Limbaugh is always popular Options

[EricBarbour]

If you guys like stupid Wiki-bullshit......try the Limbaugh-Fluke article.
Especially the talkpage.

Please read the article on Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Summary style. This is not a "second article". It's meant to be the only article on the Sandra Fluke controversy. In fact, I think it's a good idea to move it there.

I'd prefer to have only short summaries of the media incident at Sandra Fluke or Rush Limbaugh, with the long version here.

But I won't edit war, even though I spent a lot of time discussing this beforehand and actually doing it. If the consensus is against me, I'll go with the flow. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes Since to Me

I think the Sandra Fluke article should be integrated into this one. There is no reason to have a topic on Sandra Fluke except for this topic. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Even better :

Sandra Fluke needs too keep her own page

To merge her with Rush Limbaugh is an insult to this young woman. Merge the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy to her page on Wikipedia.

She is an important and newsworthy person in her own right and I am betting we hear more from her.

Instead of merging everything towards Limbaugh as if he is the important one here is a negative to all women who are outraged by his conduct and who seeks to learn more about this woman. I just Google her today and her bio page is where I went, not his and not the controversy page.

Keep her page and merge the dispute to her page. This is not the end of this I feel and she certainly is news worthy for her advocacy.

JoeyD2010 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The testimony added little to the overall debate, and was full of factual errors, couched in alleged heresay. Ms. Fluke's accomplishments are very modest thus far, and the story, while newsworthy BECAUSE of the controversy, is only newsworthy with it. The hearing was a minor staged event. She may become more significant, as she has political allies now, but that is speculation.216.236.252.234 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The move to from "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy" to " Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy"

What is the point behind that? I think it should be "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke Controversy" Casprings (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The use of the uppercase is resevered for what are termed "proper names". You see, this article has what we call a "made-up name only found on Wikipedia" and on this Wikipedia, we only reflect what is to be found in the sources. Speciate (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, btw, the Sandra Fluke AFD is epic.

(When did she become a "notable activist" anyway? Schmucks....oh looky, Ed Poor is one of the arm-flappers. Wonder if he's a "dittohead".)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 6th March 2012, 1:22am

[Ego Trippin' (Part Two)]

Countless people are navigating to an article, which is located on one of the world's highest-profile websites, which profiles an individual who is currently in the news in the U.S., and which features a deletion tag that's visible to everyone who sees the article. And some of those people aren't Wikipedia obsessives, and yet they're still trying to vote in the deletion discussion that is plainly linked from the article. There's only one reasonable explanation for this...

..."meatpuppetry"!

This could also be a {{not a ballot}} situation. Given the amount of media and blog attention Fluke has gotten, somebody's probably issued an e-call to arms, so it could multiple people all creating accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged 10 for spa, and someone has tagged others. It could be just because of the recent attention, but the similarities and volume make me think there is meatpuppet/sockpuppet action going on as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Ego Trippin' (Part Two): Thu 8th March 2012, 6:16pm