Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Hollywood values

2008-03-06T04:08:42Z

Factcheck: /* Tate */

This obviously needs more stuff, but I stub'd it so the red link on the main page went away.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 22:58, 22 January 2008 (EST)

:Unlike reality, which clearly has none of these things. Perhaps a random use of the word "glamourization" is in order? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:01, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barikada, I think that's a central point! It's not only disrespect for morals, it's flagrant glamorization of lack of morals! I'll leave it to you to add it, but good call.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 19:59, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - please stop reinserting the unsubstantiated information into the article. Thank you. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

MexMax - any and all talk of whether Heath Ledger's death was due to 'Hollywood Values' should be left until AFTER the autopsy and inquest have been published. Mr. Schalfly's previous version of the article was based on a celebrity gossip article, and has been superceded by real information from the police. [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 23:40, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:I'm sorry for jumping the gun. That seems truthful, I apologize for reverting without looking closer. I thought we were just doing the same edit war over and over again...[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::One point: I think the MTV article should be treated as, errr, second best. Is there a better citation? I think we'd rather not cite to MTV unless we have no other chance.[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 23:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Possible Inclusions==

A few suggestions for the list, off the top of my head: Marilyn Monroe would be a prime (and notorious) example. Chris Farley, who's stated goal was to live and die like Belushi. Janis Joplin. Anna Nicole Smith. Freddie Prinze. Rock Hudson. And depending on how comprehensive you want the list to be, there's an almost endless parade of people who were more famous as part of a group than as individuals, such as Keith Moon or Dennis Wilson.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 08:16, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:I did a search for Hollywood liberals and came up with [http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ this] website. On the front page I see that the cops are invertviewing Mary Kate Olsen about the suspicious circumstances in Ledger's death, David Copperfield has had two childred out of wedlock, Britney Spears is finally making it to her custody hearing to see if she can stay off drugs long enough to take care of her own kids, and Kiefer Sutherland is being let out of jail after a DUI charge. Hollywood values at their best! (Or should I say worst?) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:13, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If an MTV reference is frowned upon, I can hardly see a credible argument for references to The National Enquirer? It's not exactly known for its adherence to fact-based logic, is it? [[User:Misterlinx|Misterlinx]] 12:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

:Why not? I bet they had articles on every one of the people we have in the article right now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:21, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::There's a reason that tabloids are also known as "Gossip rags." [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)

The people putting these lists together do not seem to realize that in making a case linking "Hollywood values"--not coherently defined in the article, by the way--to early death or criminality it is not enough simply to cite examples; it needs to be demonstrated that these alleged consequences are ''more likely'' to occur to those who adopt these values than to the general population. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==Heath Ledger==

How did Hollywood values contribute to his death? [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 04:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:It is clear upon reviewing [[User_talk:Fox#Heath_Ledger|this]] and [[Talk:Main_Page#Milking_deaths_for_political_gain|this]] that nobody has justified how Hollywood values contributed to Ledger's death. We all acknowledge that during his life he probably did take drugs and was a selfish individual, however there is no evidence that his overdose on legal prescription drugs was a suicide attempt or reasonably affected by his drug habit. Given that the example is used in the context of death ("Hollywood values are deadly. Some examples include:") then I think it would be prudent to remove Ledger's entry until sufficient evidence connecting Hollywood to his death has been found, otherwise we are just sponsoring gossip. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 07:22, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Of what significance is it that he was found naked in his bed? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 11:20, 7 February 2008 (EST)

==So?==

So? What does this article intend to prove? What is its thesis? Is this article intended to somehow connect the unfortunate deaths of some people who got too involved in drugs or alcohol as an indicator that hollywood films are a bad influence?
Is this article supposed to somehow connect these so-called "Hollywood Values" with liberal politics?
Last time I checked, Rush Limbaugh had had an embarrassing addiction to opiate painkillers, George W. Bush had admitted to a cocaine problem, and Mel Gibson had such a drinking problem that he was accusing "the Jews" of all the evils that had ever plagued him. These three men, for example, are CONSERVATIVES. Mel Gibson even functions as part of the industry centered in HOLLYWOOD. Why is good ol' Mel not mentioned in this article?
Is the anti-liberal bias in this article too overwhelming to include even one conservative who's had problems?
Or, as I suspect, is Conservapedia wearing the type of blinders that see any conservative's troubles with drugs or alcohol as a momentary temptation by the liberal side?

If you simply blame everything on your opponents, all the time, then you never have to think it through or acknowledge reality. Seems to be the basic M.O. here.

I, for one, fail to see how Heath Ledger's accidental death from combining the wrong medications (all of which seem to have been prescribed for him) as indicative of a "Hollywood Value" system. Well, I'm sure the response will go like this: "He was NAKED! Surely, nakedness is indicative of SOME evil-doing. After all, LIBERALS SLEEP NAKED! No God-fearing person should sleep sans pajamas!"

I'm disgusted.

[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

== What about Britney Spears? ==

Britney is a very famous person, and hasn't she been to rehab?
Shouldn't she be mentioned in connection with "Hollywood Values"?
Just a suggestion. [[User:MikeSchwartz|MikeSchwartz]] 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Not entirely accurate ==

This article doesn't really give an accurate definition of the phrase, 'Hollywood Values'. I don't really blame you, as it is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately define it. I also made this point on the 'Liberal Denial' Talk Page, so I'll just copy the relevant part of what I said here:

This phrase means different things to different people. Simply Googling the phrase gives many different meanings. To some, 'Hollywood values' means exactly what Conservapedia says it means. To others, it is summarised as, 'Save a tree, kill a baby. Ban cigarettes, legalize pot. Screw the Iraqi’s, save Darfur. McCarthy is bad, Castro is good. Bush is Hitler, Che is a hero. Save the planet, live in a mansion.' To still others, it means being very egotistical, not very well grounded in reality, and not having a lot of common sense. To yet others, it's all about doing anything at all, as long as you're paid enough. And, by far, that is not a complete list of the various different things this phrase actually means to various different people. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:48, 13 February 2008 (EST)

It should also be noted that the meaning of 'Hollywood Values', according to some, is directly contradicted by what others mean by 'Hollywood Values'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:50, 13 February 2008 (EST)

== Wikilinks ==

Why are all these actors, singers, etc. wikilinked? Do we plan to have articles on them all? I removed most of them at some point, but I see they were added back. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Crime ==
For the crime section, please stick to actual crimes. Maybe there could be another section for offensive comments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:TBH Roger, I think the linked [[Mel Gibson]] article covers it sufficiently, so - in Gibson's case at least - there's probably no need to mention it in the article at all. But perhaps you're right that there should be a section for those celebs who have demonstrated consistent/repeated immoral behaviour/outbursts but have stopped short of actually breaking the law. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

==Hollywood==

Why are musicians and athletes included in an article about [[Hollywood]]? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 14:34, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== What do we do? ==

Even if Hollywood values are in fact a problem, what can we possibly do about it? Make extramarital and premarital sex illegal? Or just force everyone to convert to Christianity? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]] 23:18, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Bix Biederbecke ==

Not really a "Hollywood" star - Jazz musicians at the time were more liable to spend their lives in NY (as he did), Chicago, or New Orleans. Lots of jazz musicians, of course, had serious addiction problems, but it's not really intellectually honest to lump in struggling musicians - many of America's greatest jazz artists never made much money - in with wealthy movie stars. Remove? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:56, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Who compiled this silly list? ==

Bix Biederbecke is hardly the only problem here. What about Brian Epstein? What did he have to do with Hollywood? What about Sid Viscious? Hollywood? I hardly think so. Richard Jeni suffered from clinical depression. Do you think that might have had something to do with his suicide? Clara Blandick was in pain and facing blindness. What has her suicide got to do with Hollywodd values? Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson family. Why is she in the article? The circumstances of Virginia Rappe's death remain unknown and controversial. What has Heath Ledger's accidental overdose got to do with Hollywood or any other values? What has John Bonham got to do with Hollywood? The inquest into the death of Kenneth Williams returned an open verdict as it was not posibble to determine whether his overdose was accidental. In any case he was suffering from declining health and depression at the time.

This is extremely sloppy work. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 22:33, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Tate ==

Tate was murdered. How is that her fault? Maybe that part should just mention the Manson Family--a depraved group, indeed. [[User:Cisnon|Cisnon]] 22:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)

reply to the above criticisms (prior to Tate): [[liberals]] become so literal when it becomes a basis for censoring things they don't like. [[Hollywood values]] are not literally confined to Hollywood, California, and, by the way, things like depression and overdosing on prescription drugs are a symptom of [[Hollywood values]] and occur in that group in far higher percentages than the general public. Please, no [[liberal denial]] on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)

As to Tate, I welcome more information before censoring it from the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:Again, I think [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor censor] has a different meaning than [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delete delete.] Now, I'm no big city lawyer. Wait, yes I am.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: Riiight... So, any time any entertainer somewhere in the (English speaking?) world suffers depression or overdoses on drugs, whether legal or prescription, whether accidentally or on purpose, that goes to show that "Hollywood values" (whatever they are) are evil. Did I say sloppy work? I withdraw that. I meant stupid, religiously driven nonsense. --[[User:VincentMC|VincentMC]] 23:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:::Listing a pregnant murder victim as somehow indicative of "Hollywood values" is a disgrace. Sharon Tate did nothing to encourage Charles Manson to murder her; no aspect of her behavior or beliefs can excuse that, or played any role in it. Perhaps we should list her fetus as another sinner who deserved to be murdered? -- [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 23:08, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Vitamin

2007-04-24T19:45:12Z

Factcheck: vitamin K is not potassium!

A '''vitamin''' is a [[chemical]] substance required, in very small amounts, to maintain an organism's health. They act as a catalyst in the body's chemical reaction. It cannot be produced by the organism, and so must be obtained from dietary or other sources. In order for a substance to be classified as a vitamin, its deficiency must produce a specific [[disease]]. For example, ascorbic acid is a vitamin ([[Vitamin C]]) in humans because its absence produces [[scurvy]], a lack of Vitamin D will result in [[rickets]], and thiamine is a vitamin (Vitamin B1) because its absence produces [[beriberi]]. There are exactly thirteen known human vitamins.

Some substances are vitamins in certain organisms, but not in others (for example, ascorbic acid can be produced by all [[mammal]]s except [[guinea pig]]s and [[human]]s, and so is a vitamin only in those two instances.

Other substances needed to sustain life are not vitamins because they are macronutrients (for example, the essential amino acids).<ref>Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 16th Edition by Dennis L. Kasper, Eugene Braunwald, Anthony Fauci, and Stephen Hauser, 2004</ref>

==List of Vitamins==
* [[Vitamin A]]
* Vitamin B1
* Vitamin B2
* Vitamin B3
* Vitamin B4
* Vitamin B5
* Vitamin B6
* Vitamin B9
* Vitamin B12
* [[Vitamin C]]
* [[Vitamin D]]
* [[Vitamin E]]
* [[Vitamin K]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Anita Bryant

2007-03-31T22:20:46Z

Factcheck: /* Hatred is bad */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}
Let's talk about this sentence before we get all hot about it...okay? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Moved by her Christian faith ==

How did Anita Bryant's Christian faith motivate her to lobby for hateful laws? Form as [[Jesus]] said, "Love the Lord the God above all others, and love thy neighbor as thyself." This has always mystified me ... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: You've been misled by the liberal media. Please read the facts and feel free to suggest any factual additions or modifications. No one disputes that Bryant was inspired by her Christian faith, and the claims of her "hate" were much exaggerated for political purposes. Her legislative efforts were affirmed by the public and the court system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, I don't feel misled -- I suppose I just have a different notion of what counts as "love" and "hate" -- if you love someone, you would probably not wish to drum up legislation which will reduce that person's rights in a democratic society. At any rate, if (as appears certain), Ms. Bryant indeed felt "moved by her Christian faith" to do something, then that can and should be stated as a fact, so I don't see any reason to modify that particular passage. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 14:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No one who '''''is''''' misled '''''feels''''' misled. The bible condemns homosexuality. If you love someone you would probably do all you can to get them to turn from their sin. And if you love your country you will likewise do all you can to prevent it from condoning sin. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Boethius, you seem to have assumed that laws opposing homosexual acts are "hateful". Is this correct? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose that's arguable Ed, but she supported discrimination against gays. I would argue that is hateful. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:15, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Category==
Since this page is locked, can someone please add [[Category|Women]] (the category) to it? Thanks.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 08:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hatred is bad ==

Why would you spotlight a homophobe?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"'''Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa."'''
Could someone please add a possible date to this assault? From the article it sounds like it happened last week, not 30 years ago. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: And why do we even care about her? She sounds like a bigot, not a conservative.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::I honestly don't understand why people don't spend more time at homeless shelters, feeding the hungry, providing medical care to the poor, delivering meals to the aged, and lobbying for legislation to help with these goals, rather than wasting so much time and effort on "gay stuff", but it's your time to do with you see fit.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== early? ==
In what sense was she an "early" opponent of homosexuality? History didn't begin in 1970. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 18:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Radiocarbon dating

2007-03-24T02:41:41Z

Factcheck:

Radiocarbon dating is a method for estimating the age of organic material by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 present. This technique is based on the measured concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, assuming relative stability, and uses the [[half-life]] of carbon-14, which is 5568 ± 30 years.

When the age of the material is a few thousand years old, the assumptions become more important and the estimates are less reliable. Sometimes due to atmospheric disturbances the level of carbon-14 varies. For example, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere nearly doubled the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. For this reason, other isotopes with longer half-lives are used to date objects beyond the accuracy levels of carbon-14. For instance, the decay of potassium-40 is often used to accurately date dinosaur fossils.
Often concentrations of other materials such as argon can render carbon dates wildly inaccurate. Thus carbon dating cannot be considered as a definitive way of establishing the age of a given sample.

Radiocarbon dating

2007-03-24T02:41:12Z

Factcheck: showing a range already means approximate

Radiocarbon dating is a method for estimating the age of organic material by measuring the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 present. This technique is based on the measured concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere,assuming relative stability, and uses the [[half-life]] of carbon-14, which is 5568 ± 30 years.

When the age of the material is a few thousand years old, the assumptions become more important and the estimates are less reliable. Sometimes due to atmospheric disturbances the level of carbon-14 varies. For example, testing of [[nuclear bomb|nuclear weapons]] in the atmosphere nearly doubled the concentration of carbon-14 in the Northern Hemisphere. For this reason, other isotopes with longer half-lives are used to date objects beyond the accuracy levels of carbon-14. For instance, the decay of potassium-40 is often used to accurately date dinosaur fossils.
Often concentrations of other materials such as argon can render carbon dates wildly inaccurate. Thus carbon dating cannot be considered as a definitive way of establishing the age of a given sample.

Frankenstein

2007-03-22T03:13:43Z

Factcheck: Henry?

'''Frankenstein''' is a novel by Mary Shelley, describing the life and actions of Victor Frankenstein, who succeeds in animating a corpse sown together from various body parts. The creature is at first friendly, but after it is treated harshly it becomes bitter and resolves to kill its master. After Frankenstein dies of pneumonia, the creature commits [[suicide]]. The book was made into a film in 1931 (see [[Frankenstein (1931 film]]), which changes the plot and characters.

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-15T00:02:02Z

Factcheck: /* Parkinson's */

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-15T00:00:43Z

Factcheck: less nonsense

'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a conservative American radio talk show host.

==The Rush Limbaugh Show==
Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denounciations of anything liberal. He is often at odds with liberal Al Franken<ref>[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial</ref>. Limbaugh's vitriolic style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's 1994 Congressional victories"<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times</ref>.
Rush's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 13.5 million listeners weekly, making Rush the #1 Radio Talk Show Host.<ref>
[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online</ref>

==The Limbaugh Letter==
The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

==1/2 Hour News Hour==
Rush has appeared on the 1/2 Hour News Hour "comedy" show on the Fox News Channel. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

==Controversy==
Limbaugh underwent a scandal several years ago when his housekeeper was caught purchasing prescription narcotics, and it was revealed that Limbaugh was addicted to prescription drugs. He has since claimed to have been rehabilitated.

Another scandal occured when Limbaugh made a joke in which he allegedly referring to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog". Chelsea was thirteen at the time. Limbaugh, however denied that he was talking about Chelsea, stating that he was not making a joke, and Chelsea's picture was accidentally put up on the screen<ref>MotherJones: [http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html "Lyin' Bully"]</ref>.

Limbaugh has also been criticized for his comments regarding Michael J. Fox's participation in Claire McCaskill's 2006 senate campaign in Missouri. In his radio broadcast, Limbaugh criticized a campaign commercial Fox filmed in support of McCaskill's position on stem cell research. Limbaugh accused Fox of being off his medication in order to generate sympathy. In the commercial, Fox is visibly swaying and moving in sudden, jerky movements which are the symptom of Parkinson's Disease, and the reason the acclaimed actor quit the hit show [[Spin City]].<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2006-10-24-limbaugh-fox_x.htm], USA Today</ref>

Another scandal occurred when Limbaugh was returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic and customs officials found him illegally carrying Viagra prescribed to another man in his luggage.<ref>CBS on Limbaugh's Viagra[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/27/national/main1753947.shtml]</ref>

==Trivia==
*He is deaf in his left ear.
*He has six toes on his left foot.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]
[[Category:Biographies]]

King James Bible

2007-03-13T18:06:40Z

Factcheck:

The King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the Bible was the culmination of 11 years of work by about 80 English scholars, authorized by King James I of England. The result was a poetic masterpiece that profoundly influenced the English-speaking world ever since. It was not the first English translation ([[William Tyndale]] had previously translated the Bible into English, and much of the Authorised Version was taken from Tyndale's version) or the most accurate (modern translations benefit from better sources). Some mistakes in the translation of the King James Bible exist in very important passages. But the King James Version of the Bible was the most majestic and it has inspired English literature from [[Herman Melville]] to [[Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]] to [[William Shakespeare]] (claimed by some to have been one of the translators) to the [[Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.]]

For example, many cite Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech without acknowledging its source in the translation of Isaiah 66:6:

"I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

The King James Version of the Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, codified in the Middle Ages. The New Testament was primarily based on Greek texts predating the Latin Vulgate. F. H. A. Scrivener, however, notes many passages which correspond to the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek.<ref>F. H. A. Scrivener, ''The New Testament in Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version''. Cambridge: University Press, 1881; The appendix on pp. 655-6 gives a list of the passages corresponding exactly with the Latin Vulgate against the Greek.</ref> The King James Version is freely and fully available for searching online.<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/108/</ref>

The King James Version used italics to indicate words that had no exact equivalent in the original text, but had been supplied by the translators for various reasons, usually to make the text read properly in English. A modern reader is used to seeing italics used for emphasis; their use in the King James Version creates a strange impression, and sometimes even an unintended comic effect:
*And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled ''him''. (1 Kings 1:27)
Many modern editions of the King James Version omit the italicization.

----

'''References:''' <references/>
[[Category:Bible]]

Vitamin

2007-03-11T04:00:49Z

Factcheck:

A vitamin is a chemical substance required, in very small amounts, to maintain an organism's health. It cannot be produced by the organism, and so must be obtained from dietary or other sources. In order for a substance to be classified as a vitamin, its deficiency must produce a specific disease. For example, ascorbic acid is a vitamin (Vitamin C) in humans because its absence produces scurvy, and thiamine is a vitamin (Vitamin B1) because its absence produces beriberi. There are exactly thirteen known human vitamins.

Some substances are vitamins in certain organisms, but not in others (for example, ascorbic acid can be produced by all mammals except guinea pigs and humans, and so is a vitamin only in those two instances.

Other substances needed to sustain life are not vitamins because they are macronutrients (for example, the essential amino acids).

<ref>Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 16th Edition by Dennis L. Kasper, Eugene Braunwald, Anthony Fauci, and Stephen Hauser, 2004</ref>

==References==
<references/>

King James Bible

2007-03-10T05:26:22Z

Factcheck: removing silly error

The King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the Bible was the culmination of 11 years of work by about 80 English scholars, authorized by King James I of England. The result was a poetic masterpiece that profoundly influenced the English-speaking world ever since. It was not the first English translation ([[William Tyndale]] had previously translated the Bible into English, and much of the Authorised Version was taken from Tyndale's version) or the most accurate (modern translations benefit from better sources). Some mistakes in the translation of the King James Bible exist in very important passages. But the King James Version of the Bible was the most majestic and it has inspired English literature from [[Herman Melville]] to [[Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]] to [[William Shakespeare]] (claimed by some to have been one of the translators) to the [[Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.]]

For example, many cite Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech without acknowledging its source in the translation of Isaiah 66:6:

"I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

The King James Version of the Bible was based on ancient Hebrew and Greek sources rather than the Latin Vulgate. The King James Version is freely and fully available for searching online.<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/208/</ref>

The King James Version used italics to indicate words that had no exact equivalent in the original text, but had been supplied by the translators for various reasons, usually to make the text read properly in English. A modern reader is used to seeing italics used for emphasis; their use in the King James Version creates a strange impression, and sometimes even an unintended comic effect:
*And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled ''him''. (1 Kings 1:27)
Many modern editions of the King James Version omit the italicization.

----

'''References:''' <references/>