Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rush Limbaugh Show article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Radio Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Rush Limbaugh Show. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Rush Limbaugh Show at the Reference desk.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Template:Vital article

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 April 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Rush Limbaugh Show. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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?Tix 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

————

As the Nike ad says, I've just done it.

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

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

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 patsw 03:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD failed.

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

And we are back. ...
'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. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air America

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

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.

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.
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

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]