Talk:Rush Limbaugh/Archive 1

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

More quotes...[edit]

Someone needs to post more quotes.


Can We Post Some Quotes with the context, not just what has been said.

Anti-Rush Quotes[edit]

So, is there a rule that the only quotes allowed are the ones that make Limbaugh look bad? 17.201.38.216 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are, of course, no such rules, and though there is a need for a cleanup and more standard organization of the quotes, it seems that the people who have thus far been most involved in adding to the page have been most interested in adding such quotes. As with all Wikiquote pages anyone is welcome to add whatever quotes they deem significant or interesting, but use of a more standard organiztion, more definite sourcing and the inclusion of a more extensive range of quotes is encouraged. ~ Kalki 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm not exactly suprised, but a little disappointed at how it seems this Wikiquote article is nothing more then a childish attempt at hacking on Limbaugh. My personl feelings aside, I can't help but cringe when I see these quotes; there is absolutely no professionalism at all in demeaning someone through some cheerfully taken out of context quotes. I was more then a little excited at a prospect of a Wikiquote, but it seems it has quickly turned into some second-rate pseudo-revolutionary site where the lax rules and vision has made every page into a soap box for such places like Media Matters. The name is duly noted as ironic. ~ Eichelberger 19:57, March 11th 2008 (UTC)


This article makes Rush look like a complete scumbag racist, which is completely not fair.
If you have well-sourced quotes to the contrary, we'd be very happy to have them.--Cato 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you're so very witty. Seriously, the sources quoted are books like "101 People Screwing Up America"... really neutral.76.94.109.167 06:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. We are not bound by NPOV.--Cato 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Context is the issue here.[edit]

These "quotes" are a silly political hatchet job. The reponse to "add more quotes" does not deal with the problem. The words may well have been used (although as a regular listener, some sound very suspicious). However, one of Limbaugh's primary techniques is "illustrating absurdity with absurdity." In other words, he uses satire. Did Jonathan Swift really advocate eating chidren? A sane person knows better. I would suggest a disclaimer especially seeeing that the Leftist website Media Matters is the source for most of the half-quotes.


World Trade Center Rebuilding[edit]

This quote may be exactly what Limbaugh said, however I believe this was Limbaugh paraphrasing Mayor Ray Nagin. Nagin at the time was undergoing scrutiny for the rebuilding efforts of New Orleans and gave a similiar response to the public. Some research should be done here for proper context.

Media Matters Link[edit]

The link to Media Matters challenges the neutrality of this Wikiquote article. Media Matters has an agenda simply by definition of their creation and existence and therefore lends a bias to this article. I do think it is important to include Media Matters in reference to Limbaugh; however, I think it is out of place in Wikiquote and belongs in proper perspective in Wikipedia Main.

Wikipedia can be a common starting point for many searches for facts on the internet, and so can Wikiquote; Wikiquote is a separate Wikimedia project, including its own material, and there should not be any dependence on Wikipedia in providing links to relevant external sites. ~ Accountability 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes About Limbaugh[edit]

When looking up quotes about the “Phony Soldiers” issue, I wanted to add accurate quotes from Limbaugh. However, someone added quotes from other parties that do not belong in this article, and also removed a quote from Limbaugh. I undid those changes, and then someone put those quotes into a “Quotes About Limbaugh” section. However, they are still quotes discussing a particular topic, and not quotes about Limbaugh himself. They are not notable, and they are trying to turn Wikiquote into a discussion forum. If you think the quotes are relevant to the issue, add them to Wikipedia or to the pages of the people who said them. However, they should not be part of this article. 75.17.119.115 06:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is long standing practice here that all articles on people and works can have a section for quotes about them as well as from them, and this was pointed out clearly in the comments I made in restoring the section.
The relevant comments during edits occurred in this order:
2007-10-05T16:09:31 17.201.38.216 (removed “About Limbaugh” section, since they are not quotes from Limbaugh)
2007-10-05T16:47:47 Accountability (restore "Quotes about" section which is a standard section for notable quotes about people and works)
2007-10-05T18:36:38 17.201.38.216 (Removed “Quotes About” section, since the quotes are not about Limbaugh himself, but specific arguments addressed to him)
2007-10-05T19:24:34 Accountability (restore section, to say these are not "about" him because they are "about" his actions and statement is ludicrous. The article does need cleanup and further balance, but it does not need censorship)
2007-10-05T20:07:20 17.201.38.182 (The statements are addressed to Limbaugh, or about one or two specific things that he said; they are not about him. If you don’t believe me, look at the “Quotes About” sections for other people.)
2007-10-05T20:21:00 Accountability ("one or two specific things that he said" remain relevant, Michael_Moore#Quotes_about_Moore contains quotes of much broader scope, including things that never happened, ie: Steve Martin's joke)
2007-10-06T02:26:38 75.17.119.115 (Removed “Quotes About” section again. They do not satisfy Wikiquote policy: “Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable.”)
I can agree with observations made that this article is skewed largely against Limbaugh, and some positive comments about him would be appropriate, but the quotes that have been repeatedly deleted are by famous people commenting on a highly publicized dispute, and they fulfill every requirement of notability and relevance to an article on Limbaugh. Trying to split hairs to exclude some comments as not "about" Limbaugh but about what he said or did remains ludicrous, as does the statement that the quoting of people other than Limbaugh is an attempt to "turn Wikiquote into a discussion forum". It has always been to some extent a "forum" for the exposition of ideas, as expressed by various famous people, with various points of view, and with no regard to censoring relevant points of view, but has never been one focussing on the discussions that occur among editors. ~ Accountability 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You said it yourself: These are quotes by “famous people commenting on a highly publicized DISPUTE.” They are not quotes by famous people commenting on Limbaugh himself. They are indeed relevant to “an article on Limbaugh,” which is why they should be in Limbaugh’s Wikipedia entry, which is an article about Limbaugh. But Wikiquote is a collection of quotes by and about famous people, not an article about them. The distinction is an important one, and is far from “splitting hairs.”
This Wikiquote entry is already largely skewed against Limbaugh, but up until this point, the quotes included have at least been (as far as I can tell) factually accurate quotes by Limbaugh. If we start allowing quotes from anyone who has an issue with Limbaugh’s position on various topics, then this article will spin out of control. I do not think it is the intention of Wikiquote to include quotes by anyone debating specific topics by the person in question. The quotes by others should be included in their pages, as appropriate. 75.17.119.115 09:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning employed here continues to be absurd. It is standard practice here to have a section for quotes about people on their pages. From some of the many articles where they exist, one could just as easily say the statement "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." by John Adams, doesn't qualify as a quote about Jesus but merely one about his "divinity" and it being used as a "convenient cover for absurdity."

"Absurd" remains the proper word for the argument that statements in a public dispute about the character of what Limbaugh said or did not say shouldn't qualify to be considered a quote "about Limbaugh". One could just as easily say a statement about a comedian's performances aren't about a comedian, or about some ruthless dictator's deeds and atrocities aren't about a dictator. Even statements most plainly and unambiguously made about a person's character or his acts would not qualify by such criteria so long as they referred to merely acts, words, or even qualities of a person, or controversies about them and not explicitly that "person" in some very abstract and perhaps undeterminable sense devoid of all identifying elements other than name. It exceeds the bounds of rationality.

Applying such narrow definitions as to what can be quoted as relevant, and to further extend it with examples, such as those indicated in the above link to the Michael Moore page: "It's a free country, so he's free to say whatever he wants, but I don't appreciate it. I don't like it." by George H. W. Bush. This obviously isn't to be considered a statement about Moore at all, but about it being a free country and Moore being free to say what he wants, and Bush not appreciating it or liking it. And again, "To have to answer anything about what that slimeball says is just too much." This too is not about Moore, but about having to answer to anything that he says. Wikiquote would have a very cleaned up, extremely sanitized and very sparse sections about everyone if we applied those criteria! But maybe that could be "squeezed in" as qualifying simply because he calls him a slimeball? Yet such a comment as that of Lajos Kossuth on George Washington plainly wouldn't qualify: "Let him who looks for a monument to Washington look around the United States. Your freedom, your independence, your national power, your prosperity, and your prodigious growth are a monument to him." because he is merely talking about "those who look for a monument to Washington" and about the nation's freedom, independence, power, prosperity and growth being monuments to him, and not a single thing specifically said about the man himself! What was anyone thinking to think that this was a quote about Washington!

But no, I don't seriously believe that the freedom to edit and add material to Wikiquote should be so narrowly defined by such criteria as these that are proposed here, apparently in the interest of keeping material that might be embarrassing to Limbaugh or his most loyal "dittoheads" off of the page. The page should be cleaned up and organised chronologically as most pages for people are, and more positive comments on him gathered. I personally have no great inclination to gather material either for or against the man, but have just posted the first quote I've actually added to this page (rather than restored) from a supporter of his in the recent controversies. I really have very little interest in working on it beyond this. ~ Accountability 14:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to “narrowly define” what was added to this quote page, wouldn’t I be removing all of the various quotes that are supposed to make Limbaugh look bad? But I’m not. The quotes in the “Quotes About” section were originally added inline with Rush’s “phony soldiers” comments, as if the person adding them wanted to prove Limbaugh wrong. I removed them as inappropriate, and then a new section was added to specifically house those quotes about one particular topic. Note that the quotes against Moore are also targeted at him in general, and not about one particular argument or statement that he made.
Again, if you feel like arguing about the “phony soldiers” comment, take it to Wikipedia or something. This page is already cluttered enough as it is, and plainly biased against Limbaugh. But of course, any effort to remove quotes that are only peripherally related to Limbaugh is met with accusations of being a “dittohead” and not wanting material that is “embarassing to Limbaugh” to be allowed here. The liberal bias of this page is already bad enough; please don’t make it worse by allowing arguments by other people to be shoehorned onto a page where they don’t belong. 75.17.119.115 09:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an absurdly strong bias is showing when one can say that the "the quotes against Moore are also targeted at him in general, and not about one particular argument or statement that he made" and not recognize that the rationalizations that are being applied to excluding these comments about Limbaugh or his comments apply just as much to those made about Moore, or about Washington.

You state "if you feel like arguing about the “phony soldiers” comment, take it to Wikipedia or something." Personally I do not feel like arguing about it at all, but I do feel quotations from others about it do belong here. If you truly believe that the section and the quotes do not belong on the page, take it to the Wikiquote:Village pump, and argue either that quotes about people don't belong on Wikiquote, or that these quotes should not be considered to be quotes sufficiently about Limbaugh to be included. I think the merits of such a case are entirely imaginary. ~ Accountability 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don’t see the difference between a quote that says something general about Moore and his views, and a vote that addresses one particular thing that Limbaugh said, then I don’t know how to explain it more clearly.
As for “absurdly strong bias,” I think it is significant to note that for a long time, there were no quotes from others about Limbaugh on this page. People were simply happy to provide as many quotes as possible that they felt made Limbaugh look bad. Then when the “phony soldiers” comment came along, I thought it would be appropriate to includes quotes from Rush that explained the context of what he said and why he said it. Almost immediately, people either removed the quotes I had added, or posted quotes by others excoriating Limbaugh. And after a back and forth, those quotes are now firmly ensconced in the “Quotes About” section, proving once and for all that any positive comment about Limbaugh will be immediately met by someone ready to bash him. It sure is nice to see that the bias against Limbaugh continues unabated, even in this supposedly objective look at him. 17.201.38.216 20:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


It is plain that you believe my inability to discern some vitally important distinction you claim to exist between the comments about Moore and those about Limbaugh stems from some lack of mental acuity on my part, and it is plain you are failing to discern that I am arguing whatever narrow or obtuse rationalizations might be made to exclude either those against Moore, or those against Limbaugh are simply hogwash. There were extensive arguments made about the Moore page that it was extremely biased against him, and I believe that was hogwash as well. I do actually agree that this page as a whole has been added to by those who are opposed to Limbaugh's views, but I don't believe removing legitimate quotes of famous people on the controversial issues of some of Limbaugh's comments is the proper way to reduce the imbalances that I acknowledge exist. Adding more quotes by those who agree with him, or adding more that are actually admirable by Limbaugh would be. ~ Accountability 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that once these floodgates are opened, this page will become a repository for every single quote that is related to any topics that Limbaugh has discussed, which covers quite a lot. If the quotes are limited to those BY Limbaugh, or those ABOUT Limbaugh, then the scope becomes much more manageable. I do think there is a distinct and significant difference between a quote like, “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot,” and “Rush Limbaugh was wrong when he said….” (In case it’s not clear, I think the first quote should be allowed, and the second should not.) As it is now, these pages are a good cross-section of a person’s statements and beliefs. But if you allow the “Quotes About” section to contain any quotes about topics that were once argued by the subject of the article, then the page turns into a grandstand for anyone’s political arguments. I can not see how that is a good thing. 17.201.38.216 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order[edit]

I have now just spent a few hours organizing this page in the standard chronological format for pages, and verifying a few quotes. Further additions should be made within this normal format. ~ Kalki 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputes[edit]

As further intervention on this page was requested of me on my talk page, I am posting the response I made there here:

Adversarial editing disputes shouldn't automatically be labeled vandalism on the part of any editor, a term which should be restricted to the inserting of plainly false, irrelevant or nonsensical material into the articles. There are many pages many regular editors have come to avoid paying much attention to because they are so prone to produce interminable disputes, and are of no great interest to themselves.
I will only provide a brief assessment at this time of what I feel should be a general policy regarding some of the disputes that arise regarding quotes:
If the a quote is disputed and shows little or no evidence of being widely quoted, it should probably be removed. If it is widely quoted but without reliable source it should probably be placed in an "unsourced" section, or even a "disputed" section; and if it is widely quoted, but strong evidence indicates it is probably not genuine it should probably be placed in a "misattributed" section, or even moved to the talk page.
If a quote is genuine, with citable sources, but is of questionable relevance or significance, it can sometimes be removed with little controversy. Ultimately disputes on the relevance or accuracy of material should be resolved by debate on the talk page, and sometimes, if no resolution seems likely between adversarial editors, by consensus polling. ~ Kalki 16:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Readded NPOV[edit]

Readded NPOV tag that was removed by Cdorman2/68.38.199.0 who appears to come to Wikiquote with the sole agenda of posting negative quotes about those on the right-wing of the political spectrum and removing negative quotes about those on the left-wing of the political spectrum.

I'm leaving the quotes for now as they are sourced but I dislike the notion that Wikiquote is used for pushing an agenda when it is clear the editor(s) in question are doing just that. It seems to me that if there was ever a definition of something that is not from a WQ:NPOV, that would be it. -- Greyed 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions are your own. Feel free to add whatever quotes of Limbaugh you would like, as long as they're sourced. No need to add NPOV tags to the page b/c of a dispute you're having with another editor. —This unsigned comment is by 69.86.228.202 (talkcontribs) .
Continual removal of the tag is not a resolution to the dispute. I never said I had just a dispute with another editor. I said that I suspect that the editor is pushing an agenda which is something that I got the impression is frowned upon on WQ. I'll refer you to my question posed to a SysOp here, read the recent discussion about Quotability on the Villiage Pump and review the resulting draft policy in work here. If this person/people had any more edits other than a specific agenda that already had run afoul of pages stated purpose I would probably call it an edge case from a frequent editor and leave it at that. But that isn't the case, I don't think it is an edge case, it doesn't feel like NPOV and the dispute stays. I could just undo all their edits and engage in an edit war but I am trying to avoid that. To that end I am inviting discussion on the NPOV status based on the above concerns. That discussion has not yet happened and your removing the NPOV tag prior to that discussion having started much less run its due course reflects poorly on you. State your case. -- Greyed 09:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Asked and answered. —This unsigned comment is by 69.86.228.202 (talkcontribs) .

From the history "69.64.213.146 (rv. Not "part of a comedy skit." Even if it were, Hicks is still worthy of inclusion. And other users have discussed the NPOV tag. Greyed is ignoring them.)", reply is here.

First off to work backwards. Do NOT remove the NPOV tag. I am not ignoring the discussions. If you look at the datestamps the discussions were largely between two people regarding one issue back in mid-to-late 2007. Then there was another comment by Kalki in late-2007. The NPOV tags was removed "23:53, 15 January 2008 69.64.213.146 (Talk) (26,893 bytes) (Remove NPOV tag, which was placed by serial vandal Keetowah/Getaway/JobsElihu, well known for disruptions and sockpuppetry on Wikipedia." 2008 by this IP with a stated reason of, guess what, a dispute with another editor. The exact same reason 69.86.228.202 told me I should not add the tag. So right there is a problem. If you have a dispute then discuss it. The NPOV has not been discussed to the point where it should be removed. The discussions happened prior to my putting it on the page and were on a narrow topic where my concern is for a much broader nature. That being agenda pushing by drive-by editors who have no interest in the project, only in pushing their particular view upon others.

Now, as for the Bill Hicks comment I again refer Mr. and Mrs. IP to the relevant community discussions. Please note that neither IP has engaged in either the community or the discussions. Both IPs have had an exclusive edit history of systematic slamming of people they don't like. They have not contributed to any discussions. They have not engaged in any other editing on any other pages except for an extremely narrow focus of people they don't like and only to post or defend highly negative and suspect quotations. With that said, to Mr. Hicks. The quote in question is from a comedian about a public figure. Generally speaking such comments are rarely going to be positive and while humorous most certainly not something that should be taken seriously. Finally do not lie about its source. It is on his quote page here, is reference to the comedy album w:Rant in E-Minor that makes it, in short terms to fit into an rv tags, part of a comedy skit.

I'm getting tired of justifying my actions to a pair of people who have no interest in this project other than their own personal political platform. Simple question, are you going to engage in the discussion and the community or are you going to continue to practice what is bordering vandalism? -- Greyed 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have had some time to get over my frustration I realized I didn't explain clearly why the quote does not belong here. I had labeled it as an "attack" and "part of a comedy skit" but now realize that while those labels are self-evident to me they may not be to other people. So, here's the quote that was removed: "Speaking of Satan, I was watching Rush Limbaugh the other day. Doesn't Rush Limbaugh remind you of one of those gay guys who likes to lay in a tub while other men pee on him? Can't you see his fat body in a tub while Reagan, Quayle and Bush just … [pee noise] Just standing around pissing on him, and his piggly-wiggly dick can't get hard. So they call in Barbara Bush …"
Break it down, is there really anything in there? "Speaking of Satan, I was watching Rush Limbaugh the other day". Likening Rush to Satan, thousands if not millions of people have done that. Dozens if not hundreds of other public figures, many of which are comedians like Bill Hicks have done that as well. We don't quote all of those and he is not unique. "Doesn't Rush remind you of..." is not a personal recollection of Rush, it's launching into a joke. That joke ties in tension about homosexuality, sexual fetishes, and impotence with a visual dig on his weight. He then adds in prominent public figures who share a particular political view and ends it with a "ugly woman" joke. However, in the end, has the reader gained any insight about Rush? Is this some pithy way of pointing out Rush's numerous character flaws and the public opinion of him? No, not really. You can drop in the appropriate names and the joke would be just as funny in the other direction. Allow me to demonstrate.
Speaking of Satan, I was watching Michael Moore the other day. Doesn't Michael Moore remind you of one of those gay guys who likes to lay in a tub while other men pee on him? Can't you see his fat body in a tub while Clinton, Gore and Berger just … [pee noise] Just standing around pissing on him, and his piggly-wiggly dick can't get hard. So they call in Janet Reno …
Do you feel at all enlightened about the character and person of Michael Moore? Did it point out any of his numerous character flaws or present the public opinion of him? Did the joke lose it's punch just because it is now aimed at figures of the left instead of the right? No, no, and no.
In the end this joke tells us more about Bill Hicks than it does about Rush Limbaugh. It is appropriate on Mr. Hicks' page, yes. I note that it is there. There are far better commentaries of Rush Limbaugh that are well above the level of school-yard potty humor. It is those that should be placed here if one wishes to be critical of this man. -- Greyed 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your blustery sermonizing is getting you nowhere. Stop removing the Hicks quote, and stop adding the NPOV tag. You have no consensus for either action. --69.86.228.202 19:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Greyed: The Hicks quote in question is not specifically about Limbaugh; it is a joke that uses Limbaugh’s name as a punchline, but does not say anything ABOUT Limbaugh, which is the entire purpose of having this section. The quote should not be on this page. 75.30.225.147 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can entirely agree that the disputed remark by Hicks is an extremely unfair, distasteful and bigoted remark, much like many that are increasingly made by many people about others — including many made by Limbaugh about many of those whose views he disagrees with or despises.

When confronted with the severity and extremes of expression which many people are prone to employ against others, many people with healthy sensibilities must often feel that they are dealing with squabbling idiots who haven't yet outgrown many of the worst impulses of their emotional and intellectual infancy.

I have a great deal of contempt for any strong tendency to focus exclusively upon or to exaggerate the perceived or imagined flaws and deficiencies of others, by whoever it is done, to whomever it is done. To those most prone to doing it — including both Limbaugh and Hicks — I might easily wish to say "a plague on both your houses" if I were not very well aware that they are already victims of a plague, and spreaders of a plague. They themselves have both been agents of an emotional blight of casual and extreme bigotry, but I do not feel it is right to ignore or deny the fact the blight exists, or many of the more distasteful consequences of it — or that they have both indeed been a part of it's spread.

I do have some fear that the tendencies to condemn and to collect condemnations of others by others is an infantile impulse which will continue to be exercised by many extreme fanatics and fools to the detriment of the project. This is already quite noticeable on a some pages, but any attempt to censor material merely upon the basis of my own or anyone else's notions of "good taste" or geniality, or even the validity of the comments ultimately could be used to censor and exclude a great deal more than some of the most obvious and appalling cases. I am here in the very awkward situation of feeling I have to defend the inclusion of a quote I myself would not actually wish to include, and would much prefer to ignore. As an admin here I am also increasingly being drawn into interminable debates and disputes I would much rather avoid. I tend to prefer dealing with beautiful and interesting expressions about eternally important things, rather than with many of the unpleasant, ugly and ultimately trivial disputes about transient personalities and groups where various prejudices and presumptions are often firmly entrenched.

There seems to be increasing involvement of those with malicious intentions who seek to post quotes critical of specific people or groups, and those with impulses to censor and limit them, rather than those who simply collect quotes that for the most part have value and interest of a universal nature. I have objected to the inclusion of "off-topic" quotes on some pages that merely have some incidental mention of something or someone in a quote clearly or primarily about something else, but I feel this remark, no matter how false, contrived, or in extremely poor taste we may consider it to be, is still ultimately a remark about Limbaugh, if only as an indication of how much Limbaugh is despised by Hicks, and how despicable Hicks himself chooses to be in showing this.

It might be argued that a lack of any concern for truthfulness or fairness in Hicks' remarks could be used to exclude it, as not actually about him, but about Hicks' own perceptions or fantasies, but then many of Limbaugh's or Ann Coulter's comments could be excluded from a page on "Liberals" or Liberalism, because they are arguably not actually about liberals or various forms of liberalism, but merely deliberate exaggerations or mockeries of what they in their own imaginations perceive to be, or merely pretentiously suggest to be are liberal traits. The same would hold true about much of what various liberals might say about conservatives or various forms of conservatism. The censorship by such rules would have no end short of what nearly everyone could approve of as "doubleplusgood goodthinking" : perhaps in the end such innocuous comments as "See Spot run" could be spared.

I very much agree that Hicks remarks say much more about himself than they say about Limbaugh, but though perhaps less obviously so, the same is arguably true of most of what Limbaugh, Coulter, Al Franken, Bill Maher, Michael Moore — or George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, I myself, or anyone else chose to say about anyone or anything. The world is complex, and all manner of distortions arise in the quest to understand it, or to make it seem more easily understandable — or more simply hostile or benevolent to human will than it actually is — by people with both benevolent and malevolent intentions.

I have indicated here and elsewhere that I do not like the comment, would not have added it, nor wished it added to the page, but now that someone has, I am inclined to merely accept it as an unfortunate and distasteful addition rather than attempt to exclude it merely because I or many others might be able to agree that it is a distasteful, distortional, and unfair comment. I tend to feel that mere distastefulness, exaggeration, invalidity, error or outright deception should not automatically exclude a remark from being quoted on this page or any other. By such standards nearly every modern and many historical quotes about many historical figures could be erased including those about, Moses, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, because ultimately what is beyond dispute and actually known about them is often very close to nothing. Nearly all the remarks anyone might make "about" them are actually remarks about what has been said about them, whether a long time, or a short time after their own lives and careers, rather than what is actually known as widely recorded fact. In terms of what we actually know about them, rather than our opinions about what was said about them, there is very little we or anyone else can comment upon other than that they seem for the most part to have been real persons who became the subject of many legends and myths of debatable truthfulness or merit.

If I myself were making a very large collection of what I considered to be the most 100,000 noteworthy or important statements of human history, this or any other remark by or about Limbaugh probably wouldn't rank anywhere on the list at all, but as the project isn't governed entirely by my own standards or assessments of what is notable, I do not feel it is proper to exclude it from the page. It might possibly make a list of the top 1000 things said in poor taste by modern comedians, were I in any way interested in composing such a list.

We may all have our own opinions about the value of this and other comments about Limbaugh, or by Limbaugh, or by anyone about anything, but unfortunately it seems to be a fairly widely known remark, and thus by the normal rules of inclusion a sufficiently notable statement by a sufficiently notable person about another sufficiently notable person, whether or not most of us consider it valid, accurate, fair or worth publicizing or repeating.

As to the NPOV tag dispute: while I feel the existing NPOV tag for articles really doesn't apply quite as well here as it might on WIkipedia, and that perhaps we should have a more applicable tag, indicating a "severe imbalance of biased quotes" or something, I agree that some indication of a severe imbalance continues to belong on this page, and this is all we have at present. ~ Kalki 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kalki, that was a very thorough, well-thought-out response, and I do agree with you on most counts. I do not have time for an equally thorough response, but I do want to add one clarification: I think there should be a distinction (and a distinct criteria) between quotes BY a person, and quotes ABOUT a person. If a quote is BY a particular person, then its inclusion is much more straightforward, no matter how off-color or distasteful the particular statement is. However, for quotes ABOUT a person, there is an additional requirement that the statement is actually about that person. As such, the section that begins, “Doesn’t he remind you of…” is clearly no longer a statement about the person in question, but is the beginning of a hypothetical, imaginary word picture that has no correlation to the individual himself. In that respect, it does not belong on the “Quotes About” section, since it is not actually a quote about Limbaugh himself. 17.224.39.200 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about 90% of the way, Kalki. However, if you will forgive me to paraphrase a quote to make a point in a discussion about quotes on a site about quotes, "It's good to keep an open mind but not so open your brains fall out." I understand that yes, distasteful things will be said. However, as has been stressed by other Admins on WQ this project isn't about collecting all quotes but collecting the best quotes. I am not opposed to quotes critical about Rush Limbaugh. As someone who dislikes what he spews across the airwaves I welcome criticism of the man, his positions, what he says and so on. But I feel that such criticism as presented here should be quality over quantity; the best quotes. Look at my user page and you will find a quote that in 6 words says more about Rush than Mr. Hicks paragraph long joke. Granted I am biased to that phrase because I happen to be the one who uttered it years ago in conversation with my friends. But I think we can quantify that certain quotes are better than others.
Now, couple that with the malicious inclusion of any and all quotes negative of this person, and others, and your open to all policy falls squarely in the "brains falling out" category. What I don't like here, and on other pages, is that there is a pattern of people who are not interested in the project using it as their own personal political platform. To be frank I feel those people should be banned just like any other vandal who shows the same lack of care for Wikiquote as a whole. They are not interested in the best quotes, they are only interested in presenting a highly biased and negative view of certain subjects through the most quotes. That is why I am in the ugly position of defending a subject that I loathe. Because I feel that using this project to push a political, religious or ideological agenda is counter to collecting the best quotes on all topics. I would opposed the removal of fair and critical quotes on subjects I favor just as much as I now oppose the inclusion of the utter crap quotes presented here and other pages by these select few editors.
Like I said, I agree with you about 90%. But I feel you are taking the blind eye approach a bit too far. There has to be standards and as long as we apply those standards equally and fairly across both sides of the spectrum it would be better for the project as a whole than to simply let the people with an axe to grind use these pages to push their disease further. -- Greyed 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Greyed's blustering and filibustering aside, this issue has been dealt with on the noticeboard. An admin has weighed in, as has Kaliki. There's now consensus to keep the Hicks quote. --69.64.213.146 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect, there is no consensus. If there were all parties involved would agree. I do not agree and neither does 75.30.225.147. However I am abiding by Ubiquity's request to do no further reversions even though I disagree with the assessment that the Hicks' quote is at all about anyone in particular. As an aside I find it mildly amusing that in this entire discussion you have not brought one intelligent argument to the table. Only now when you have two admins covering your butt in spite of their personal feelings for the quote itself do you speak up. That, too, shows there is no consensus because you haven't tried at all to express your views on the matter or attempt to sway others to your views. You have bullied, blustered and blanked but not once said anything useful. Until you do consensus is not possible. -- Greyed 01:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Hicks quote[edit]

Let me make it clear at the outset that (a) I do not care for Rush Limbaugh and (b) I find the Hicks quote disgusting in the extreme. However:

  1. It is clearly about Limbaugh.
  2. It is a properly cited, easily verified quote.
  3. The author of the quote is fairly notable.
  4. The quote expresses an original idea.
  5. It violates no Wikiquote policy.

We can argue whether this is the "best" we can find, but unfortunately that's a value judgment. For some people this quote will resonate strongly. Others will just be grossed out. But generally we work in a spirit of cooperation and inclusion here. I don't see any valid reason for removing this from the page. --Ubiquity 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, see above where the same exact words of the joke were used except I replaced Michael Moore for Rush Limbaugh, Clinton for Reagan, Gore for Quayle, Berger for Bush and Janet Reno for Barbara Bush. The joke works the same, exactly the same with the new list of characters. As has been noted elsewhere just because a quotation mentions a subject does not automatically mean it is about that subject. This is a joke that mentions Limbaugh but is in no way about Limbaugh. -- Greyed 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Amidst these arguments about the relevance, NPOV, and avoiding censorship, I believe we are missing the point that Wikiquote does not collect everything that has been documented to be said. Just because something is adequately sourced and about the subject doesn't mean it should be one of a huge list of things quoted by somebody, let alone about somebody. Wikiquote articles are supposed to be a select set of the best quotes from and about their subject. While this is unavoidably subjective, it shouldn't be hard to accept Greyed's point that this quote says nothing really about Limbaugh, but merely uses him as a riffing target for which the subject can be readily exchanged with anybody famous that one despises. (That is, unless one has a real need to crucify Limbaugh, even with such witless and puerile humor worthy only of Beavis and Butt-head. [Heh-heh… he said "pee"!] That's what we mean by "agenda pushing". There's so very much material with which Limbaugh can be mocked with precision; generic jokes made at his expense only demonstrate the comedian's lack of creativity, and unless they are typical of Hicks, probably aren't worth including even in his article.)
Also, Kalki discusses above (in "Disputes") what to do with quotes that are widely cited, but does not address quotes that aren't. A quick Google search yields only three hits for this quote: Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Rush Limbaugh" entry, Bill Hicks@Everything2.com, and an Italian discussion board that mentions the quote in passing. (I can't include two of the three links because they are blocked by our spam filter.) Not one of these hits is a reliable source for indicating any real notability (or even public awareness!). This is a remarkably poor global showing for a famous comedian quipping on a famous pundit, making it rather obvious that the quote isn't even notable as part of Hicks's routine, let alone as something noteworthy said about Limbaugh. Practically nobody else on the planet finds this boilerplate joke to be worthy mentioning, let alone quoteworthy.
As I want Wikiquote to be much better than the least quote sites, let alone spammy websites, I feel we should remove this quote with all due haste, and refuse to allow this article to be held hostage by two narrowly focused editors with much more time to argue than folks who have a better overall understanding of the quality of content to which we aspire. We must not let our desire to be fair, balanced, and supportive to get in the way of keeping obvious junk out of our articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Call for consensus on Hicks quote[edit]

Since our anon seems to feel that the only thing that will stop him from restoring the controversial Bill Hicks quote is a consensus, I am calling for a vote here. First, I will post what I believe to be a summary of the points made above:


  • Keep: This quote is reliably and specifically sourced in Bill Hicks's book Love All the People: Letters, Lyrics, Routines. It specifically talks about Rush Limbaugh. Just because it's critical of Limbaugh and its humor isn't to everyone's liking doesn't mean it isn't quoteworthy. Reliably sourced quotes from notable people about notable people should not be removed just because they express a strong point of view.
  • Delete: This quote merely uses Limbaugh in a generic fashion and says nothing specifically about him. It is not quoted reliably anywhere but in Hicks's book, including no reliable presence on the Internet, making it virtually unknown. Quality articles should not include generic riffs about a quotee. Strong points of view are inevitable and expected, but this one expresses nothing meaningful about the article subject.

For detailed arguments, please read the above discussions.


Since everyone seems to be so active on this issue, I'll give us one day to decide whether my summary above is an accurate summary of the arguments for "keep" or "delete". If so, I'll call for a 1-week voting period starting sometime after 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC). I am also posting a notice about this at WQ:VP#Bill Hicks quote about Rush Limbaugh to invite the larger community.

Everyone who wishes to participate should review Wikiquote:Voting, which is a draft policy that reflects some of the prevailing opinions of the community but is not yet an official policy. In the absence of official policy, editors should consider this vote as they might a vote on Wikipedia, except where noted otherwise or where Wikiquote tends to vary. Sysops are expected, as always, to exercise their judgment in conducting and closing this vote (especially given the ambiguity inherent in that last sentence).

I will make two additional conditions that I believe are necessary here. First, since a typical 67% consensus favors whichever condition is considered to be the default action if it is not achieved, I think a straight majority for either inclusion or deletion should be accepted, lest we spend the next week arguing about defaults. Second, although we typically do not count anonymous-IP voters, I would suggest that we at least count any anon who has contributed substantially to either the article or the discussion. (Standard Wikiquote requirements of general substantive contribution should also be taken into consideration for all participants; e.g., no sockpuppets or meatpuppets). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Brief comment on continued removal of published quotes[edit]

The largely shallow-minded and increasingly noxious disputes that regularly go on between those who are labeled "right" and "left" are not something I have much interest in getting involved in here, but I am interested in seeing that quotes which are sufficiently sourced not be removed merely because they don't fit into one side or the other's agenda.
I have recently reverted the removal of material obviously posted to provide bad impressions of Limbaugh, and material meant to give good impressions of him and his views.

Even after their replacement by an admin here, the editor at IP 17.224.39.215 insists that replacement of a couple of published quotes which are plainly meant to be unfavorable to Limbaugh should be preceded by comments here, as if the removal of quotes which are plainly sourced to a book is standard practice, and their return is something that should be justified. I did not originally post these quotes, and have very little interest in reading about or collecting quotes about Limbaugh. They might not be very flattering to Limbaugh and gathered by those hostile to many of his views, but the book in question has been out since 2006, and so far as I am aware, there have been no libel suits made against the author or Media Matters, let alone lost by them, in relation to these quotes. If such a lawsuit is lost they could then be relegated to "misattributed section" with clear indications of their erroneous nature, but they should not be presumed to be erroneous or fabricated merely because they have been collected or published by people hostile to Limbaugh and his views. ~ Moby 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The continued removal of those sourced quotes should be treated as vandalism at this point. --69.86.228.70 06:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That IP Vandal is simply vandalizing the page, plain and simple. If he keeps removing sourced quotes, he'll be blocked.
Removal of those quotes was not vandalism; I explained exactly why the quotes were removed. To make this perfectly clear, one of the quotes has the top-rated talk-show host in America saying that James Earl Ray, the man who assassinated Martin Luther King Jr., should be given a posthumous Medal of Honor. Yet despite such an outlandishly controversial statement (to say the least), it has only been mentioned in this one book, which does not list the air date for the quote. It has not been referenced in a single news article or other publication, except with this book or Wikipedia as a source. Does it really make sense that Limbaugh would make such an inflammatory remark, and yet none of the major news media would report on it? I think it is irresponsible to keep this quote here, as Wikipedia will be used as a source for other people, compounding the problem. (In my search, I noticed other fake quotes that had been referenced using Wikiquote as a source, even after Wikiquote removed the quotes in question.)
I do not think that Wikiquote should be a resting place for every unfavorable quote that people see fit to drop here, no matter how questionable the source. 17.224.39.215 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The quotes are sourced, and abide by WQ policies. Limbaugh has made many racially offensive statements over the years, and this is one of them. Your campaign to 1) censor the quote and 2) discredit the source because you're a Limbaugh devotee is vandalism. Knock it off. --69.86.228.70 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The quotes are mentioned by one source, which itself does not even provide a simple air date or other supporting evidence. And regardless of what “racially offensive statements” Limbaugh may have made over the years, none of them were nearly as controversial as suggesting that the man who assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. should receive a Medal of Honor. The fact that no other source has verified this quote is worth mentioning, and Cato suggested that I do so. Your suggestion that I am a “Limbaugh devotee” does not change this fact. 75.30.176.193 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not gained consensus to add your qualifier (advice by Cato is not consensus). And you also have no proof that there is "no other source." Do some more detailed research than a Google search next time. --69.86.228.70 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A consensus is not required for every Wikiquote change. And if you dispute the claim that there is no other source, then go ahead and cite that other source, and I’ll be happy to remove the qualifier. But until you can provide another source, the qualifier is relevant. 17.224.39.215 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed my advice to add the qualifier. If this is contentious, I would urge someone to post on WQ:VP.--Cato 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If the other anon IP can find a second source for the aforementioned quotes, I would be happy to remove the note. So far, no other source has been offered. 17.224.39.215 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the qualifier, as Cato has now been permanently banned as a sock (of Quillercouch/Poetlister/Yehudi, et al.) and thus, no reasonable consensus remains for its inclusion. --Slivowitz 03:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

eh...[edit]

Right or Left, The first 8 quotes are completely about race--- from odd sources without a second to authenticate them. I question the authenticity of many of these quotes. I mean, "We miss you, James. Godspeed." He and his guest hosts on his show have praised MLK (that evil lying drug addicted fat hypocrite). From the what little I have seen of the sources, it would be reasonable to think that these people had motive to make these up. I request a radical revision. (And a "James Golden" article) (24.98.235.224 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. How about sources to go with these quotes? Many of them are quite obviously faked. If your source is a book with no sources, and the quote in question comes up with sources who reference wikipedia or wikiquote alone, then there are no sources. When Limbaugh is objectionable, there is no shortage of media sources to validate his quotes.

Wikiquote's circular smear[edit]

The only source for the "James Earl Ray" quote is a book that was published in 2006 that doesn't give any sourcing information for the quote. And, that same quote was added to this entry ten months before the book was published and without any sourcing information. Now, that very same book is being used as a source for the quote. Details on that here. How very circular. Can Wikiquote ban that quote from being placed into this entry since the sourcing is obviously bogus? And, how exactly does Wikiquote intend to make amends for the damage that it's done to Limbaugh's reputation? --ZXY4931 18:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live on, but we're in the process of doing something about that as well."[edit]

Did Rush really say this? Fxm12 03:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Denies the racist quotes[edit]

Rush at 12:45 denied on the air that he said what was attributed to him in this article (re: slavery and James Earl Ray) via the Huberman book, mentioning Wikiquotes but not the book used as the source. patsw 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If Limbaugh specifically denies any of these quotes, the statement of repudiation would probably be quoteworthy, and permit further correction as regard to the article. If it is specifically the currently "Disputed" quotes which are being denied, it would probably be appropriate to declare them "Misattributed" unless the author of the book can provide verifiable sources. ~ Kalki 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have linked to the denial on the article page. Now we have to give Jack Huberman an opportunity to produce evidence Limbaugh said them or retract. patsw 17:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have noted this on the admin noticeboard. You left out the fact that he was threatening legal action. Do you have an equivlient to BLP policy here? You might want to consider removing the remarks. 66.38.8.229 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The article has the source for the quotes, and we have yet to hear from Jack Huberman. The denial doesn't make the entry false, only disputed. patsw 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we are on shaky gournd here. BLP policy applies to all Wikimedia Foundation websites. If this information is untrue, it needs to be removed, especially now that legal threats are being made. BLP requires not just a source, but high quality and reliable sources. I don't feel we have that currently, and am not comfortable risking a lawsuit. I think we need to try an locate additional sources for this information asap. If such sources cannot be located, I propose we remove the attributions until such sources are located. Charles Edward 18:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I advocate a STRONG DELETE policy here. I concur, this has remained in simply because Rush is who he is, it should be removed (same person behind Wikipedia Trelane Acct)Trelane 18:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the quotes have been removed. I prose we discuss them here before readding them and starting an edit war. Charles Edward 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wikiquote:Citing_sources#When_there_is_a_factual_dispute states "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion....", these quotes are NOT harmless as the policy goes on to discuss. These quotes do not belong on the page until they are properly sourced. The burden is on the editor who restores the quotes to provide a source, otherwise an edit war is ominous. --207.206.136.233 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you verify that a legal threat was made to Wikimedia Foundation? patsw 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
In a couple hours his show transcript should be available online and we can read it there. But in listening he specifically said he was bring legal action to force retractions and apologies from all involved parties, and he specifically stated WikiQuote and an unnamed blogger as the source of the controversy. Other people over an en.wiki heard the same thing, if you need only a minimal verification. [2] A threat against Wikiquote is a equal to a threat on the foundation, as far as I am concerned. Charles Edward 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Removing the quotes. I support doing so. If Huberman has the evidence, then it can always be added back. patsw 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I had added information from the link provided earlier to the section, where Limbaugh repudiates such remarks, if these quotes are indeed specifically repudiated by Limbaugh anywhere, and the author of the work cannot produce verifiable sources, they probably should remain, but in a "Misattributed" section to specify that they are BOTH repudiated and unverified. Such has been the general response that has been made to most misattributed quotes to most people here, as it is better to honestly report on controversies than to merely sweep them under the rug and pretend they never happened. Limbaugh actually already has been accorded preferential treatment in the past, when people, including myself, voted to remove a legitimate quote of a celebrity comedian mentioning him as simply being overly provocative, insulting, and inappropriate to the article.

I am posting the recently removed material here, as last posted, until further decisions can be made upon it. ~ Kalki 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing policy here and it seems very underdeveloped. [3] The over arching board policy for this situation states: "People sometimes make edits designed to smear others. This is difficult to identify and counteract, particularly if the malicious editor is persistent." That fits the claims being made here by Limbaugh. The board resolution seems to me to indicate we need to remove this information unless we can substantiate what Huberman is claiming in another source, we need to keep this information out of the article. Charles Edward 18:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The worst thing that could happen to this website would be for it to become a magnet for "smear-quoting". Reliable sources should be a prerequisite for inclusion of any materials. BD2412 T 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

These 2 quotations have been disputed because the author of the book did not provide sources for the material quoted; there have been indications made that Limbaugh has himself specifically denied making these statements. Further information in regard to them, or Limbaugh's repudiation of them is requested.
  • I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
Dawn said to me during the break here, "You didn't deny what they're saying you said about slavery!" I'm not going to dignify it by denying it. Deny it? It's an outrageous slander, which I did say. People saying I made jokes about the good points, whatever, the finer points of slavery. So to set the record... No, not to set it straight. To confirm the record, I don't know how many times on this program I have gotten into arguments over the last 21 years with people when I have asserted that the Civil War primarily was about slavery. People have called me, "No, it wasn't! It was about states' rights. It was about this," and I said, "Don't be silly. Abraham Lincoln knew what the union could not survive in one man was allowed to own another. I have uttered those words, quoting Lincoln favorably, too many times to count.
Slavery — indentured servitude, whatever you want to call it — is abominable, particularly in a free country. I've had people call this program and say, "Well, the Founding Fathers, I mean they were slave owners! Three-fifths of a person for blacks." Yeah, it's a sad shame. It's an absolute sad shame but I've given people the history. At the time there were 13 colonies. Getting them to all agree to rebel against the king and to declare independence, there were compromises necessary for that unity. Then when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they put the prescription in the Constitution for ending slavery, in the amendments — and in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." How many times I've quoted that, I can't remember.
If I had said what they say I said, I would be gone. There would be nobody around. Snerdley would have resigned on the spot, even if I was trying to be funny. I've endeavored to go a little deeper into it, though, and explain how slavery has led us into some of the acrimony that we still have today in that there are some people who won't forget it, who are still trying to capitalize on it and portray this country as though it is still in many ways no different than it was, and I have argued with those people vehemently.

One of the things that I am proudest of this country is that we are the country that went to war with ourselves to end slavery: 500,000 Americans, our most costliest war ever, to end slavery. There is nobody I know who wishes to revive it, who defends it. I don't know anybody, and I mean of 280, 300 million people in this country, I don't know anybody who wants to return to those days.

The denial was not merely reported, the denial has happened and it is linked. The stronger form of the statement is called for. patsw 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am an intellectual property attorney with fairly extensive experience in defamation cases. I can confirm that if we asserted as fact that Limbaugh made these statements, and he did not make them, we would be in some legal jeopardy. However, if we merely assert as fact that Jack Huberman attributed these statements to Limbaugh, and that Limbaugh has denied them, we are protected under the First Amendment. If the statements are false, Limbaugh's initial cause of action lies against Jack Huberman. Has Limbaugh sued or threatened to sue Huberman? It would seem odd if he took no action against the originator of falsehoods, and only threatened those who reported them later. BD2412 T 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Such is my assessment of the situation also. Unfortunately I must be leaving soon, for at least an hour, but will observe developments when I get back. ~ Kalki 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A quote can only be "misattributed" if it is both and ACTUAL quote, and attributed to the WRONG person. These quotes are not misattributed; they are manufactured, false quotes. They should be removed. The Vidiot 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A statement can be misattributed to a person whether this misattribution is accidental or deliberate, or indeed even a creation of the one making the attribution. If these quotes are prominently quoted, as they have been, they should be included in the article with whatever relevant information as to their provenance is available. ~ Kalki 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, if the “quote” was manufactured by the person making the attribution, it is NOT an actual quote! It is a falsehood! It can not be properly listed as “misattributed.” If someone else actually said it, and it was later attributed to Limbaugh, then it could be listed as “misattributed.” The Vidiot 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Pardon the semantic pedantry, but in either case, whether deliberate or accidental, it is a "falsehood", and in either case it is a misattribution, and indeed, not an actual quote. I hold that if it has been published, and has generated as much controversy as it has generated, it probably should be included here, if only to be properly repudiated. ~ Kalki 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Quotes do not manufacture themselves out of thin air. If the earliest source for this with a name attached to it is Huberman, then it is still misattributed, either properly attributable to Huberman, or (if Huberman cares to point to an earlier source) to an anonymous author. The fact is, even if the quote was manufactured by an anon right here, it has now made the news and ought to be included for the very purpose of disproving that it was said by Limbaugh (we have numerous examples of pages where we disprove manufactured quotes attributed to famous people). BD2412 T 21:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people are ahead of us in asking Jack Huberman and the Nation for the air date. They have been stone-walled. I heard, and I believe the transcript will contain, a demand for a retraction from Huberman and everyone who used the Huberman quotes downstream without fact-checking them. patsw 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vidiot's addition of the Limbaugh's denial quotes are ok for now but remember this is not a newspaper or a blog. The jury is out on whether there's special and permanment significance to these denials. patsw 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: These quotes have been around for years now, with no attribution besides a single book that did not list its source. I tried to get the quotes removed for months, and was fought tooth and nail every time. After a long battle, a compromise was finally made to put them in a “Disputed” section. And now, that Limbaugh himself had denied the quotes, his denials (and statements about slavery) may not have “special and permanent significance”?? Pardon me, but I find it supremely ironic that it is nearly impossible to get patently false quotes removed, yet you resist adding actual quotes that refute the false ones. The Vidiot 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually this has a long history of this false quote being around for 4 years or so without any repudiation and wasn't noticed until now. This is starting in 2005, not 2006 which is when Huberman's book came out if that's correct. The original quote originated here at wikiquote by this [4]. It seems to me that Huberman took that quote from wikiquotes as factual without creditting wikipedia hence why there probably is no source in his book whatsoever. If colleges don't accept wikipedia as a source for papers, Huberman probably did the same. Especially when you read this post [5] the Cobra guy claiming "I'm not the ORIGINATOR of the quote." but extensive research shows that he is the sole person pushing this quote extremely hard on the internet when you put in James Earl Ray quote alone and you're more likely to find Cobra attached to it. At best you can likely assume he is the originator of the quote despite his statement suggesting otherwise.
I noticed those quotes over a year ago, could not find any reliable sources for them (except for numerous citations of Wikiquote), and tried to have them removed. I was fought every time for “trying to censor information” and “being a Limbaugh fanboy.” I was finally able to get them moved to a “Disputed” section, though even that came with great resistance. The Vidiot 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[6] Looking at this IP address, the quote first came into fruition from this person at edit: *"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed. [2/21/03] which was later changed to *"You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed. [4/23/98]. The edit was done in the span of 3 minutes and the only thing changed between the two was the date and that date was the day James Earl Ray died. I wish I can find the date where the sources are then attributed to Huberman but it's long and there's alot of edits to look through to find it. Unfortunately I think wikipedia is at fault here because the quote was undisputed all these years and resurrected over and over again because of people with biases against Rush Limbaugh. ViriiK 20:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe I've found a false quote but this time attributed to Sean Hannity which he supposedly says "I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." which gets alot of google hits but like the Rush quote above it's posted by the same person. [7] and it's still on Sean Hannity's page. Despite the fact that Sean Hannity is a political pundit I don't think he actually said that because the statement like the James Earl Ray would be too controversial. The edit comes 5 days after he claims is when Sean Hannity said the quote and google reveals no direct sources other than people repeating what is cited on wikiquote. ViriiK 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Link: "It is self-evidently the complete fabrication of someone with a wiki account, which was then picked up by the unscrupulous Huberman and reported as fact (with no citations at all) in his book. The other, also attributed to Huberman, has never been sourced, and Huberman has never cited any original article, or even given any indication as to when this alleged statement was made. Of course, these facts make it utterly impossible to refute the claim; without any date or context, Rush cannot even call witnesses who were present during the alleged confirmation to confirm or deny that he ever made such a statement. [...] And worse, idiots like Whitlock seem to think that it’s entirely appropriate to believe this completely unsourced accusation:

    Limbaugh claimed on his radio show Monday that his staff could not find any proof that he ever joked about slavery. I’m sorry. Limbaugh doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters.

    "See? In Jason Whitlock’s world, anyone at any time can claim that some unidentified person told them that Rush Limbaugh said [X], at a time and place they can’t identify, and if it touches on anything racial, it is fair to assume that Rush really said it because he doesn’t get 'the benefit of the doubt.'"Justmeherenow 23:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems that Rush is more interested in defending his honor and integrity than suing Wikipedia. He is demanding apologies from other broadcasters. At the same time, many watch what Wikipedia will do. Do good! Charles Edwin Shipp 69.224.42.128 00:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

They say they know who the wikicontributor was? (See here or else here.)Justmeherenow 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course we know who it was - this is a wiki after all, we record all of that. It was User:69.64.213.146, which is probably a traceable IP. BD2412 T 03:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's in charge here, anyway?[edit]

From Tom Van Dyke Tom van dyke 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)October 13, 2009]: Who's in charge here, anyway?

Because the problem starts with the structure of this Limbaugh Wikiquote entry, which begins with his most controversial [and criticizable] quotes, and that suggests a partisan agenda. Actually, it's quite blatant. Who's in charge here?

Intellectual honesty requires that Limbaugh first be permitted to explain himself ["I am equal time," his manifesto, referring to his charge that America's mass media is left-leaning and he is the needed balance]. Criticisms of Limbaugh should have second place, not first, unless the purpose of Wikiquote is to put its subject on trial, rather than to inform.

So too, that some or many of the controversial quotes are thinly-sourced [originating with someone or something called "Flush Rush"] puts Wikiquote in the position of possibly spreading disinformation instead of rectifying it. This is a complete betrayal of Wiki principles.

A proper and principled Limbaugh entry would start with his Greatest Hits like "I am equal time," then move to criticism and controversy, then perhaps move to a more copious open section, then move to [2 Quotes About Limbaugh], whatever Keith Olbermann thinks about him, although that is of no more educational value than what Limbaugh thinks of Olbermann.

This Wikiquote entry needs to clean up its act, and pronto. There's a way that both Limbaugh and his critics can be fairly heard in this entry without making a joke of the Wiki. Who's in charge here?

Who's in charge here? It's a wiki - you are! BD2412 T 03:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---I'm in charge here? Not exactly. I put Limbaugh's quote up---about driving off a bridge with a girl in the car and still getting elected if he were a Democrat---several weeks ago before this controversy broke, because this Limbaugh entry struck me as blatantly partisan, starting with controversy rather than quotes that explain what Rush Limbaugh is about, in his own words. Someone demoted it to the secondary section of Rush Limbaugh Show quotes, which should appear first, not second behind the controversial/thinly-sourced quotes.

The problem is the structure of this entry, which rigs the game. The first entry as it stands is that Rush Limbaugh is a racist. And who was that "someone" who demoted the Kennedy quote, doyathink? I want to know---who's in charge here, because he or she is not doing a judicious job. Is "Kalki" in charge here? It's hard to tell.

Or, perhaps you're right, that I am in charge here, if I make fair-minded and persuasive arguments. That would be cool. I'd object to any Al Gore entry that started with criticisms and controversies about his manifesto, too.

[The Al Gore entry doesn't, does it? My point exactly. Let's just make this entry fair and right, goose and gander.]

Well, I think you get it. All wiki-projects are democracies of the willing. We're volunteers, probably very few of whom care about what Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore said. I, for example, am happily kept busy plugging in public domain quotes from 19th century collections. However, I am concerned about the integrity of the project, so where a problem arises from the sort of injudicious placement to which you refer, I'm open to helping resolve it. As it happens, I am also an intellectual property attorney with a fair amount of experience in defamation matters, so my baseline is what we need to do to avoid liability. Beyond that, policing the layout of this entry is not a cause for which I choose to volunteer. BD2412 T 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the sequence of quotes: it has been long standing policy, for many reasons, including keeping the structures as simple as possible, as well as attempting to minimize contentions between various partisan factions, that ALL articles on people be arranged with a section that list quotes chronologically, and if there are enough quotes from any particular works to merit separate sections, quotes for these works arranged chronologically. There are still probably some articles created before that policy was established which no one has bothered to correct, and there are still probably a few which get created which violate it — but there is a very small group of regular editors here, and most of us do not have any great interest in a great many of the articles which get created, and don't have time to handle all that we would actually like to work on. I actually have rarely edited this page to add anything to it, tried to maintain it in proper form on the occasional periods when I pay it much mind, and there are a vast array of subjects and people who interest me far more than Mr. Limbaugh. ~ Kalki 04:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to Limbaugh admirers — if you wish a clearly positive Limbaugh statement to lead the article, simply find a notable quote of such nature, as early as possible in his career, and post it. I actually prefer positive quotes by people to lead most pages, but again, the actual arrangement is determined by chronology, not by preferences. ~ Kalki 05:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have over 4K edits on Wikipedia but I am a newbie here, are there essays or guidelines for Wikiquotes, or at least an example of a good article on a conservative political figure here, observing the Limbaugh's Wikiquote article is not one? patsw 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In examining this wiki, I note there are very few administrators, it appears the admin board is not commonly reviewed. Policy and guidelines here are very underdeveloped and almost nonexistant in some areas. Things like this situation are obviously fall under the Foundations BLP policy, but there is not customized BLP policy in place on this site, as far as I can tell. That is something that needs developed. As I see it, the site has very little policy and very few active admins to enforce the policy. 72.245.53.146 15:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true, we have fewer admins than projects such as Wikipedia. Perhaps people feel that gathering quotes together is not as sexy as writing full-blown encyclopedia articles. We have been working on developing policies designed to conform with legal concerns, and have incorporated them into pages such as Wikiquote:Limits on quotations and Wikiquote:Quotability. Because of our smaller numbers, it simply takes longer to get these things done. BD2412 T 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Huberman's source for the slavery and the James Earl Ray quotes[edit]

So did this author give the air date or a source for the quotes? patsw 12:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

At 8:30am ET, it looks like there's been:

  • Reporting of Limbaugh's denial
  • No source (and no retraction nor affirmation) of the quotes by Jack Huberman
  • No retractions by the many media outlets that circulated the quotes
  • No reporting anywhere of a discovery of an appearance anywhere of the quotes prior to their anonymous appearance in Wikiquote.

Is that a fair summary? patsw 12:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the link to Redstate provided above by User:Justmeherenow above, it leads to a blog called Smash Mouth Politics which refers back to the guy Rush pointed to on RushLimbaugh.com, a guy named Cobra (that website will probably be wiped clean right soon I bet). I hope I got that timeline correct, but you can follow it yourself with the provided links.
There has been a semi-retraction from the STL Post-Dispatch simply titled Editor's note, but they just state they are researching further. Bryan Burwell issued a mocking non-retraction. Hope these help. --207.206.136.225 15:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nation explains its sourcing of the slavery and James Earle Ray quotes[edit]

w:The Nation, Jack Huberman's publisher (w:101 People Who Are Really Screwing America 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. ISBN 1560258756. ), has cited its source (via w:National Public Radio):

It has been out in the ether for years.
Circular reasoning does not qualify as a source. Either get a real source or buzz off.65.29.98.219 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of original insertion tracked[edit]

The blog post is on

and is further developed here

The identification given for the anonymous editor is Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. I'm entering this here to track the discussion happening outside of this page. patsw 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Rush Limbaugh discussed this on his show at approx 12:15 ET on 16 October 2009. We will probably have the transscript after the show ends. patsw 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)