Jump to content

Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show: We learned a lot, didn't we (?)
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}}
{{skip to talk}}
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=C
{{Calm|#FFCCCC}}
|importance=mid
{{Not a forum}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{American English}}
{{Afd-merged-from|Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show|Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)|07 April 2010}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Radio|importance=mid}}
}}
}}
{{Annual readership|days=120}}
{{WikiProject Radio|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{afd-merged-from|Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show|Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)|07 April 2010}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(180d)
: ''Topics that dealt with the Jargon section have been moved to [[Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show]] now that it has been split off to form its own article, with the exception of the split proposal itself, which has been copied there.''
| archive = Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1
== Reception ==
| maxarchivesize = 120K
The reception to the show is obviously far to extensive to constitute only part of a page. This is why I created a new page entitled "[[Reception to The Rush Limbaugh Show]]." Right now the article is in very poor shape as I alone have created it. I invite all to expand and improve upon it. [[User:Rome455|Rome455]] ([[User talk:Rome455|talk]]) 07:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
: NOTE: It is no longer a Wikipedia page, FYI. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 5
== Wikipedia Mention ==
}}

I'll consider my call to El Rushbo my first contribution to Wikipedia :)
[[User:EddieH|EddieH]] 06:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Rush Limbaugh uses Wikipedia. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

== Third Wikipedia mention ==

Is there anything to back up the statement that Limbaugh said he would add words to Wikipedia? Did anyone out there hear him say it? It seems a little trivial for a national talk show host. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 19:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

: I heard it. From now until the end of the month, anyone can hear it by subscribing to Limbaugh's 24/7 service and listening to the audio archives for May 3. (Limbaugh's website maintains the previous four weeks' shows.)

: As for its triviality: the hoorah from Rush's first mention of Wikipedia is still fresh, so it served as a sort of inside joke for regular listeners. It was also a one-sentence, five-second aside; it isn't as if Rush wasted 5 minutes of air time on it. Honestly, the mention would be too trivial for Wikipedia if it weren't about Wikipedia. — [[User:DLJessup|DLJessup]] 23:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

: He also used wikipedia as a source when talking about how petroleum is formed. I don't recare the exact date. He said something to the effect of: "According to wikipedia..."

== Snerdley ==

It seems that there are other opinions on who Snerdly is. For example, some believe he is simply whoever the show's producer happens to be. Does anyone have more information on this? [[User:Orthografer|Orthografer]] 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
:: I wish I had a good source for this... I'm sure that one time I heard Rush explain that "Bo Snerdly" was a character that he created in his early days of radio. Whenever he would get a "brain-lock" and wouldn't be sure exactly what to say or where to go with the conversation, he feign a one-sided "conversation" with his broadcast engineer "Mr. Snerdly". Sometimes the stalling tactic would give Rush an opportunity to get his thoughts together before going on with the topic. Sometimes he would use it to deflect arguments that he knew his audience was going to have with him. He would present the counterpoint as if Bo was talking in his ear. That would give him a chance to refute the argument on his own terms before someone in his audience had a chance to make the point. If I had a good source for this, I'd put it in the article. I think it needs to be mentioned, but perhaps by somebody with more credibility than just my anecdotal recollections. [[User:Joedeshon|Joe]] 15:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If I could add my two cents... Bo Snerdly is an actual person, but Rush's interactions with him during the show's live broadcast could indeed be questioned, even today. I recall having the very same "existence of Snerdly" self-debate while listening to Rush during my Jr. High and High School years (Rush's early broadcast years). It wasn't until Rush featured Mr. Snerdly on his television show that my suspicions - as well as many others - of Bo's existence were quelled. This was on Janurary 21, 1993 where Bo Snerdly read a (believed) self-authored poem on-air. (See: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/best/angelou.member.html) You'll have to be a 24/7 member to view the video. Regardless, it is safe to state that Bo Snerdly is indeed the "Broadcast Observer" for Rush's show. At times, he is seen on the Ditto cam entering the studio to give or take an article from Rush. On some, even rarer occasions, "Snerdly" will fill-in whenever Rush unexpectedly leaves the studio during the show's broadcast hours. --[[User:Catboy02|Catboy02]] 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

:::The [[The Rush Limbaugh Show#Program staff|"Program staff" section of The Rush Limbaugh Show]] explains who Bo Snerdly and other members of the staff are. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 04:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh has indeed explained the "Snerdly" character as a broadcasting technique to stall until he can get his thoughts together. However, there IS, I believe, a "program observer" who is referred to as "Mr. Snerdley." On a small number of broadcasts, you can hear a faint echo of the staff voices in Limbaugh's headset, so there IS somebody talking to him during at least some of his "stalling" sessions. [[User:Bjsiders|Bjsiders]] 16:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

:If you mean that Limbaugh invents a fictional Snerdly for stalling and has ''explained'' it as such, I think you have misunderstood Limbaugh. There really is a Snerdly and his interruptions are real, and in fact, what they are saying sometimes can be heard over the air. In fact, I wish he'd give us listeners the option of hearing what the staff is telling him over the headset and on the computer in front of him. Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, and other have a much more relaxed format and the staff interacts with the host openly when the host is stuck for a word or thought. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

::I'll re-state. (1) Limbaugh HAS explained "Snerdly" as a stalling technique. (2) I think there is an actual program observing that he calls "Snerdly". (3) This person's interjections are heard, in some broadcasts, in Limbaugh's headphones. I'm not sure how you missed that in my comment, but hopefully that clears it up. [[User:Bjsiders|Bjsiders]] 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:::To pick up the discussion of a few years ago, you may be interested in a few points Rush made in the past. He does not have staff on mic because of NYC union/tax rules. However, he does listen to his long-time friend, Bo Snerdley for his insights and feedback. Staff is on "the other side of the glass" and Rush will tell us when they become agitated from caller comments, etc. As is noted in the Article, Mr. Bo Snerdley has been promoted to 'Program Observer' (hence off-mic comments to Rush), and further promoted to "Official Obama Criticizer" since he is "Black enough" (a reference to a Los Angeles Times article.) You can search Google with 'Bo Snerdley photo' for 30,000 hits. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Charles Edwin Shipp|contribs]]) 16:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The section regarding "Bo Snerdly" confuses the character of Snerdly with the person of James Golden. I propose that this section be rewritten by someone familiar with both the pseudonym Snerdly and Mr. Golden to more clearly denote where Golden as Snerdly is the subject and where the subject is someone else under the pseudonym Snerdly. [[User:Drziegler|Drziegler]] ([[User talk:Drziegler|talk]]) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it unbiased language to refer to Snerdly/Golden's commentary as a "rant"? [[Special:Contributions/192.55.54.36|192.55.54.36]] ([[User talk:192.55.54.36|talk]]) 19:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

:In searching for info for your editing purposes, it would be helpful to you to spell 'Snerdley' correctly. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 13:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

== Affiliate stations ==

[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rush.member.all.html Rush's own website] lists only 592 affiliate stations.

— [[User:DLJessup|DLJessup]] ([[User talk:DLJessup|talk]]) 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As noted, you can check current affiliate radio stations. <br>-- They come, they go, it's business. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

'''Current radio station count 1/1/2013:''' AL(19) + AK(6) + AZ(13) + AR(12) + CA(31) + CO(8) + CT(4) + DE(3) + DC(1) + FL(29) + GA(22) + HI(2) + ID(6) + IL(18) + IN(12) + IA(12) + KS(13) + KY(9) + LA(9) + ME(4) + MD(4) + MA(4) + MI(28) + MN(1) + MS(10) + MO(18) + MT(11) + NE(8) + NV(4) + NH(6) + NJ(2) + NM(9) + NY(18) + NC(20) + ND(5) + OH(19) + OK(9) + OR(16) + PA(27) + RI(1) + SC(12) + SD(4) + TE(13) + TX(29) + UT(9) + VT(2) + VA(14) + WA(14) + WV(8) + WI(15) + WY(9) = Total stations (582) "Without comment", [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 13:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

== Jargon (new page?) ==

It seems that jargon should be moved to a separate page, considering its vastness. The primary focus of the Rush Limbaugh show is not its own jargon, so I don't think that the primary focus of the article on his show should be his jargon. What do you say?[[User:Tixity|Tix]] 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

————

As the Nike ad says, I've just [[Wikipedia:Be bold|done it]].

— [[User:DLJessup|DLJessup]] ([[User talk:DLJessup|talk]]) 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

----

'''And we are back.''' ... <br> 'Jargon' lines (highlights only) are back (only in this main article). -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 13:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show ==

[[Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show]] was spun off from this article. The "Jargon" article is now the subject of an AfD which you can read about, vote, and comment here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show]] [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

: The AfD failed.

: — [[User:DLJessup|DLJessup]] ([[User talk:DLJessup|talk]]) 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

----

'''And we are back.''' ... <br> 'Jargon' lines (highlights only) are back (only in this main article). The link to the separate article redirects back to this article/section. To those that participated in the original edit-waring, it was a lot of fun and I ''really learned a lot''. Thanks for the memories. I'll be watching. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 13:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

== Staff ==

Does anyone want to make a guess as to what ''Rachel's'' role on the show is? [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
:I think she transcribes the show and/or what callers are saying since Rush has a hearing problem, as you must well know.
:: Plus she probably searches the web for current news in certain categories. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

== A very tiny nitpick, but it is Wikipedia, after all... ==

According to Limbaugh himself, every day he is on the air, the name of the show, officially, is "The Rush Limbaugh '''Program'''," not "The Rush Limbaugh '''Show'''." I don't know if that's too small a detail even for Wikipedia but I thought I'd let one of the more senior people handle it, considering it would involve moving what is probably a moderately-high traffic page (this one) and the dozens of pages that link to it. [[User:Mscudder|Mscudder]] 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:The official name of the program is "The Rush Limbaugh Show." I suggest that we leave it as it is. [[User:Bjsiders|Bjsiders]] 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:Do you think that <I>maybe</I> [[User:Mscudder|Mscudder]]'s observation - which is very correct - warrants submitting some sort of "AKA" or parenthetical mention on the mainpage???? [[User:Catboy02|Catboy02]] 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

::I agree... It deserves mention... [[User:12.26.68.146|12.26.68.146]] 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

{{done}} -- FYI, in case your wondered, the current Lede says, "The Rush Limbaugh Show (also called The Rush Limbaugh Program) is a conservative American talk radio show hosted by Rush Limbaugh on Premiere Radio Networks.[1] Since its nationally syndicated premiere in 1988, The Rush Limbaugh Show has become the highest-rated talk radio show in the United States." -- which covers both 'Show' and 'Program', in proper order. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


== Air America ==
== Air America ==
Line 114: Line 31:
jme[[User:66.72.215.225|66.72.215.225]]
jme[[User:66.72.215.225|66.72.215.225]]



== EIB's fictionality? ==

In the second paragraph the article reads:
"The Rush Limbaugh Show is part of the fictional Excellence in Broadcasting, or EIB Network, as well as the equally-fictional Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies."
I don't think that EIB is fictional, it just isn't a real organization. Anyone agree? And can anyone think of a better word for this sentence, or a better way to phrase it? [[User:SirParagon|SirParagon]] 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:EIB is an invention of Rush Limbaugh's own mind. In the early days of his show, it was nationally syndicated by EFM (I don't know what that stands for). But today it is a product of Premiere Radio Networks, a division of [[Clear Channel]]. The article should state the show is "part of the Premiere Radio Networks, but Rush Limbaugh identifies his program as part of the fictional EIB Network." [[User:Goeverywhere|Goeverywhere]] 04:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
::This section in the article reads very well now. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:Limbaugh has stated in the past that the EIB(Excellence in Broadcasting) Network is the name he chose for the *network* of radio stations that carry his program when asked by one of his business partners. It is not a fictional entity, rather, an actual NETWORK of 500+ unique stations that carry his program. [[User:EarlWhitehaven|EarlWhitehaven]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/214.27.58.33|214.27.58.33]] ([[User talk:214.27.58.33|talk]]) 18:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== NPOV ==
The lead section is a fawning passage to the importance and significance of the show, and really does not have anything to say about the show itself. It doesn't even identify it as a conservative talk radio show, and even goes as far as to name-drop Air America, as if it had any relevance in this article at all, let alone a basic introduction to the show. As such, I'm tagging this article as NPOV and ask its editors to consider writing this article not for your benefits but for the benefit of the hypothetical person who has never heard of the show, as any other encyclopedia article should be written. ''[[User:Hateless|hateless]]'' 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:It looks like the intro has been rewritten to address these concerns, so I've removed the NPOV tag. —[[User:Doug Bell|Doug&nbsp;Bell]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]</sup> 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

== Conversationalists across the fruited plain ==

On the [[America the Beautiful]] article, I recently added a "popular usage" section and to that I placed Rush's "Greetings, conversationalists across the fruited plain" as having borrowed on the hymn. In that article's talk page, I said that I created the new section because the existing sections did not properly lend themselves to what's there. (For example, a parody song by George Carlin is in that section). The "jargon" article mentions "fruited plain, the" as an entry. Another editor suggested it belonged in the parody section (a section that is nonexistent). I stayed with the NPOV both in my article edit and my remarks on the talk page. Curious what comments are here. [[User:Fwgoebel|Fwgoebel]] 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:As a general rule, I'm not a big fan of pop-culture / trivia lists within the articles. That article looks like it has a large and basically useless "takeoffs" section. I wouldn't add Limbaugh to the list I would remove most of the list from the article as trivia, per [[WP:TRIVIA]] and [[Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles]]. That said, the Limbaugh ref is probably just as notable as all the others. --[[User:Dual Freq|Dual Freq]] 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== Armed Forces Radio controversy ==

This article failed to explain too much about this controversy. I guess it assumes that readers like me are already familiar with the situation, which I'm not. It doesn't say exactly what is controversial about it. Did he say something? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/63.245.145.91|63.245.145.91]] ([[User talk:63.245.145.91|talk]]) 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

I lived in Germany for 4 years private Citizen, not military, and having 107.8 the US radio staion (they're on the evens not odd's for the 1/10th of a Megahert)

Having NPR's news, although the same guys would call it AFN news, but it is the NPR guys, and Rush, and sports like the Superbowl really just made my day. for a while there I couldn't speak German at first, and I was just felt so disconnected except for AFN Radio [[User:Therubicon|Therubicon]] ([[User talk:Therubicon|talk]]) 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

: In answer to your question, "What's the Controversy?" it is simple: Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative. In 2007, Liberal Democrats in Congress tried to have his radio show removed from the Armed Forces Radio lineup -- one of his three hours is broadcast to servicemen (and women) and to Liberals, that is one hour too many. They also feel that our service men and women just can't get enough NPR radio, which is of the Liberal persuasion. Hope this short explanation helps. "Very Interesting", a line from Laugh-In. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== [[Media Matters]] as a [[WP:EL]] ==

The dossier has been repeatedly removed these links without giving a single reason on the talk. One user stated reasons for removing was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&diff=124787990&oldid=124766530 removed biased "watchdogs" per WP:EL / NPOV]. [[WP:EL]] is very clear: Websites that review material and offer analysis, but who's material "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail..." is acceptable. There is NOTHING in that section about avoiding links because of "POV." As this is a major website, that high number of traffic hits with reliable reporting there is no reason to exlude.

However, please explain what part of [[WP:NPOV]] you cited in order to remove it. In future, with the exception of vandalism removing material that was added by established users should discussed and not to start revert war. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbustoo]] 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&diff=126324682&oldid=126324361 Regarding the language change] it is [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:POV]] to claim theses are "press releases." Articles by [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] and [[Media Matters]] cannot be called "press releases" because a wikipedia user claims they are. Further, it is not worded in a neutral manner. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbustoo]] 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

::Rather than discuss the issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dual_Freq&diff=prev&oldid=126326450 the user refuses to address his claims]. [[User:Arbustoo|Arbustoo]] 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&diff=144978168&oldid=144679075 That user tried to remove the material again].

== Barack The Magic Negro ==
Incredible! Wikipedia has no mention of the offensive, racist "Barack The Magic Negro," song that Limbaugh has been playing on his program? Why is Wikipedia sanitizing Limbaugh's article? What's next: dropping all mentions to his Oxy addiction? Why on earth are Republicans spending time on "Conservapedia," when Wikipedia itself is so extremely biased in favor of the Right? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:66.169.155.6|66.169.155.6]] ([[User talk:66.169.155.6|talk]] </small>
::Give it up... You're not gonna convince him. Liberals believe what they wanna believe, and nothing'll ever change. During the time he was playing that song all the time, Rush explained over and over and over again that he didn't coin the phrase, and he wasn't calling Barack a magic negro, he was making fun of the fact that the L.A. Times called him a magic negro. If he actually listened to the show, he'd know that. In that light, why is he even reading this article?[[User:12.26.68.146|12.26.68.146]] 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is satire based upon words of the L.A Times. Wikipedia is hardly right slanted. I would call it mildly left myself. [[Special:Contributions/68.177.12.38|68.177.12.38]] ([[User talk:68.177.12.38|talk]]) 13:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center [[Special:Contributions/68.177.12.38|68.177.12.38]] ([[User talk:68.177.12.38|talk]]) 13:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Tape Delay ==

I have removed the reference to the program being aired on tape delay because WBAP now carries the program live and I am not aware of any major market radio station airing the program on tape delay to properly cite a tape delayed station. [[User:Checkmate911|Checkmate911]] 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:I put it back: There are other markets not listed in the article, including Syracuse, NY (one hour delay) and Rochester, NY (two hour delay), that do such. I don't feel it's necessary to make a full listing of them all as to do so would clog the article. On top of that, with the size of Texas, and their being more than one time zone in the state, it's difficult to know if it's being delayed (as the Rush website doesn't state it's a delay, it just displays the local air time). Perhaps a link to the stations (on the guest side, of course) would be in order. [[User:Fwgoebel|Fwgoebel]] 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

== Theme Song Issue ==

Virtually all of this is made up. Limbaugh probably pays royalties to whatever record company owns the song, like any song played on the radio. I have no idea whether Chrissie Hynde donates the profits to PETA, but she definitely doesn't get any money directly from Limbaugh. The radio business just doesn't work that way. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.196.47.105|98.196.47.105]] ([[User talk:98.196.47.105|talk]]) 06:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
----
found this dotdotdot page: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923659/really_randoms_chrissie_hynde_ricky_martin_jimmy_page
this url is also a ref or outlink on another wikipedia page (i think chrissie hynde page)

i also wonder why other surviving members ( i think only the drummer) or estates of pretenders members wouldn't have legal interest in royalties? [[User:2z2z|2z2z]] 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh pays an animal rights group, who he has denied to reveal, per the agreement with Hynde. [[Special:Contributions/68.177.12.38|68.177.12.38]] ([[User talk:68.177.12.38|talk]]) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== strung out sentence needs clarification ==

in [updates] section:
... Rush has started using the [[Mighty Mouse]] theme song, "Here I come to save the day!" and by the way, Hanoi John served in Vietnam.
I'll guess that end of sentence is rush's appending comment to lyric snippet?... therefore should be quoted like this:
Rush has started using the [[Mighty Mouse]] theme song, ' "Here I come to save the day!" and by the way, Hanoi John served in Vietnam.' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:2z2z|2z2z]] ([[User talk:2z2z|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2z2z|contribs]]) 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Limbaugh Sponsor? ==

Hey what is the company with the "double B" logo on Rush's chair? [[User:Grant.alpaugh|Grant.alpaugh]] ([[User talk:Grant.alpaugh|talk]]) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

*It's the "EIB" logo. [[User:Editor8472|Editor8472]] ([[User talk:Editor8472|talk]]) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
:Rush Limbaugh selected the term, "Excellence In Broacasting" when syndication began for The Rush Limbaugh Show — so what you see is his logo. It is branding and PR for his company. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 22:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Of course, it is on all the items in his online store.

== Operation Chaos ==

In the Operation Chaos section, the following sentence says that:

<blockquote>However, the state of Ohio later stated that they would not prosecute anyone over the operation, saying that it would be virtually impossible to enforce such an action because of the "right to assemble" in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.</blockquote>

Is there any reference that could confirm this? [[User:Editor8472|Editor8472]] ([[User talk:Editor8472|talk]]) 05:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

:Source: Limbaugh’s Lying Voters Under Investigation - The Nation 3/25/2008[http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=302317]--[[User:Infohack|Infohack]] ([[User talk:Infohack|talk]]) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Content in this section that cannot be sourced per [[WP:RS]] needs to be removed...none of the citations -- realclearpolitics, dailykos, youtube and rushlimbaugh -- even remotely meet the criteria for independent, objective news sources, especially for such a controversial subject as Rush Limbaugh. Please really review and cite specfic Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you want to keep this content. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 05:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see rushlimbaugh.com is not a reliable source for attributing what Limbaugh himself says on the air? Please. RealClearPolitics.com is now affiliated with [[Time Magazine]].[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/][[DailyKos]] is like it or not one of the most prominent political forums in the nation. [[YouTube]] is cited a gazillion times on Wikipedia and offers nothing more than visual documentation. Methinks someone is confusing "Wikipedia guidelines" and "[[censorship]]" <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.9.141.78|68.9.141.78]] ([[User talk:68.9.141.78|talk]]) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


: The youtube video is an audio clip from [[Mike Malloy]], a commentator and Limbaugh competitor, neither a reliable source nor objective. [[User:Biccat|Biccat]] ([[User talk:Biccat|talk]]) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:: I have replaced the Mike Malloy reference with a ref to an actual recording of the segment of the show where Rush says the words about rioting and burning cars. Hopefully this will put the matter to rest.[[User:Malatinszky|Malatinszky]] ([[User talk:Malatinszky|talk]]) 08:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


methinks, youthinks have nothing to do with sourcing per Wikipedia policies concerning [[WP:V|verifiability]]. Rush Limbaugh, YouTube, RealClearPolitics and other similar official/opinion/personal websites do not meet [[WP:RS]] for third-party, independent articles published with editorial oversight. Since Rush Limbaugh is a notable figure, any notable action and results should be easily documented per mainstream media articles meeting [[WP:RS]] and not need to be cobbled together from clearly POV sources. If the section cannot be sourced correctly...and to the stricter policies at [[WP:BLP]], it should be removed. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also define the what exact [[censorship]] you feel you are experiencing in editing this article. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] | [[User talk:Flowanda|Talk]] 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh Show on rushlimbaugh.com and YouTube audio clips of actual recordings of the program are reliable sources to document what was said on the show. [[User:Malatinszky|Malatinszky]] ([[User talk:Malatinszky|talk]]) 08:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the words "Since then much progress has been made as he has stated multiple times on the air. Hillary Clinton now legitimately has a chance to win the nomination. His goal is to also make the two use up money and "mud sling" each other." These statements have [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] problems.[[User:Malatinszky|Malatinszky]] ([[User talk:Malatinszky|talk]]) 08:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


The Operation Chaos section has a sentence about the Texas primaries that troubles me. It says "Statistics released by the state of Texas show Hillary Clinton won the primary due to a large number of Republicans crossing over to vote for her." I'm beginning to think that this is simply not true. I've tried and failed to find a citation supporting this, but I did find a CNN exit poll at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM, which on page 4 of 6 says that of the 9% of voters who voted in the Democratic primary despite being Republicans, 53% voted for Sen. Obama and 46% voted for Sen. Clinton. This suggests that as a matter of fact, Obama was helped by crossover Republicans more than Clinton. Thoughts? Delete? [[User:Malatinszky|Malatinszky]] ([[User talk:Malatinszky|talk]]) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't make much sense to me that this section, dealing primarily with Operation Chaos should begin with a discussion of the DailyKos issue, which is secondary to the topic. It should be less prominent in the article and presented as background, not in the intro.--[[User:Infohack|Infohack]] ([[User talk:Infohack|talk]]) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The last citation needed for Op Chaos could come from today's show 7/14/2010. Rush said "McCain was our nominee, and this audience normally wouldn't care about the Democrat primary, so we got 'em involved and kept them interested." Clearly, that would be after others dropped out. So this link could serve as a documentation. It doesn't mention Romney by name, by captures the idea. Op Chaos started after the Republican candidate was decided when the competition winnowed down to McCain.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071410/content/01125117.guest.html <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.149.220.236|70.149.220.236]] ([[User talk:70.149.220.236|talk]]) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== The purpose of Operation Chaos ==

I have removed the words "The goal of Operation Chaos is to expose the hypcrosy of the Obama campaign. Convention]]" from the Operation Chaos section. Not only does this passage contain a typo and an incongruent sentence fragment, but it also has a NPOV problem: it presupposes that the Obama campaign is hypocritical. The goal of Operation Chaos ("a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots") is clearly and factually stated in Mr. Limbaugh own words further down in the text. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Malatinszky|Malatinszky]] ([[User talk:Malatinszky|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Malatinszky|contribs]]) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



Added this line to the article:

"According to CNN exit polls in Indiana, 13.4% of Clinton primary voters would vote against Clinton and for McCain in the General Election, if Clinton is the nominee (compared to 4.5% of Obama voters who would vote for McCain in a hypothetical matchup between McCain and Obama)."

I cited a CNN poll which has the raw data, but in case anyone is confused, you have to do a little math to get the 13.4% number. ( according to the CNN poll, of the 17% of voters who would vote for McCain over Clinton in november, 41% voted for clinton in the primary. Because 52% of respondants to the exit poll were clinton voters, that makes (41% * 17% / .52 ) = 13.403846 ... % of Clinton voters would vote for McCain, according to the exit poll. [[User:Nathan44|Nathan44]] ([[User talk:Nathan44|talk]]) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

==Dan's Bake Sale==
Per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan's Bake Sale]], a stub article was merged into this main article. The lack of citations that was a problem in that article are now a problem in this one.--[[User:The Jacobin|The Jacobin]] ([[User talk:The Jacobin|talk]]) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

==Update Songs==
Speaking of sections lacking citations, I just removed the whole Updates Songs section, as nothing was cited. I'd guess that the whole section is OR, so if you'd like to add it back, please prove me wrong and cite it to appropriate secondary sources. <i><font color="darkgreen">[[User:LOLthulu|LOL]]</font><font color="midnightblue"><sup>[[User talk:LOLthulu|thulu]]</sup></font></i> 05:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

== Criticisms of the Show ==

I have merged content from a POV fork, to be deleted. This makes the whole article less biased, and includes some responses by Limbaugh himself. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 18:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. the article was [[Reception to The Rush Limbaugh Show]]. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 18:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

:And how does simply moving a collection of partisan accusations from Obama supporters and self-proclaimed progressive organizations make them any less biased? [[WP:NPOV]] calls for representing views in proportion to their provenance, not representing people solely in the words of their opponents. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
::Then the critcism section should be shortened, not eliminated. I will try to remedy that. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
::I've re-inserted some material and citations as a "Political incorrectness of the Show" section. I think this makes the article more balanced. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

:::The problem is not what you personally feel is balanced, but the use of comedians and openly partisan sources to replace the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] required by policies such as [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]. [[Stephen Colbert]], like all comedians, intentionally distorts the truth for humorous effect. [[Media Matters]] and the [[White House Press Secretary]] in turn have known agendas that inhibit their ability to act as fair and neutral observers with respect to Limbaugh in question. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources]] calls for articles to "be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Basing an entire section on a person trying to crack jokes and two others who have not so hidden grievances with the article subject fails to meet this standard. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, I tried to fix it. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:::How about this as a source for Gibbs' criticisms of the Show: [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/04/gibbs-takes-gloves-challenge-reporters-hosts-cross-obama/ Fox News report of March 4, 2009]? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 12:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
::::This link appears to be from the FOX news desk (as opposed to one of FOX's many commentators) as is thus as acceptable as any other main stream news source. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, considering how much the show is criticized by so many different reliable sources, Allen3 seems to be misrepresenting NPOV policy to mean the exact opposite of what it really says. NPOV doesn't say we can't use partisan sources, in fact to even have any semblance of NPOV on this article for a highloy partisan political show we need contrary partisan views to be represented or else this just becomes a puff piece pushing Limbaugh's views onto the encyclopedia. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 14:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:While I agree that there are clear NPOV concerns here, I also believe that it is better to solve the verifiability and BLP issues first. There is no point in arguing what material provides the best balance when much of the material being argued over does not meet Wikipedia's policy requirements for inclusion (i.e. this is a debate about information presented in the [[The Rush Limbaugh Show#References|References section]] not the criticisms section). Doing otherwise just means that you are implicitly stating that [[Stephen Colbert]] has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources]]. --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== "Bo" Snerdly appearance on July 24th ==

On today's episode, "Bo" was on air for roughly 5 minutes with Rush discussing the Cambridge police incident. As the show is still going on, this could be added onto possibly... but it will be referenced when the official website is updated with a log. Thanks. [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
: Spelled, Snerdley, not Snerdly. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Put an "Esq" on if you want.

== "political incorrectness of the show"?? ==

Judging by the actual content of that section, it appears that "[[political incorrectness]]" is being used here as a euphemism for racism. Remember, euphemisms (per [[Wikipedia: Weasel Words]]) are discouraged on Wikipedia. I'm going to change it to "Perceived Racism of the Show", which is not a euphemism, but an accurate description of what the controversy is about. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Limbaugh Called Joan Walsh A Magic Honky ==

I'm not going to add this: [http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907300037] to the article just yet, but if it gets as much media attention as his previous controversies, I may reconsider. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 14:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Snerdley threatened to resign? ==
I was listening to Rush on Fri. and I thought part way through it, he mentioned Snerdly threatening to resign over something.
Here is the article in Rush's Stack of Stuff: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082109/content/01125104.member.html (Top one)

"RUSH: We hit a speed bump here at the EIB Network just in the last 20 minutes. Here's the speed bump, and Carson, H.R., has compounded the problem. Snerdley is not screening the program today. The program is being screened by H.R. Kit Carson, trusted chief of staff. And the first call today, it said up on the screen here the name was Dorothy, and she got sort of indignant, said it was Margie, and I said, "Well, Snerdley must be screening today because sometimes he gets names wrong." I got this note, "Hey, that's really nice, that's really cool, appreciate that," and then Carson said, "Look, all I was doing, it's my mistake, but I did it on purpose, I was dedicating screening today to Bo Snerdley." Well Snerdley heard about that and now I've got this note he's threatening to resign, and I just want to say, Snerdley you want to make this public, fine. I'll tell you what they told me at the Kansas City Royals when I was making $13,000 a year in the group sales department. I went and I asked, "Just a couple thousand dollars would make all the difference." "No. If you quit, we got people who will do your job for nothing." Hee-hee." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.32.244.25|74.32.244.25]] ([[User talk:74.32.244.25|talk]]) 02:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Take a joke. As of this date, "Mr Snerdley" is still there and the highest-profile person on the EIB staff. [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

== Perceived Racism ==

I think this section should be removed. The examples given are typical show satire, and are only offensive to those that don't listen to the actual context. Rush jokes about this himself, commenting on something he just said being "fodder" or "media show-prep" for the evening news. Far too often the media will snip out whatever sounds most offensive and air it, rather than explain the joke or context behind anything. Liberal media does this, you know it, I know it, and that section of the article should not fall into that silly game. Thoughts? [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

: "Liberal media", my foot. When [[Don Imus]] (a liberal), made racially offensive comments as an attempt at satire, he was rightfully fired from his show. But Rush Limbaugh makes equally offensive comments nearly once a week, and he gets a free pass because he is a conservative and therefore can get away with saying anything in the name of "satire", at least in today's media environment. Rush Limbaugh is hardly a ''victim'' of media bias; he's actually a beneficiary of it, in my opinion. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

::This was actually just discussed on yesterday's show. You really have no solid sources to back it up. It's all about context, and to someone that wants to take it a certain way, no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise. Most of this crap (Barack the Magic Negro) was taken from other sources, then parodied on the show. He didn't write or create that. You know that, right? [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 12:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, your past edits and talk-page content don't help your NPOV case. Unless you can prove that the content of the show has a racist inclination, it will be removed again as it is, like I said, media taking it all out of context. [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::And the more I look at the section in question, the more ridiculous it looks. It has blaitant lies in it (stereotypical African-American "right on?!", this "voice" is not exclusive to any ethnicity, as anyone who listened to the show would know.) Also, the citations and sources for the information are hilarious in that you truly think they're neutral enough to be reincluded. [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Going through your contributions, your purpose is clear. I'm removing the section. The onus is on you to provide an actual fact in context, thanks. [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 13:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Remember [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 13:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Absolutely. I'm not attacking you personally at all. I think you have a conflict of interest with this topic. You are free to believe what you like! I'd never hold that against you. But, when it comes to facts, I'm not going to agree with the addition of potentially negative information that is very often reported by both written and televised media in a wrong context for their own political gain. Both sides do it, I'm not saying it's just the "left" or the "right." [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Please [[Wikipedia: Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your posts on talk pages]]. I had to look in the edit history to see who made that last edit. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 18:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, my fault. I've been missing my signature a lot today for some reason. [[User:Gpia7r|Gpia7r]] ([[User talk:Gpia7r|talk]]) 18:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

== Merger: [[Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show]] ==

[[Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show]] was split from this article in 2005.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&diff=32902933&oldid=32834270][http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&oldid=32902847] It has grown significantly longer, but there are only a handful of reliable 3rd-party sources for the entire list. I've patrolled the list a few times a year to remove totally unsourced entries, but what's left is mostly a list of terms that some WP editors have found interesting, with definitions that they've written and with no basis in on 3rd-party or secondary sources except in several of cases. That is contrary to Wikipedia's general principles as expressed in several policies, such as [[WP:PSTS]] and [[WP:OR]]. The current section here for "Jargon" says: "Limbaugh uses his own on-air jargon, some of which he invented and some of which he popularized." I propose that we supplement that with the few such phrases we can verify with secondary sources, like "[[Feminazi]]", and redirect "Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show" back to that section. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 08:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

::{{Done}} -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

== What about the Television Show? ==

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I'm hardly finding any information on Wikipedia about Rush's TV show (Not even an IMDB link in the article or bio, only one for the person, not the show). It was on the air for four seasons (I think) and as Rush was fond of noting, it was holding its own in the ratings (And from what I understand, he was right.) I recall the first mention off it in [[TV Guide]] had the most unflattering photo they could find of him and a brief, somewhat derogatory comment writing him off. Since the show was on the air during the Clinton administration, they had an [[America Held Hostage]] Day #### opening, he would usually open the program with a list of topics on monitors on the wall (and the last monitor was usually a question mark.), and there were some amusing ads for the program. I recall one ad had several liberals in a group discussion admitting that the show was a [[guilty pleasure]]. Anyway, if the radio show can have its own article, then why should the [[Rush Limbaugh#Television show|TV show]] be nothing more than a couple lines in the bio? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/4.254.86.82|4.254.86.82]] ([[User talk:4.254.86.82|talk]]) 05:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Conservative authors like [[Bernard Goldberg]] and [[Ann Coulter]] wrote about the Rush Limbaugh television show, but in more general audience books about television in the 1990's the show didn't make much of an lasting impact, and later [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Glenn Beck]] developed their own more successful television formats. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] ([[User talk:Patsw|talk]]) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Love him or hate him, I think everyone can agree that Rush Limbaugh is not a physically attractive man. He has, as they say, "A face made for radio." This, I think, was a major reason his television show really didn't work. The arrangement now is that the hardcore fans can subscribe and watch him on a webcam but the masses can just listen, because his [[shtick]] is audible, not really visual.
:: Please sign your posts ([[wp:sign]]). -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 16:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

== Why Merge? ==

This page was creeated in an attempt to avoid the focus of the show's page being solely on show jargon. Since this page's inception in 2005, it would be perceived that this page would only become larger in size. There is no need for this page to merge back to the show's Wikipage if this page keeps expanding. I am sure that this would take up more than half of the entry of the show's original page. When pages get excessively long, "Wikisurfers" will not want to read the page. Eventually we may just have to list the jargon and have separate pages for all of them, regardless of how much input there is on each. Even if it takes up more space, unless we have pages listed alphabetically (e.i.: Rush Jargon A; Rush Jargon M-P), I am certainly all for keeping this page. Thank you --[[User:Dallezam|Dallezam]] ([[User talk:Dallezam|talk]]) 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
:The key problem is that most of the content, like what you just added,[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&diff=prev&oldid=353229844] doesn't have any secondary sources. If we limit it to those entries that do have adequate sources there'll only be a few entries, which won't be too much to merge back. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 22:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
::If you want to make an appeal for better editing and more editors, that's fine with me, but you started an AFD. In the AFD I make the case that the article is an exception to [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] ([[User talk:Patsw|talk]]) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
:::No, I didn't start this AfD.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show_(4th_nomination)&oldid=353015918] &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)==
You are invited to join the discussion at [[{{#if:|{{{location}}}| Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)}}]]. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] ([[User talk:Patsw|talk]]) 03:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)<small> (Using {{[[Template:Please see|Please see]]}})</small>

:The AfD has been closed with the decision to '''merge''' that article into this one... before that is done, please discuss at [[Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show#Merger]] the best way to do such a merger (what needs to be cut, what gets merged, etc). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

::We have been able to trim the list somewhat... so it will be a bit more manageable when the merger takes place. let us know if there is more that can be trimmed. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


:::The merger was reviewed and '''endorsed'''... so I completed the merger.
:::The Jargon article has been redirected to the jargon section of this article.
:::The key from now on is to resist the temptation to add the latest amusing bit of jargon from the Show... limit the section to the most notable ''examples'' and require citation to reliable sources that are independent of Rush himself... we need sources that show how ''other people'' have noticed that Rush used a particular bit of Jargon. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Note: Just so we don't loose the Jargon article's talk page... I have saved a copy at [[Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show/Talk Page from Jargon Article‎]] [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


== dan's bake sale more than just random event ==
== dan's bake sale more than just random event ==
Line 341: Line 36:
Dan's Bake Sale came to represent an ideal of how the American capitalist system is supposed to work. It was discussed on the show as a model, both economically and to some degree philosophically of what economic conservatism is supposed to be about, not only in the '90s but even in the 2000s. Chapter 9 of Limbaugh's book, "See I Told You So" is dedicated to it. The treatment it's given in this article suggests it was some kind of random event that happened as a series of totally unrelated coincidences from which no specific meaning was drawn. Not so.
Dan's Bake Sale came to represent an ideal of how the American capitalist system is supposed to work. It was discussed on the show as a model, both economically and to some degree philosophically of what economic conservatism is supposed to be about, not only in the '90s but even in the 2000s. Chapter 9 of Limbaugh's book, "See I Told You So" is dedicated to it. The treatment it's given in this article suggests it was some kind of random event that happened as a series of totally unrelated coincidences from which no specific meaning was drawn. Not so.


--
== Glenn Beck as guest host? ==


Can confirm - it wasn't just a random event. I drove across the country to attend. It was really odd the way the weather cleared up, and the clouds parted just before Rush's scheduled appearance, and the sun shone upon him. (Pure coincidence, I know... but wow...) It was a cultural event I'll never forget... though I did eventually wear out the T-shirt. -- MikeWarot <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MikeWarot|MikeWarot]] ([[User talk:MikeWarot#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MikeWarot|contribs]]) 21:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I recommend that Glenn Beck be removed from the list of guest hosts. I remember that he made an appearance as an interview guest of Rush's in the late 2000s. It struck me as odd at the time that he would give airtime to a radio host outside of the WABC family. [[Special:Contributions/98.186.176.7|98.186.176.7]] ([[User talk:98.186.176.7|talk]]) 23:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:There are no sources for any of the stand-ins. I've tagged it. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
::Last night I was reading an early Glenn Beck book, "The Real America — Messages from the Heart and Heartland" (c) 2003 by Glenn Beck, and there are pictures in the middle, including this caption to one: "After doing a total of maybe 40 hours of talk radio, I was asked to host a national show. Here, Stu and I are at Rush Limbaugh's EIB studio in New York." (They look very young and the EIB logo is on the wall and on the golden mic.) — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


== NPOV in Jargon ==
== Environmentalist wacko NFL picks ==


Rush Limbaugh (in the past) predicted many games with humor. In the current political environment, he says he doesn't have the same time and interest. Only with the broadcast today, just before the Super Bowl 50 does he honor is history in NFL humor, saying:
I realise this is a controversial page, so I thought it might be wise to post these corrections in talk before editing:


RUSH: On Super Bowl Sunday, we have the predatory Carolina Panthers against the Denver Broncos -- and they're horses and they may be wild horses, but they're still victims. They're not predators. Panthers, mountain lions, cougars, what have you, they are predators. That would give you a hint as to the environmentalist wacko way to look at the game.
""Environmentalist wacko" (A militant environmentalist activist, or group thereof (such as Greenpeace and ELF)"
<br> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/quick_hits_page <br> [[User:AstroU|AstroU]] ([[User talk:AstroU|talk]]) 06:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::Did Rush Limbaugh just pick the Carolina Panthers over the Denver Broncos (and QB Payton Manning) in the Super Bowl this Sunday? -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
:::Actually, he just said what a 'wacko' would think in just a sentence or two. He didn't imply who would win. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 06:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/quick_hits_page goes into details. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 16:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


== Hearing Loss ==
- This term isn't just used on the show to refer to militant groups, but any group/individual involved in environmental activism.


I’m wondering why Limbaugh’s hearing loss isn’t in his “Show” article. As I understand it, it cost him broadcast time and has changed the tenor of his voice. And, I wonder if there is any projection of how it will effect future shows.[[User:Wcgerken|Wcgerken]] ([[User talk:Wcgerken|talk]]) 19:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
""Feminazi" (a portmanteau of "feminist" and "Nazi" that Rush uses to describe a specific subset of radical feminists);[22][23][24] The term is only applied to those who want to ensure that the maximum number of abortions take place."
:That does deserve to be mentioned but since he passed away in 2021 there is no reason to speculate on how it will effect his show going forward though we can include any reports on how it reflected his show during the last year or so of his show. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Notcharliechaplin|Notcharliechaplin]] ([[User talk:Notcharliechaplin#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Notcharliechaplin|contribs]]) 01:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021 ==
- Again, this term is used with significantly less discrimination than is suggested here (just look at Sandra Fluke). The last sentence is grossly NPOV and needs to be removed immediately, unless a reliable source can be found.


{{edit semi-protected|The Rush Limbaugh Show|answered=yes}}
""The four corners of deceit": (used in the context of discussing global warming: Government, universities, science, and state-media)"
Add to the Guest host section:


Paul W. Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_W._Smith Smith was an occasional guest host for The Rush Limbaugh Show, a nationally syndicated show carried by WJR. [[Special:Contributions/35.128.41.4|35.128.41.4]] ([[User talk:35.128.41.4|talk]]) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- This statement needs to be rephrased, as it is currently using WP's voice to express RL's opinion.
: [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Ganbaruby|<span style="color:#960596">◢</span> <b><i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i></b>]] <small>([[User talk:Ganbaruby|Say hi!]])</small> 00:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

""The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals" (The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, noted for its size and for its controversial decisions that are reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more often than any other U.S. circuit court.)"

- Again, RL's opinion in WP's voice is not neutral. If the page is making the claim as an encyclopedia, rather than stating the opinion of another person, the citation needs to link to a reliable source that confirms this (rather than the original opinion). As it happens, the statement is incorrect (see the 2011 data from http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/) and this should be noted in the article if the opinion is mentioned.

I'm also going to suggest cutting down on the last 'jargon' section, as it seems very bloated and unnecessary. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes here, but there are several glaring issues with this page and I'll have a go at them myself if they aren't resolved soon.[[User:Snumbers|Snumbers]] ([[User talk:Snumbers|talk]]) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:"Environmentalist wacko" - removing. It was even cited to an edu user's page, anyway.
:"Feminazi" - trimming off the ending POV sentence. I do disagree with it being "used with significantly less discrimination than is suggested," though.
:"The four corners of deceit" - tried to give it context, as attributed to the source.
:"The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals" - not sure what to do with that one... It does have a reputation. I don't have time to fix it, so someone else can take a stab at it. :)

:As for it being bloated, I agree. I wouldn't even care if it vanished, to be honest. But I'll leave further action on it to those more bold than I. Or I'll help re-edit if it remains.
:- [[User:Xcal68|Xcal68]] ([[User talk:Xcal68|talk]]) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

::Ninth Circuit Court: it seems fair mention Rush's opinion alongside the fact that it is fallacious (the source I gave isn't ambiguous about that, it came 3rd in 2011 by some margin).

::Feminazi: my biggest concern about presenting Rush's definition is that 'radical feminism' isn't really a cohesive, ongoing concern. From the sources I can find, it looks like he uses it mainly to refer to women's groups who argue for reproductive rights and PC language redefinition, niether of which are particularly radical. Obviously his own definition should be given, but I don't know how neutral it is to do so without scutiny.

::Bloat: How about removing the catchphrases and just keeping the names he uses to refer to himself? These fit the definition of jargon a bit better.[[User:Snumbers|Snumbers]] ([[User talk:Snumbers|talk]]) 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


== This is a fan page! ==

This entire article reads like a fan page, not an encyclopaedic entry.
I hope someone will be able to step in and present some of the very serious criticism of this guy without being subject to over-exuberant censorship. It's badly needed. [[User:Bobathon71|Bobathon71]] ([[User talk:Bobathon71|talk]]) 08:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Go for it! Keep in mind that the 'silent majority' in America is conservative. Do not offend us. Also keep in mind that fans will be reading Wikipedia. It is like Tiger Woods not endorsing Barack Obama in 2008 because half of those purchasing Nike were and are Republicans. State-controlled media (and sometimes Wikipedia) are liberally Democrat-biased and don't even seem to know it! At least they deny it. Let this not be Wikipedia. Keep in mind that criticism of especially living people needs to be just, fair, and legal, per Wikipedia standards. — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::There is ample criticism of [[Rush Limbaugh]] on the WP page covering him: including claims of inaccuracy, drug addition, deafness, Sandra Fluke 'controversy', Obama's policies, Phony soldiers 'controversy', Michael J. Fox 'controversy, and the Armed Forces Radio 'controversy', just to mention a few. — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Ample for fans. [[User:Bobathon71|Bobathon71]] ([[User talk:Bobathon71|talk]]) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

== Limbaugh Letter app ==

Just now, Rush Limbaugh announces the digital App for Limbaugh Letter. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/] FYI, [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 18:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:To El Rushbo and Dittoheads, this is big news. Here is a more permanent link: [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/09/the_limbaugh_letter_goes_digital] — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 11:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

== The Rush Limbaugh Theorem ==

News outlets have picked up on what Rush Limbaugh coins as, "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." But, of course, media outlets do not credit Limbaugh for thinking of this first. His Theorem is that Obama policies (including Obamacare) are very unpopular in America, but not associated with President Barack Obama, himself. Rather, he is seen as fighting the problems his policies cause. Today, Limbaugh modified his Theorem to apply to the elite leadership of the Republican Party, as he puts it. He says they run the party but blame Conservatives and anybody but themselves for their losses in elections. I searched the article here and find nothing on "The Rush Limbaugh Theorem." — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 22:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:FYI, the Limbaugh Theorem persists: ("Obama inflicts pain for political gain, remaining above the frey.") http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/05/understanding_the_limbaugh_theorem_obama_inflicts_pain_for_political_gain — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 21:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

== Three-year contract with Cumulus Media ==

Here are my notes from the Rush Limbaugh Show, today: He begins, "Let's review." <br>
"A few months ago, you couldn't turn on the TV or radio without hearing that I was finished. Politico/ABC/CBS/NBC/NYTimes/W-Post were saying I was bad for advertisers on 600 radio stations. Cumulus was going to cancel my contract on 35 stations, some in large market cities. "Limbaugh will be in your rearview mirror."<br>
Left Media believed everything they heard on blogs because they wanted to believe it. Well, let's see: this week we completed our negotiations with Cumulus and there will ''not'' be any changes in the next three years.
'''>>> "The only change is WABC to WOR in New York City, our own radio station." ''' <br>
— [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) [http://www.rushecho.org/]
* Another link-ref: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/23/limbaugh-makes-big-announcement-about-future-of-his-show/ — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
* Another link-ref is the Rush Limbaugh Show transcript: [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/23/irrelevant_obama_declares_your_host_his_1_obstacle_as_eib_inks_deal_with_cumulus_gets_new_station_in_the_big_apple] — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 05:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
*Breitbart link: [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/08/24/Not-Going-Anywhere-Rush-Limbaugh-Signs-New-Three-Year-Contract-With-Cumulus] — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 00:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — A great youthful picture of Rush.
There are other good articles and the Cumulus 3-yr contract is under-reported in our article. This news is not well-placed in the article. It is not reported that he picks up a Clear Channel station in New York City, WOR. — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 00:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
----
**By this I mean, the mention of 'Cumulus' only appears as a minor note in the Fluke (rhymes with Duck) 'controversy' saying the Cumulus caved. Where is the mention of the extension of the contract and Rush Limbaugh losing no stations as all the media predicted? — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 13:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
----
As I watch the article section "Show History" the last sentence says, "Limbaugh and Clear Channel signed an eight-year, $400,000,000 contract extension in August 2008." (with no citation.) What about the new 3-yr extension with Cumulus syndication? (What about citations?) — [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

== "Right Radio" in San Francisco and "The Patriot" in Los Angeles ==

Headline: '''"CLEAR CHANNEL MOVING RUSH LIMBAUGH IN LOS ANGELES & SAN FRANCISCO"'''<br>
http://radioinsight.com/blog/headlines/86875/clear-channel-moving-rush-limbaugh-in-los-angeles-san-francisco/
<br> [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 05:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:K-EIB 1150AM (radio) is still going strong in Los Angeles. Hannity follow Limbaugh. Clark Howard, Dave Ramsey, Carlos Amezcua, and other notables make the station great, in my not-humble-opinion. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 06:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

== Trusted Chief of Staff loses battle to cancer ==

Kit "H.R." Carson left a 'big hole' in the EIB staff, says Rush.
Headline-1: '''Listen to Rush Limbaugh’s Emotional Tribute to His ‘Trusted Chief of Staff’ Who Just Lost Battle With Cancer'''
* http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/26/listen-to-rush-limbaughs-emotional-tribute-to-his-trusted-chief-of-staff-who-just-lost-battle-with-cancer/
QUOTE: "During his Monday radio show, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh delivered a heartfelt message in memory of Christopher “Kit” Carson, his trusted chief of staff,” who lost his battle with cancer on Monday morning. He was 56 years old. “We all here at the EIB Network are experiencing a huge void in all of our hearts here today because of a death, one of our staff members, the very first staff member to join me 27 years ago in New York,” Limbaugh began. “Christopher Carson, ‘Kit,’ my trusted chief of staff, aide-de-camp, passed away today at 8 a.m. at his home in New Jersey after what really was a four-year battle, really valiant, never-seen-anything-like-it battle with essentially brain cancer. He thought that it was beaten back two years ago, but it came back again last fall with a vengeance.”" -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: '''A Huge Void in Our Hearts'''
* From the Rush Limbaugh website: [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/01/26/a_huge_void_in_our_hearts?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RushLimbaugh-AllContent+(The+Rush+Limbaugh+Show+-+All+Content)] -- Good pictures, including his wife.
QUOTE: "We all here at the EIB Network are experiencing a huge void in all of our hearts here today because of a death, one of our staff members, the very first staff member to join me 27 years ago in New York. Christopher Carson, "Kit," my trusted chief of staff, aide-de-camp, passed away today at 8 a.m. at his home in New Jersey ..." -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 00:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

'''Other accolades noted by Rush Limbaugh'''
* http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/26/kit-carson-requiescat-in-pace/
* http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2887132&spid=24698
* http://www.steynonline.com/6777/rush-right-hand-man
: [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 03:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

== New EIB information today, for future editing ==
Rush Limbaugh explains how he prepares for daily shows.
Headline-1: '''How Your Host Prepares'''
* http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/23/how_your_host_prepares
QUOTE: "CALLER: Well, thank you so much. This is an important question for me. I think it would be interesting for your listeners. A great mind like yours or a great athlete, when they're gifted and they train, as you know better than I do, they become the best. They're in the Hall of Fame. And so I was wondering, in your case, you must have been gifted, but how did you begin? Did you spend all-nighters? Did you memorize certain books? Did you drink eight cups of coffee a day and sleep four hours? And did you finally find a groove of how to study?" -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 03:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing consideration.

== Completion of 27 years ==

Each August 1st, Rush Limbaugh and his staff of about five celebrate another year of "Excellence in Broadcasting". He explains details in two segments, one on Friday[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/07/31/27_years_and_we_re_just_getting_started] and one on Monday.[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/08/03/celebrating_27_years_at_number_one] He says, "RUSH: How many shows in any medium have stayed on top as number one for 27 years? Not even Gunsmoke pulled that off or The Ed Sullivan Show. Not even the New York Yankees have managed that. Of course, it wouldn't have happened without all of you." (Read the two transcripts for insights to improve the article here.) -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 04:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

== The Rush Limbaugh Show led the Conservative-Media Revolution ==
Upon request, Rush Limbaugh details the loss of the liberal monopoly in media.
Headline-1: '''The Conservative-Media Revolution Has Forced the Liberal Media to Abandon Any Pretense of Objectivity'''
* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426529/rush-limbaugh-national-review-conservative-media-revolution
QUOTE: "When I arrived in New York City 28 years ago to begin my national radio program, my objective was to have the most-listened-to show in the country. At that time, the national broadcast media included three television networks and CNN. That was it. There were 125 radio stations doing talk radio, and I started on 56 of them. No one had ever succeeded in syndicating a national daytime radio show, and I was predicted to fail, too.

But I didn’t. What was different about my show was that I was the only conservative voice in national broadcast media. I was it — just as National Review was the only major conservative magazine being published and read. I traveled 45 weekends each year for the first two years of my show to solidify my radio-affiliate relationships. Think Donald Trump’s stump appearances, 45 weekends a year in cities all across America. Crowds ranged from 2,500 to 10,000 or more. I made fun of liberals, espoused and explained conservatism, and promoted traditional American values. And audiences ate it up; they had been starved for it. In 1991, my substitute hosts were offered their own national shows as other syndicators got in on the action. Local-radio stations all over the country switched format to talk and hired conservative hosts. Today, there are more than 2,500 stations doing talk radio, the vast majority of which lean conservative. There is Fox News, which debuted in 1997. There is the conservative blogosphere, and there are more conservative websites than you can count. In 1992, I began hosting a national TV show and continued to do so for the next four years. Think The Daily Show, except that I was conservative and did not interview guests. There was nothing like it on TV, just as there was nothing like my radio show. So this has not been an AM-radio revolution exclusively; it has been a conservative-media revolution. And perhaps its greatest consequence has been the destruction of the Left’s national-media monopoly." -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 21:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
New NEWS today, for future editing

== Environmentalist wacko NFL picks ==

Rush Limbaugh (in the past) predicted many games with humor. In the current political environment, he says he doesn't have the same time and interest. Only with the broadcast today, just before the Super Bowl 50 does he honor is history in NFL humor, saying:

RUSH: On Super Bowl Sunday, we have the predatory Carolina Panthers against the Denver Broncos -- and they're horses and they may be wild horses, but they're still victims. They're not predators. Panthers, mountain lions, cougars, what have you, they are predators. That would give you a hint as to the environmentalist wacko way to look at the game.
<br> http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/quick_hits_page <br> [[User:AstroU|AstroU]] ([[User talk:AstroU|talk]]) 06:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
::Did Rush Limbaugh just pick the Carolina Panthers over the Denver Broncos (and QB Payton Manning) in the Super Bowl this Sunday? -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:31, 4 March 2024


Air America

[edit]

Under the AFRTS section I have delted the information on Air America: 1. Air America is a liberal talk network, not a show, thus it is not on AFRTS. Note it now appears that Al Franken is on both. 2. The allegation that the U.S. military blocks Air America's website for soldiers, needs citation. jme66.72.215.225


dan's bake sale more than just random event

[edit]

Dan's Bake Sale came to represent an ideal of how the American capitalist system is supposed to work. It was discussed on the show as a model, both economically and to some degree philosophically of what economic conservatism is supposed to be about, not only in the '90s but even in the 2000s. Chapter 9 of Limbaugh's book, "See I Told You So" is dedicated to it. The treatment it's given in this article suggests it was some kind of random event that happened as a series of totally unrelated coincidences from which no specific meaning was drawn. Not so.

--

Can confirm - it wasn't just a random event. I drove across the country to attend. It was really odd the way the weather cleared up, and the clouds parted just before Rush's scheduled appearance, and the sun shone upon him. (Pure coincidence, I know... but wow...) It was a cultural event I'll never forget... though I did eventually wear out the T-shirt. -- MikeWarot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeWarot (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentalist wacko NFL picks

[edit]

Rush Limbaugh (in the past) predicted many games with humor. In the current political environment, he says he doesn't have the same time and interest. Only with the broadcast today, just before the Super Bowl 50 does he honor is history in NFL humor, saying:

RUSH: On Super Bowl Sunday, we have the predatory Carolina Panthers against the Denver Broncos -- and they're horses and they may be wild horses, but they're still victims. They're not predators. Panthers, mountain lions, cougars, what have you, they are predators. That would give you a hint as to the environmentalist wacko way to look at the game.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/quick_hits_page
AstroU (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Rush Limbaugh just pick the Carolina Panthers over the Denver Broncos (and QB Payton Manning) in the Super Bowl this Sunday? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he just said what a 'wacko' would think in just a sentence or two. He didn't imply who would win. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/05/quick_hits_page goes into details. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing Loss

[edit]

I’m wondering why Limbaugh’s hearing loss isn’t in his “Show” article. As I understand it, it cost him broadcast time and has changed the tenor of his voice. And, I wonder if there is any projection of how it will effect future shows.Wcgerken (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does deserve to be mentioned but since he passed away in 2021 there is no reason to speculate on how it will effect his show going forward though we can include any reports on how it reflected his show during the last year or so of his show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notcharliechaplin (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

[edit]

Add to the Guest host section:

Paul W. Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_W._Smith Smith was an occasional guest host for The Rush Limbaugh Show, a nationally syndicated show carried by WJR. 35.128.41.4 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show&oldid=1211859292"