included on the sole judgment of a newbie, a single-purpose account, or an anon IP. But I think quotes from primary sources should be avoided, in favor of secondary sources, especially if we have the option of doing so. In cases where we do not have that option, perhaps the subject is not noteworthy enough to have a page. It becomes quite a sticky situation for individual Wikiquote users, or even consensus of users, to determine which quotes from primary sources are quoteworthy and which are not. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Restoring recent discussion from archive

I've restored a few of the recent comments ("Denies the racist quotes", "Who's in charge here, anyway?" & "Jack Huberman's source for the slavery and the James Earl Ray quotes") [4] pertinent to the recent conversations. They were less than 2 days old when archived and I believe that someone coming to the conversation late will need to review those to be up to speed with the situation. If the consensus is otherwise, that's fine, but I just wanted to ensure all pertinent info is readily available for anyone to comment about. --207.206.137.130 11:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was pre-cleanup, and involved seemingly endless back and forth and back and forth and back and forth over sources that are unsuitable anyways, and so was a waste of time and space. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived, again. Let us please focus on finding better sources, thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you

Why are you deleting these quotes?

Why is the page uneditable? Rush just said a couple of interesting things that ought to be added.

"I'm for Obamacare. Obama's agenda is all that matters." (Rush Limbaugh Show, October 16, 2009) "I support Cap and Trade. We need it." (Rush Limbaugh Show, October 16, 2009) —This unsigned comment is by 98.141.80.147 (talk • contribs) .

Were those quotes discussed as noteworthy in any secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He said them on the air. Why aren't quotes from his own program considerd valid quotes? Furthermore, they were on TODAY's program. Nobody has had a chance to discuss them yet.

Why isn't Limbaugh's page editable? —This unsigned comment is by 98.141.80.147 (talk • contribs) .

We should rely on secondary sources to determine whether or not the quotes are noteworthy of inclusion. Cirt (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Given Limbaugh's politics, those quotes sound like sarcasm to me. We'd need to see the full context, even if we had a secondary source. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Independent reliable secondary sources

Does anyone have suggestions of quotes to add to this page, from independent reliable secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one has an answer to this question, then I guess there is nothing more to discuss. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the article looking pretty good now. Some of his catch lines from his program might be worth adding back, with sources of course. Charles Edward 18:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we require secondary sources for taglines? Although this page is on a person known for their commentary, at bottom he is a host of a radio show, and we generally allow taglines for comparable television shows. BD2412 T 20:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Though it might be beneficial to eventually find when these were actually first used, I have never thought that so commonly employed lines should require absolute sourcing to any specific occurrence. So long as no one disputes that they are commonly used "tag-lines" declaring them such should be sufficient. If such are disputed, the ability or inability to cite reliable primary or secondary sources would then become a decisive factor in resolving such disputes. ~ Kalki 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should require secondary sources for everything on the page, taglines included. Especially as it is a controversial topic, and especially due to the recent controversy surrounding it, and indeed this very page, we should maintain high standards. For example: note the very first quote in the Sourced section is a tagline, and it has a secondary source for it. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether and when we require a secondary source is a matter for the community to address. I maintain that a quote may be inherently quoteworthy even though no one has yet bothered to quote it in a verifiable, reliable, and notable secondary source. In such cases, the community should be able to determine whether a particular quote is worthy of inclusion based on its content alone. My understanding of the controversy regarding this page is that it included some quotes for which the sourcing turned out to be wholly unreliable, and that it contained quotes for which there was no indicia of quoteworthiness through repetition in an appropriate secondary source. However, it does not appear that any of those quotes were subject to community review either, so it can not be said that such a method of determining quoteworthiness has been tried and found lacking. BD2412 T 21:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I have trimmed the introduction down to the typical Wikiquote style – it is enough to identify the subject and indicate notability. Biographical information may be found at Wikipedia. ~ Ningauble 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Image soapboxing in articles such as this

File:Big-brother-poster.jpg

Liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards...

I take issue with the image at right being present in this article. There is no mention of Orwell's 1984 in the quote in question, there is no mention of it in the secondary source to which this quote is attributed. The question isn't whether it's context-relevant, that's completely subjective based on the personal politics of anyone and everyone visiting or editing this page. It isn't whether we agree or not with the interpretation of the metaphor presented that's at question here. The question is whether these kinds of user-created political cartoons -- original political statements meant to advance a point of view -- are appropriate for Wikiquote. If an article is about Nazism, it's appropriate to include images of Nazis. If an article is about Glenn Beck, not so much (despite the earlier efforts of another contributor to make the correlation). Is this not just as inappropriate, just as unprofessional as, say, an image of an aborted fetus on Barack Obama's page? We need to establish solid policy on this (or rather, enforce the policies which are already in place), and our policies ought to be applied to every article we have on politicians or political figures -- regardless of their politics. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with those who object to images because they might make effective statements when paired with significant words, but I can fully agree that this was a bit extreme and pushed the envelope on relevance in a rather aggressive way. I have replaced the image with one somewhat more relevant to the statement: an image of the guns of the Comedian ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I had thought the big brother image a bit over-reaching, when I had noticed it in brief checks I made earlier to-day, but did not change it, as I didn't have much time to argue the point, but now that someone else has I think the image of the guns is more appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be no surprise that Godwin's Law is fulfilled in the context of this subject, and perhaps there is a corollary that "as the number of illustrations in a Wikiquote article increases...."

I agree that restraint is needed, but it is extremely difficult to articulate concrete policies for matters of intent and interpretation. How does one determine whether an image is intended to promote a point of view, whether it could be readily interpreted to do so, or whether the point of view is sufficiently neutral, or at least neutral with respect to the captioning quotation and the context of the article?

In this particular situation, I do not see the replacement image as a great improvement. It seems to me that the image itself signifies little, for the fictional reference is relatively obscure and I doubt that the point is to illustrate, for the benefit of readers who are unsure, what the term "gun" refers to. Rather, the point appears to lie in calling attention to the quote in the caption, and I fail to see the benefit of highlighting this particular bit of ironic hyperbole. Nor does the caption for the first image in the article seem appropriate, because taking it out of context conceals the clearly intended ironic hyperbole (and, incidentally, it conceals an ellipsis).

Is there really any way of objectively codifying such concerns? ~ Ningauble 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)