Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show/Talk Page from Jargon Article

Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show/holding page

Jargon

"Screwed the poor" is most certainly not objective, formal, accurate in any connotation, and is not certainly not appropriate language for Wikipedia. I've deleted it.

If anyone else knows any of the jargon previously used on Rush's show, please add it to the page - this appears to be the best comprehensive list that I've seen so far. EddieH 06:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Apparently, "knowing" something doesn't qualify it for inclusion here, as recent mass deletions have confirmed. You must be able to cite it. I agree that citations are valuable, but disagree with the notion that they are essential. Being able to cite a reference for a fact, such as that I attended a certain school, does not change the veracity of that fact. Similarly, frequent listeners to Rush's show should be able to enter jargon entries and definitions here for the benefit of researchers and non-listeners without being burdened with the need to find and cite a reference. To support that position, I would point out that the subject of this particular article is light-hearted and not of any tremendous import. I would NOT take a similar stance were this an article on a matter of science, for example. Esjones 02:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I absoultely agree 100%. I wish people would quit being so obessed over that "citation needed" label and quit taking the lazy way out by just deleting stuff. Now, I understand needing citations for things that are controversial and are not common knowledge (as are nearly all the Rush jargon for regular fans of the show). Not everything in Wikipedia needs to read like and be treated like a term paper.76.177.190.137 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the opinion of the Wikipedia community. One of the main pillars of the project is "verifiability". We can't just add stuff that isn't verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The section header infers the terms are all Rush's, but (for example) the "Breck Girl" was apparently not coined by Rush (see [4]). Should these just be explained when found, or should the section intro be changed to indicate they're terms commonly used on the show but not necessarily invented by Rush? -- RandallJones 17:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Randall Jones:

Two things. First, I've changed the section intro per your request. Second, "infers" should be "implies": "inferring" is the act of reading between the lines and can only be done by sentient beings, while "implying" is the act of suggesting something without explicitly stating it.

Cheers! — DLJessup (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Plus the Rush Limbaugh Show Article lists current and past substitutes. They also repeat jargon terms of the show. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [Such as "Breck Girl"]

The most dangerous man alive

I distinctively remember someone giving this title to Limbaugh, and I distinctly remember Limbaugh using it as a gimmick until passing it on to President Clinton. I think he passed it on to Clinton on his TV show. Anyone have an idea? — Phil Welch 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)

Yes, he used the Jargon-term to parody those that used that term against him in a pejorative manner and then, at the same time, said he was "just an entertainer". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [It is a term that should be preserved for history in a different 'archive' file, imho.]

Uber-man

I don't have an online transcript to back me up on this, but Uber-man is in fact a self-imposed or staff-imposed nickname for Rush. This is quite evident by one of the bumper themes in which a parody of classic TV music is in the background to an announcer saying "The .. Adventures of Uber-man!" (followed by the typical "Rush Limbaugh" chorus). Therefore I'm reentering the nickname into the page based on my having heard it several times on the show. The knowledge of this may be limited since some radio stations clip the bumpers off, and it has only aired maybe 5 times I'm guessing, but Rush 24/7 subscribers (including me) hear all the bumpers in the audio stream. EddieH

I'm actually a 24/7 subscriber as well, but I use it to time-shift the programs, so I've always listened on either streaming audio or podcast, where you don't get the bumpers. I'll take your word on it, though; I presume that if I'm wrong, somebody who does listen to the live audio feed will correct this soon enough. Sorry to have reverted you, but we get a lot of vandals around here.

— DLJessup (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, far from exemplifying Nietzsche's concept of the Ubermensch, Limbaugh instead is a perfect example of the ignorant, moronic, self-satisfied Last man described in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Only an ignorant elitist would disregard that Rush has on several occasions attributed his talent and understanding to God - so obviously he's not *self-satisfied*, though obviously he is proud of what God has made him. And taking the opportunity to call him ignorant and moronic is a good attempt at insults, but I'm afraid that "ur mom" would be a more intelligent slight. EddieH

Rush is not referring to any sort of Nietzche-ian concept. He is using the term "Uber-" simply because it has become quite common, especially in younger people, to use "uber-" in place of "super-" (uber-cool, uber-dumb, uber- insert_adjective_here). My son uses it rather frequently, in fact.

Besides, I highly doubt he agrees with Nietzche's view of the world and we who are in it, thus further making any reference in this discussion to Nietzche's "Ubermensch" rather uber-moot, uber-absurd, and perhaps even uber-dumb. --HngKngPhooey 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dittos. HngKngPhooey is right about the over-analyzing! Rush says, "Liberals don't appreciate humor." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Doubts

I have a great doubt Addadictomy is legitimate. Does anyone recall the context? patsw 03:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

San Francisco covers sex change operations for city employees. If I recall correctly, there was a lawsuit against SF by a city worker who had been fired when they were partway through their sex change—it apparently requires multiple surgeries—and wanted the city to cover the remainder of the process.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a cite on rushlimbaugh.com patsw 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere else in the country would the people of San Francisco be told that they have to pay for a new medical procedure. A sex-change operation called the addadictomy. You won't find this anywhere else.[5]

Come on. You can't be serious. Addadictomy-an operation that changes a female to male by adding an appendage. Chopadictomy-an operation that changes a male to female by removing aforementioned appendage. It's just one of the thousands of truly ingenious parodies that Rush presents on his show. mikelb 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure he used it on the show because at the time I identified it as an old joke. I thinnk if someone looked in the Playboy archives, they would find it in the late 60's.

I've heard this used several times throughout the course of the show. -Nathan

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)

————

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

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

Totally a good idea to have all of this content in a Wikipedia page separate from the Rush Limbaugh page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rio Linda

The Rio Linda definition leaves out an important aspect... it should be mentioned that the references to Rio Linda began when the local radio station had taken Limbaugh off the air, stating that, in no uncertain terms, the city was too smart for such content. adembroski 9:35am Jan 07 2006

————

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

— DLJessup (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

————

Rio Linda doesn't even have a Radio Shack much less a radio station. Rush's making fun of Rio Linda began while driving around to learn the area when hired in Sacremento. He noticed the junk cars all over the the front yards and the legendary town of idiots was born. mikelb 14:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

————

mikelb is correct. This is clearly explained in Rush's first book "The Way Things Ought to Be." If I recall correctly, it appears within the first chapter.

In addition, the Sacremento radio station that Rush was employed by at that time, is a local radio station. At that time, his show was not yet nationally syndicated. So there could not have been a "local" radio station in Rio Linda that cancelled his show. Also, as mikelb stated, Rio Linda, CA does not even have a radio station. Besides, last I heard, Rio Lindans actually enjoy the attention they have received from Rush, and on the whole do not find his comments particularly insulting. People from Rio Linda have actually called his show and talked about it. I heard it myself some time ago.

I also feel I should point out that adambroski is clearly a liberal. They tend to make such things up, unlike we conservatives who prefer to rely on facts rather than fiction to support our arguments and assertions. Liberals also like to revise history to their liking. So, when it comes to disinformation such as adambroski's, feel free to disregard it. --HngKngPhooey 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A caller asked about Rio Linda today. I updated the entry here to reflect what Rush said. I have dated the entry so if it is disputed, you can listen to the MP3 at around 2:50. patsw 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is 1/2 the story. The complete story is that Rush felt honestly sorry (or so he claimed) for those who lived in Rio Linda. To help them he offered to allow them to change the name to "Limbaugh", which he felt would benefit the town. The town rebuffed his offer, which he felt was a very stupid move. As a result he refers to the people in Rio Linda as stupid because they did not accept his free offer to allow them to use his name. --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ma Richards

Does anyone know if the nickname "Ma Richards" (Ann Richards, former governor of Texas) was developed by Rush? I still don't know whether or not it was developed with negative or positive connotation (obviously Rush would be using it satirically now if the latter were the case). EddieH 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain of the origin of the nickname, but as Ann Richards was Texas' governor, it probably refers to the only previous female governor of Texas, Ma Ferguson. --paperhat 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Ginsberg

There's a new internal link at "Buzzi", but the base entry at "Ruth" is gone, please restore. patsw 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rush's books anyone?

Rush devoted an entire chapter in each of his (first) two books to the "Limbaugh Lexicon" - shouldn't that be cited as a source here? The Way Things Ought to Be and See I Told You So --Nerd42 (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP editors seem to have done a good job including the best terms from "The Limbaugh Lexicon". It is an appendix after the last chapter of his first book, with 49 terms of "Rushian". I have both books, copyright 1992 and 1993. The second book is different. It has a dozen pages and 262 terms in "The Politically Correct Liberal Lexicon" and would not be his "Jargon". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Selective sources

It appears that most of these definitions don't need a source. Nevertheless, a couple of POV sources and blogs were used, which cite the definition and then offer their own critique or thoughts on the use of the term. Unless it's a neutral source or a disputed definition, selective sources like this leading to POV sources should be excluded. Zz414 17:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article appears to be virtually unsourced. Both the use of the terms and their definitions appear to be based on the personal knowledge of editors. That makes for an unverifiable article. -Will Beback · † · 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has now survived an AfD with no consensus. However it is still mostly unsourced. While we have some sources for the use of theterms, we don't have sources for the definitions. I'll wait a few days then start deleting unsourced material. -Will Beback · † · 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of them don't have sources, and he still says them. It is also common knowledge what is meant by the phrases used in context. Eisen8388 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources needed are those that verify he said the terms and those that verify our definitions. Common knowledge isn't sufficient. If it were then we wouldn't need to add the definitions. -Will Beback · † · 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you will be left with just 2 terms. Plus, most of the sources you need a subscription to view. Meaning the common-person won't be able to verify those terms. Eisen8388 00:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If we can only verify two terms then we'll include just two terms. We don't bend our core policies for minor reasons. While Rush's website may be an adequate source (albeit an expensive one), I doubt that the site provides interpretations or histories of the terms. So assertions like "The nickname "Algore" was used extensively on the show during the U.S. presidential campaign in 2000" would still need a separate source. -Will Beback · † · 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not every term Rush coins or uses is recorded on his web site, nor perhaps anywhere else. This doesn't alter the fact that it was said, and that it is used with a certain intent and within a certain context. Is it your position then that such unrecorded and therefore unreferenceable terms do not exist for the purpose of this article? Then how much real knowledge will be lost just because a citeable reference was never created? I personally think this is using the lack of reference material to seriously devalue the article. And just being a mirror site for the paid rushlimbaugh.com content doesn't really provide me with a sense that this page deserves to exist at all. Before the mass deletions of the past few days, I thought the article was quite interesting, useful and educational, in its own way. Esjones 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifibility, now ensconsed in WP:ATT. The idea is that any reader or editor should be able to verify anything in a Wikipedia article. If I, or you, can't verify the material in this article then the unverifable material should be removed. There are two issues with this list: the terms and the definitions. I'm sure that many of the terms are sourceable from transcripts, etc. But only a few of the definitions are verifiable. Some of them are so obvious that there's no point in even including them. (what's the point in saying the "El Rushbo" is how the subject refers to himself?) The definitions that aren't sourced are original research. "No original research" is another core policy of Wikipedia, WP:NOR. So, if there are 3rd parties who've discussed these terms (which has happened with the most famous, like "feminazi") then those terms and their usage are verifiable and should be kept. -Will Beback · † · 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What a ridiculous dispute. It's not clear to me how most of these terms could possibly be "sourced" as this guy seems to be demanding. Many of them require a contextual understanding of the Rush Limbaugh Show, which cannot be gained by clicking on a link in Wikipedia, even if it is to a subscription-only transcript. How does one "source" the fact that Rush regularly uses a particular word? Do I provide 15 links to show transcripts from 15 different days? And if he never specifically defines a term, but it is obvious from the context and from one's understanding of his personality, is it then not a candidate for inclusion in the list?

If your position is that unsourced material must be deleted whether it is true or false, regardless of its ability to be conveninetly sourced, and regardless whether it even makes sense to source it, you have a large task ahead of you, which is to delete approximately half the content of Wikipedia. Instead of being destructive and removing perfectly good information due to its lack of sources, why don't you try adding the sources and preserving the information? MarcusMaximus 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To: Will Beback. I am an annual member of Rush 24/7. If you can forestall deletion of the list, I will examine it thoroughly and research his site for examples of the usage of those terms by “El-Rushbo” himself. Also, I own a copy of both of his books. I will cross-ref the included lexicons with the list presented here. I will do this first. Then, I will research his site for references to corroborate the remainder. I simply need to know where you would like me to list the citations. I could directly edit the page itself, if you like. Just let me know.

The only problem I foresee is linking to the pages on his site directly, as it may not be available to non-members. However, I have used Google.com in the past to find transcript material with great successon the basis of "visitor" status. If I can access the information via "visitor" status, I can link it freely. If not, I would be pleased to field any recommendations you may have to offer in order to remedy this problem.

As for NPOV status: If the terms and definitions are provided in such a way as to include only Limbaugh's "point of view," then this status is inappropriate for obvious reasons. If others include their POV, then it becomes an issue.--HngKngPhooey 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There was previously a very good list of terms that Rush uses to refer to himself, or that his promos use to refer to him when going to or returning from commercial breaks. These will not appear in transcripts since they are not part of the show. Is there a way to get these back? --MarcusMaximus 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to such terms as "El-Rushbo" , "Majah Rushie" , etc.? If so, these actually DO appear from time to time in the transcripts. However, now that his site has been completely revamped, there have been a sizeable number of additional features. For example, the Google search engine has been incorporated into the site for far more flexibility in transcript and material searches. Also, from now on, the entire show will be transcripted - making it far easier to find examples of such things as "self-references." Enjoy!--HngKngPhooey 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was refering to "all-sensing, all-knowing, all-feeling, all-caring, all-concerned Maha Rushie" as well as "a man, a legend, a way of life", "America's Real Achorman", "America's Truth Detector", and the like. --MarcusMaximus 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Here's an example. From Oct. 20, 2006, "...I would like to know why you think I am not with you in the cut-and-run crowd. Why is it that we look out the political landscape and we see the same things, but I, El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned Maha Rushie am not with you on this? Why do you think this is?..."

I must point out that it was a small pain to find this. The site is still being re-tooled. So, there are a few problems with it. I searched Google using the following criteria: "all-caring" site:rushlimbaugh.com. Then, I had to click on Cached in order to see the page. Once they get the bugs worked out, I'm sure it will be much easier to access the transcripts. Enjoy!--HngKngPhooey 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have personal notes on every show going back to Op.Iraqi.Freedom (not for ref, but for leads/info.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rev'rennnnd Jack'suhhnnnnnn

Doesn't this actually come from the way that William F. Buckley pronounces it?

————

No. William F Buckley, Jr. simply has an somewhat unusual way of speaking, that's all. So, does Jesse Jackson. Although, the reason Jesse Jackson speaks the way he does differs greatly from W.F.B. Jr.. Jesse speaks that way on purpose. He does so for the purpose of sounding like a reverend in everything he says. This is one of the reasons why Rush mimicks him when saying his name.

In truth, Jesse Jackson is not your typical reverend. He is more a reverend in name rather than actuallity. I am from Chicago, and so is he. We here in Chicago are very well aware of his history before he mysteriously became a "reverend." Though it is not widely known (namely because he was never tried or convicted of it), he ran a protection racket on Maxwell_Street in Chicago back during the late 1950's - early 1960's, perhaps even later, I'm not sure. The folks who lived in the area at that time would know far more about it than I.--HngKngPhooey 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

From time to time Rush has attributed his pronunciation to an imitation of William F. Buckley and expressly denied that he's mimicking the way Jackson speaks.

NPOV debate

This article was recently placed on a NPOV status; no comment here on this talk page has been presented to support or deny this claim. As such, it may be that the subject matter itself is right/conservative leaning. No presentation has been made here, nor on the radio show on which this lexicon of "terms" is heard, to the contrary. However, the presentation of said items should itself be done in a neutral manner, and it's this that I do not dispute. This is difficult; however I would expect that if a specific non-neutral presentation is being made, that it be made known here, and/or edited in the article proper. I realize it's easy for fans of the show to with to post things here with enthusiasm, and those who are opposed to the show and/or its content, to wish that this article not exist. With that, I congratulate anyone who can put aside their personal leanings and work to make neutral (if need be) the presentation and appearance of what is, arguably, controversial (albeit somewhat humorous) material. �Fwgoebel 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually been relatively impressed with the presentation of most terms, which include the definition and generally qualify the instance with Limbaugh's own take on the issue or a citation to an objective historical episode. Some work can be done, but it's in pretty good shape, considering the conservative-leaning nature of the article. --Zz414 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this article should have a NPOV tag. My vote is to remove the tag.Rob944s2 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the terms and definitions are provided in such a way as to include only Limbaugh's "point of view," then this status is inappropriate for obvious reasons. If others include their POV, then it becomes an issue.

As for the uncertainty of some definitions: I have been a listener of the show for over 16 years. I am well aware of the intended meaning of most, if not all, of these terms and will be happy to define them for you (without personal bias). In addition, I will be submitting this list to the folks at The Rush Limbaugh Show and Premiere Radio Networks. I will request their assistance in cementing, comfirming, adding, deleting, and correcting any and all information included in the list. This and my above offered assistance (see Selective sources) will be an endeavor which will consume a substantial amount of my time and effort. My only request, if I may be so bold, is that my efforts not be ignored or disregarded out-of-hand. I seek merely to resolve this dispute amicably.

As for the suggestions to remove this page, it has been my experience (and that is long) that there is and has been for many decades a consistant effort by those whose views fall to one side of the political isle (I won't say which. You know who you are.) to stifle and quiet those whose views fell on the other side of the isle, while those of the other side have consistantly welcomed healthy debate on the merit of the issues themselves.

Examples are endless but inappropriate here. This is not a forum, so I'll only site one - The Fairness Doctrine. Bill Ruder, JFK's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, admitted, "We had a massive strategy to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." This Doctrine was dumped by the FCC in the 1980's after tremendous amounts of evidence demonstrated that the regulation stifled free speech. After the FCC dumped the Doctrine, the majority party in congress at the time (1980's) quickly attempted to make it law. It was vetoed by President Reagan, who called it "antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment."--HngKngPhooey 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Abeg92 did a drive-by add of the NPOV tag without starting a discussion here as required 2007-02-12 (diff). It has been removed. It can be added back when someone has a bona fide neutrality dispute to discuss here. patsw 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I missed the last AFD nomination

The last AFD nomination began with This article does not assert the notability of the jargon. The discussion of the terms themselves is all original research. Only a couple of the terms are sourced, leaving it unverifiable. Nor is it likely that we'd be able to source either the terms or their meaning. Wikipedia is not a collection of words or definitions.

Just in case someone decides to revive this for a 4th time let me lay it out:

• Notability is nothing more than a term of art meaning satisfying criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Rush Limbaugh is the most significant radio personality in history. His biographical article makes that clear. What makes the jargon article necessary is the biographical article is already long and the jargon being heard by 20 million people is itself of particular significance. It is a proper division for an article into more than one part based upon its subtopic. (see Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article)

• Original Research is meaningless to apply here. Has any entry in the article not be verified by many other editors who have personally heard it? We can't expect there to be a published secondary source for this other than the show's audio archives. If anyone disputes an entry, the editors who are 24x7 members have recourse to their personal copies of the show's MP3's to settle a dispute.

• Not a collection of words or definitions is not what this article is. It is, like many other articles, an attempt to inform the reader about an element of the popular culture based upon the wide interest among readers and editors in the subject. patsw 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research does apply to this article. Many of the citations don't make sense and lead to pages that don't give a definition of the word. If you have access to the shows audio archive, and have an interest in making this article in compliance with Wikipedia policy, please cite these entries properly. Furthermore, many of these definitions don't make sense and are poorly written. This article might attempt to serve a purpose in line with Wikipedia's policy, but with such poor citation and writing it does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Can someone with some familiarity of the subject please overhaul this article, and, if necessary, cite the audio archives where necessary? Jirt 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All articles must follow Wikipedia policies, even lists of radio jargon. The issue with original research is that many entries used to contain theories about what the terms mean, their derivation, or their usage. While it's easy to say that the a certain term was used, and the meaning may even be quite obvious, it is original research for an editor to guess at how Limbaugh came up with the term, or to assert that it's used "frequently", etc. We can verify that a term was used by checking the audio archives, but that won't tell us much else about it unless Limbaugh discusses his use of the term. Likewise, entries must be NPOV. That doesn't mean that Limbuagh is neutral, but our reporting of his terms mustn't endorse (or deny) his viewpoint. Following the last AfD we went through the article and removed the unsourced entries so that there are now just a couple. I think the article is looking pretty good and we just need to maintain it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Tax on Gas" for Paul Tsongas missing in list

The list is missing a big one: "Tax on Gas" for ex-presidential candidate Paul Tsongas, maybe it was thought in bad taste because Tsongas died in 97? --70.108.174.208 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Iraqnophobia"

The article says it was "coined by a caller" in 2007. I have no evidence for this, but I promise that I saw that on a kid's t-shirt when I was in 5th or 6th grade. So, like 11 or 12 years ago. It was a picture of a spider's web with Saddam's head on a black widow in the center. Definitely made for the 1st Iraq war.

Again, no evidence, but I've never been more certain of anything in my life. Maybe check it out.--68.190.57.145 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hear that one, and it has not been used much at all. Criteria (imho) is more that referencing, but value. Is it valuable? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

The New Castrotti

I attempted to add the New Castrotti to this article. He uses this on a regular basis, so can we include it?12.26.68.146 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can add it. Please give a specific air-date when he's used the term so that we can verify it. Also, we need to be careful about speculating on the possible derivations and meanings beyond what's extremely obvious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Rush, himself, explains his meaning of the Jargon-term. Perhaps we can quote him as a source for his meaning. Without his explanation the term is not correctly understood. (I'll watch for this term's inclusion -- it is not there today -- but I do not feel it is an important addition to "Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show".) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Gorbasm

I'll posit it does not refer to the people themselves, just as an orgasm is not people per-se. It refers (referred?) to the act of being excited over something in the news that happens(ed) to Mr. Gorbachev, or a segment of the show discussing it. Of course, Rush implies these people should not get excited over him, chiefly because of his ties to Communist government. Joe 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to his book, The Way Things Ought to Be, which is our source for this term? If so we should be able to determine if it's used to refer to people or to an act. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gorbasm: A fake and phony feeling of bliss, euphoria, excitement, ecstasy, and nirvana when pondering all the wonderful things Mikhail Gorbachev has done for the planet." Pg. 297 The Way Things Ought to Be (the first of two books by Rush Limbaugh, 1992 and 1993.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) [I have both books in my Rush Den.]

Seeking your comments

I realize this is not about Rush, per se, but similar to how this article was nominated for deletion, the Neal Boortz jargon was just nominated for deletion. If you all could add your comments, be they pro or con, I would appreciate it. But since you all have the history, I thought you could add some support or suggestions. Please comment here. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Eco-Nazi

I listen to his show, and heard THIS stated by him and others about the environmentalists. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

SFOS

Means "Skull Full of Shit". Means idiot, Democrat. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rush says "skulls full of mush" but never SFOS. I don't know why this post is here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Chang Lim Bang

Chang Lim Bang and the Lim Bang Manifesto, the Chinese Communist parody of himself

Started by a local NYC Morning Show DJ, what ever happened to that particular character, and such? Therubicon (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You People

What happened to "You People?" Ryratt (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Formerly nicotine-stained fingers

Does anyone know the origin of this frequently used phrase? It might be a good addition to the list. Rogimoto (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, he used to be a proud cigar smoker, then quit. There may be a source somewhere that mentions it ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the reference is to his former use of cigarettes. I believe that he still smokes cigars regularly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.220.28 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

True (about giving up cigarettes) but the term is no longer used by Rush. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bella Pelosi

Does anybody know if this is a reference to Béla Károlyi? I don't know for sure, but it seems obvious. --Cwenger (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is that it's a reference to Bela Lugosi, the Dracula actor, or Bella Abzug, a politician. However since we have no source for those derivations we shouldn't speculate. If Limbauigh says that he uses a nickname for a particular reason then we can report that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly Bella Abzug. Rush would be pleased to say nasty things about Abzug (she was a colorfully outspoken liberal politician and a feminist), but she's dead, so Pelosi has the honor instead. Still, we must wait for Rush to clarify before it goes into the article. Snezzy (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Having more fun...

I removed the incomplete addition * ' ' 'Having more fun than one human being should' ' ' (of 30 Sep 08) but suggest that someone should complete it and put it in an appropriate spot. Snezzy (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I could easily complete the phrase, but is it valuable or interesting enough? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Specifically: "Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have."

Verifiability

Like all articles, this list needs to meet Wikipedia' basic standards on verifiability. That means two things for this article: the use of the term and its definition. In some cases the use can be found in a transcript, but not the definition. If there's no definition then there's little point in adding an undefined term.   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can add to the statement above. A recent edit added a huge amount of unsourced material, including original research. I remoevd all unsourced entries and assertions that I could find, but the editor who added them reverted the edit. Does anyone think that the usual Wikipedia policies don't apply here?   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I think - this article is an exception. Its content consists of things said over a radio broadcast; there isn't some sort of other complete repository of the jargon from those broardcasts, which can be cited - and since copies of previous broadcasts are only retained on Limbaugh's website for a short time period, and since even then they are only available to paid subscribers, it seems obvious that the only solution is that this article be an exception to the rule. And given that Limbaugh has the world's largest radio audience, I think it's safe to say that anything inaccurate would be caught and removed. I'm re-adding what you removed. Nuberger13 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no exceptions. If the material isn't verifiable then it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. I "caught and removed" the unverifiable material. Please don't restore it again until you can find sources, not just for him using these terms but also for the interpretations of them.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a complete reboot. Half these definitions are written as though the points Limbaugh tries to make with them are factual.

"Limbaugh uses the comparison to point out that the UN is full of criminal thugs lacking in civility or refinement seeking out their own kind."

--King Öomie 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed that line. One of the problems is when listeners (presumably) try to explain these terms in their own words, based purely on what they've heard on the show. The show is a primary source for this material, so we shou;d be offering our own interpretations.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Liberalism"

I don't think this belongs in this article. Limbaugh's use of this term is no different than the dictionary definition of the term. I suspect this was added by someone who simply disagrees with Limbaugh calling democrats liberals. It does not appear to be proper to be in this article. Comments??? --RobertGary1 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was unsourced so I removed it.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of political liberalism is quite distinct from Rush Limbaugh's usage of the term. In an historical sense, liberal is something more akin to the philosophy of the US Founding Fathers. In the narrow sense of U.S. politics, liberal means left, which is different from the actual meaning of the word. Twalls (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source for Limbaugh's definition?   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the short quotes Rush Limbaugh uses to distinguish "Conservative", "Moderate", and "Liberal", but it may not be necessary here. I can also easily find many linked references in show transcripts, but again, it may not be necessary in the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What's necessary in this article are not citations to show transcripts but citations to secondary sources. This article is on the verge of being gutted since only a couple of entries have proper sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of terms?

How many, if any, of the terms are notable? They're mostly sourced to the show alone, which isn't especially good to do, is it? 24.29.92.243 (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely. While a couple of the terms are notable ("Feminazi"), almost every entry in this article is based from the show itself, or in a few cases from a Limbaugh book. Articles should be based mainly on secondary sources yet there is hardly a single one in this article. They are selected by Wikipedia editors who have found them interesting and who have decided on their definitions. That's not how Wikipedia should operate. Wikipedia articles should be the result of verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. And "source" means secondary sources, per WP:PSTS which is a policy. A quick check of the secondary sources roughly 12 secondary sources shows that about a third aren't reliable sources, a few don't mention Limbaugh (I just removed a couple), and several are no longer available. That only leaves a couple of usable, reliable, secondary sources, and those are quite brief. This whole thing could be summarized by saying the Limbaugh uses humorous nicknames for prominent individuals, and then give the few notable and sourced examples we have.

And the citations to the primary sources themselves are so vague as to be excessively burdensome on anyone trying to confirm them. Just giving a date and no time stamp means that a reader has to listen attentively for up to three-hours in order to verify a single entry. Unless anyone can think of a better solution i think the article should be limited to the most notable phrases, and merged back to The Rush Limbaugh Show, from where it was split some years ago.   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show#Merger: Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show.   Will Beback  talk  08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's any other views, I'll start removing entries that lack secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for having separate pages are more valid today than on the date of creation and implementation: April, 2005. I’ll expand more next year -- Happy New Year 2010. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can wait another year. ;) Happy New Year to you too!   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made corrections and small additions to some of the Jargon entries. One of my favorite changes was to change the incorrect "EIB.net" to the correct "EIBnet.com". Charles Edwin Shipp

I don't understand the point of edits like this: [6] or this: [7]. Neither of those mention Limbaugh's use of the terms. In case anyone is not familiar with Wikipedia's policy on sourcing, please see WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the TIP. ("My critic is my best friend", bringing out the BEST, hopefully.) I'll be spending some time studying (again, again, and again: Wikipedia:Citing_sources) how to annotate and document the Article to the benefit of Wikipedia and Wikipedia readers. From one approaching 100 Wikipedia entries to one who has over 95,000 entries, I appreciate your patience and tutelage. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The basic requirement for this article are secondary sources (meaning newspapers, magazines, books, or websites that aren't self-published) that explicitly talk about Limbaugh's use of a term. We also need sources for any definitions or background of those terms, though if we already have a secondary source then a primary source (transcripts of the show) would be adequate. So, we might have a newspaper article that says, "Limbaugh calls Barbara Walters 'Baba Wawa'." And then we might have a transcript of him explaining his use of the term as deriving from SNL. But we can't decide on our own that that's where he got it from, and we shouldn't include the entry at all if it hasn't appeared in a secondary source. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any progress here. The exact formatting of footnotes doesn't matter, other editors can fix that. The need is for secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ready to document more! (First, the Jargon entry, "Zip, Zero, Nada".) It is a term Rush used in 2004 (ref being added). Google hits equal 18,000 and it is in a 2009 movie title. Rush Limbaugh made the Jargon term more popular. Next, I will reference two important Jargon Terms not included but very important in Rush Show Jargon, one coming from Shakespeare. Lastly, after doing more work with references, I will make the suggestions of "What to do?" asked earlier in this section of Talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but it's no help. For a source to be usable it has to connect the term to Limbaugh. The IMDB link you added doesn't seem to say anything about Limbaugh, so it's useless and should be removed. Please read what I wrote above.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs, like this page, http://marcoagarcia.blogspot.com/2009/09/limbaugh-stands-up-for-insurance.html, are not suitable sources for most purposes. That page, however, seems to simply be a copy of this page, http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090038. Media Matters is considered a partisan website, but reliable for basic facts.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• A term meaning 'none'.
  • "Linking the Jargon-term to Rush, (CNN Howard Kurtz interview with Limbaugh)". transcripts.CNN.com. 2002-11-30. Retrieved 2010-1-9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

First, this isn't a secondary source, so it doesn't address the lack of those. Second, neither Limbaugh nor the interviewer define the term. We're just making up that definition ourselves based on what we read or hear. That's "original research". Third, the meaning of the term is so obvious that it needs no definition, and it's not clear what purpose this entry serves. Is it likely that someone will wonder about the meaning of "zip, zero, nada"? It's always possible, but whatever information we have should be based mainly on secondary sources. In this case, it would be another commentator or writer saying something like, "By 'zip, zero, nada' Limbaugh means 'none'." The fact that no one has ever bothered to make that clarification is an indication that we shouldn't either.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try to find a dozen secondary sources and we can choose from among them. I thought that CNN Howard Kurtz bringing 'Zip, zero, nada' out from Rush Limbaugh would prove that he said it and Howard Kurtz would be the secondary source. I agree that they don't dwell on defining Rush's often-used jargon. This reference can be moved out and another moved in to illustrate the different ways Rush uses this jargon phrase. The reason I pressed on was to satisfy your request. I'll keep trying. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not suitable sources.   Will Beback  talk  12:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than Google-search {Limbaugh, Algore}, I'll search established sources. Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A review of three pages may help too: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Those cover which sources are acceptable and how they should be used. I hate to see you wasting your time finding and adding sources that aren't acceptable.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While a few secondary sources have been added, we don't seem to have made much progress overall. Rather than outright deleting the entries without secondary sources, we can move them to a holding page so editors can keep trying to source them.   Will Beback  talk  13:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondary-sourcing is one thing, especially if it isn't unique Rush jargon, but "Notability of Term" is even more important. Click on my name to see my ratings. As a brief example, the jargon term "The Swimmer" should move to a new page, "Jargon_of_the_Rush_Limbaugh_Show_Archive" since it is historically important, but the honorable Senator is not in current discussion. Some terms are interesting (words created by Rush) even if no one else repeats them. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I've added 20 sources, (some stronger than others), two strong ones this morning.

When you refer to the new sources added this morning, do you mean for the "Rush Hudson Limbaugh" entry? If so, then that's not a secondary source for the use of the term by Limbaugh. The Fox News source only covers the lyrics of the Obama song, which isn't the topic of this article. "The Swimmer" has no secondary source and should be deleted (or moved to a holding page). There's no indication that it's historically important or even notable enough to include here.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a flurry of activity, including some useful sources. I don't want to block those improvements. The basic standard for each entry is a reliable secondary source which mentions Limbaugh's use of the term, and also a similar source for any extended definitions. Blogs (except newspaper blogs), forums, open-sourced wikis, and other self-published sites are not considered reliable. NewsBusters.org's blog is marginal - it's been called unreliably biased elsewhere. Sources and links that aren't reliable should be removed, and marginal sources should be attributed if kept. Keep at it and we can evaluate it again in a month.   Will Beback  talk  12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the citation template the "title=" field is supposed to be the title of the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After many delays, I've now removed all entries that lacked reliable secondary sources. I've moved the complete listing, including unsourced entries, to Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show/holding page. If and when sources are found for individual entries they can be re-added to the main article.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't right. WP:Notability specifically calls for secondary sources to show that an article is notable, not that a section or paragraph or sentence or word is notable. Section WP:NNC: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." If it were otherwise WP:OR would say that any statement not attributed to secondary sources can be challenged and deleted - not that any unsourced statement can be challenged and deleted. And WP:IAR tells me this was a whole lot better of an article the last time I read it. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This deletion isn't based on WP:N, but rather on WP:NOR, which says that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. Entries without secondary sources were chosen exclusively by Wikipedia editors without any reference to other sources to establish the individual worthiness of the inclusion of those terms. If Limbaugh says, "welcome to the show", would we include that just because I think it's interesting? If not, on what basis do we exclude it?   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR allows interpretation of a primary source that can be done uncontentiously by any ordinary person. When Limbaugh introduces a funny word that is not standard English, I think it's pretty obvious to any native speaker. We should cite secondary sources to make logical connections, yes ... but we should not expect them to write whole articles for us and tell us what to include and what not to include. Wikipedia articles are works in progress and what is included simply reflects what people have gotten around to writing. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This list defines terms. If there are no secondary sources then on what are we basing our definitions? And if the definitions are so obvious that no secondary source is required, then why bother adding it here since listeners can figure it out for themselves?   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the primary sources (the Rush shows) include some definition of each term - it seems hard to imagine Limbaugh not taking the opportunity to explain them. The situation is the same as for the plot of a movie - watchers can figure it out for themselves, yet we summarize them so that people don't have to. The vast majority of movie plots on Wikipedia are also summarized from the primary source - and yes, there is a lot of editor initiative in deciding which points of the plot to include and which to leave out. (In this case the "plot" of Limbaugh's shows is further subcategorized to put only "jargon" in this article) Note: the essay WP:PLOTSUM may be slightly useful here. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't assume that. If it were true, though, then why bother including the material here since listeners would learn what the terms mean on the show itself? More broadly and to give a specific example, how is the project improved by including this unsourced entry: "Atlanta Urinal Constipation: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution"? Is this the type of material for which WP:IAR exists, requiring us to ignore all of the policies and guidelines that apply to other articles?

As for WP:PLOTSUM, you correctly state that it's an essay. Plot summaries have been controversial and I don't really see how this article can be considered a plot summary. A plot summary are supposed to be "concise description of the work in question". I'm not aware of any standalone plot summary articles.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't contest the deletion of unsourced items. It is true that standalone plot summaries are discouraged, but this is not purely a list of the terms but also includes explanation and references. Wnt (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if it had a primary source, how would "Atlanta Urinal Constipation: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution" improve this encyclopedia so much that we should suspend the application of policies and guidelines to allow it?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As Wnt said, it's fine to removed unsourced items, but not all primary sourced material. From WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."

No interpretation, analysis, explanation, or evaluation of the primary source is done, just descriptive statements. It also says that an article is not to be based ENTIRELY on primary sources which is the case.--Drrll (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting material and you've restored a lot of unsourced material. Please re-delete the unsourced and poorly sourced material and then we can discuss the material sourced solely to primary sources.   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I could remove the unsourced material, but I think you're far more familiar with what is poorly sourced, so I'd prefer that you remove everything that you removed before except for primary sourced material. But again, I'll do it if you want.--Drrll (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Or we can do it the other way - I'll restore the deletions I made then you can restore those items you think are sufficiently sourced.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That'll be fine.--Drrll (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Please add any material that you can take responsibility for meeting Wikipedia policies.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As a reminder, the longer version is at Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show/holding page, for ease of reference.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Northern Command

• His Northern Command and first broadcast studio remains in Manhattan but he never visits NYC because of tax reasons.
  • http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_033009/content/01125108.guest.html%7C El Rushbo to New York: Drop Dead
  • "Rush Limbaugh to NY: Drop Dead, Monday, 30 Mar 2009". Newsmax. 2009-3-30. Retrieved 2010-1-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  • http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/paterson-bids-rush-limbaugh-farewell/%7C “If I knew that would be the result, I would’ve thought about the taxes earlier.” NY Gov David Patterson</ref>

I checked those sources and none of them mention the phrase "Northern Command". This article is about jargon, not about Limbaugh's reaction to New York State tax policy. This material probably belongs in the Limbaugh biography rather than here.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I put them there to explain his move to FL, and why he has "two commands." 69.108.136.19 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [C.E.Shipp]

But do we even have a source for him ever calling the New York studio his "Northern Command"? This article isn't the place to explain his move to Florida, that belongs in his bio.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From my personal notes, on Tuesday 3/31/09, Rush said:

"Drive-by Media quotes me and leaves out the important half; I get audited every year and minimize my stays in New York City. The latest has been going on for six months -- calculate the legal fees on that. I have mayors of Las Vegas and other cities [TX] calling radio affiliate stations to relocate our “Northern Command”. [Rush said Texas, like Florida, does not tax personal income.]

Also from my notes [C.Shipp], on Thursday 4/12/07, substitute Mark Belling said:

"We come to you today from rainy, cold New York City — Northern Command."

I'm not finding full transcripts for those days, and "Drive-by Media" (most likely) won't be quoting him. With Google-searching and also using Limbaugh's own search capability on his own website, I find zip, zero, nada.

Looking at this Rush-show-jargon Article from the aspect of importance, the 85 people 'watching' this page may be interested to know that I have rated most of the 137 terms. Find the Importance Rating by clicking on my name (to go to my WP user page).

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) . . . (After more thought, may move some of it here.)

If he uses "Northern Command" then let's cite it and add it. The tax matters aren't jargon though, so those belong in the bio. Your listing is interesting. What criteria did you use to assign the rankings?   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We are out of town but will have a moment this afternoon (will cite the dates); criteria included my view of 1. relevance then; 2. entertainment then; 3. relevance and entertainment now; 4. if not 3, is it worthy for history-archive(?) Will expand (and seeking collaboration on the right criteria.) I have more to say on the best criteria. Tnks! C.Shipp

I don't think that is a productive enterprise. Wikipedia articles should be based on what we find in reliable secondary sources, not on schemes we create. See WP:NOR. The main criteria should be appearance in a secondary source. A secondary criteria could be the number of such sources. But right now only a small number of these entries have any secondary sources at all.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets take two examples. First example: The jargon-term "Northern Command" has been used by Rush and substitutes since his move to Florida. No one else but those on the show use the term. Second example: Someone added a great new jargon-term and explained it well: "Fruit of Kaboom Bomber". Others in media will not pick it up but it is a great jargon-term that illustrates the success of the show. It was good to see other people working on the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the source has to say that Limbaugh uses the term. Sources like this [8] aren't so helpful if they don't mention Limbaugh. They may be useful for giving a definition.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/affleck-reagan-764.shtml

This does not appear to be an actual news story. I think it's a spoof.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this ref out since I was taken in by a good photoshop & article. I can't find ref to Nancy Reagan attended the premiere. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Condom on microphone as "safe talk"

This article says:

"By pointing it out, you are accused of being controversial. I love to point it out and I also love to illustrate absurdity by being absurd."

A pregnant pause, then: "Anybody have a condom?"

A pretty blonde in a turquoise dress, who had written to Limbaugh saying she was dying to meet him, pranced up on stage and handed the portly talk-show host a prophylactic.

Then, Limbaugh launched into a routine familiar to his radio fans. He wrapped the condom around the microphone, announcing: "This, my friends, is safe talk." The audience cheered. "You are protected from any evil because of this.

"The idea of these things is not to prevent AIDS," he said of the condom. "The idea of these things is to sell 'em. . . .."

I think perhaps the dramatic props section or the "S" section perhaps should mention "safe talk." --Nerd42 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That appear to be notable. It's also been referenced in these sources: [9][10][11]   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing the Article

Go to the Article and click on 'History' to see two words that have been vandalized. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Three vandalisms by 66.205.130.21 [LOL] have been fixed back.!. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To User:Wikipedia2221 :: Your improvement to the article is appreciated. Just so you know, the parenthetical you deleted was not 'nonsensical' to those that listen to talk radio. Sean Hannity points out that the jargon term you deleted was started by talk show host Bill Cunningham and his listeners. Just wanted you to know the original text was not totally a "nonsensical parenthetical statement". Still, the article now reads 'faster' without it. Thanks again.
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call it vandalism for JAdams1776 to change two words into one word because 'skullsful' may mean a "vacant message". But if you do a Google search of his new jargon-word (his word) it has two hits. Then if you go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ as a 'member' or as a 'guest' and type into his search box 'skullsful' you get zip, zero, nada. BUT, entering 'skulls full' you get 39 hits. Page and Talk for JAdams1776 does not exist, I'm just saying. What can be done? Is this the only page this phantom editor attacks? PS: I waited most today to see if anyone else would say something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) PS: The 'non-word' is back today, and I feel like leaving it. If you check transcripts, Limbaugh always uses two words, not 'skullsful'. Can the person that made this change (twice) provide a primary and secondary reference? Please?? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• "Rush Limbaugh: Balance and Point of View". Answers.com. 2004-12-01. Retrieved 2010-2-4. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• "The Rush Limbaugh Show: Environmental Wacko Picks". Search.com. 2004. Retrieved 2010-2-4. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I deleted these references because they are both mirrors of Wikipedia. See WP:Mirrors and Mirror_filter They are not reliable sources any more than a Wikipedia article is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Do We Care Enough To Make Reasonable Choices?". Investors.com Forum. 2008-4-28. Retrieved 2010-2-2. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

I deleted this source because it appears to be a comment to a blog.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuber

• Cuber: "Cuba," as pronounced by deceased Senator Ted Kennedy

Does the source say that this is based on Kennedy's pronunciation? It doesn't seem to.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. Another reference (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060707/content/01125125.guest.html) says that it is based on JFK's pronunciation of Cuba.--Drrll (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So how is this the Jargon of the RLS, if he just says that JFK pronounced it that way? That usage doesn't appear to be jargon, just an explanation of a historical usage.   Will Beback  talk  07:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it qualifies as jargon since he uses a different word than Cuba, but it is a close call. Is there a good synonym for alternately pronounced words to tweak the title of this article?--Drrll (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But does he use the word? In the cited source he simply says that JFK mispronounced it.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As for mispronunciations, I don't see how could be called "jargon" unless they are so unrecognizable as to be a separate word. If they are recognizable then I don't see the point of including them.   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Communist News Network

• Communist News Network: Another reference to CNN, which Limbaugh believes exhibits a pro-socialism/communism bias in its reporting of news items. From Limbaugh's second book, See, I Told You So.

First, Google books appears to report that the phrase "communist news network" doesn't appear in that book.[12] Second, this article isn't "jargon of Rush Limbaugh's books", so the term's appearance in a book would only be useful as a source for a definition or a discusssion of its use, not as a primary source for its use on the show. So we need sources which show 1) that he uses the term on the show, 2) that it refers to CNN, and 3) that he believes CNN has a communist bias.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your points about this one. Plus, as a long-time listener, I don't remember him using that on the show (though I don't claim to be an expert on him or his show).--Drrll (talk) 18:00, 6 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination). patsw (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

• Typically in an AFD, there's more participation from the actual editors of an article. If you want to keep or delete the article, please add to the discussion. patsw (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Bela Pelosi

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a pun on the name of Hungarian film star Bela Lugosi, best known for his portrayal of Count Dracula.

Worst President in All of Our Lifetimes and Beyond, The

Former President Jimmy Carter

Daficit

Countrified pronunciation of "deficit" by former Senator Jim Sasser (D-TN) during Sasser's tenure as Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Ned Lament

Nickname (coined on 8/15/2006) for Connecticut Democratic Senate primary election winner Ned Lamont, whose anti-war position Limbaugh opposes, as did Lamont's opponent, Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman then beat Lamont by running as an Independent.

I've removed them these entries which are all sourced to dead links that have been marked since June 2009.   Will Beback  talk  19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Top ten female names

Is this really jargon? It sounds more like fancruft that you'd see in a profile of a teen idol. Unless someone can explain how it belongs in this article I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger

The most recent AfD has been closed with a determination to merge this article into the article on The Rush Limbaugh Show. With this as the goal... is there anything in this article that should be cut or changed before that merger takes place? Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to start by trimming this back to just the material cited to independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

On what basis have you decided to remove the primary sourced material??? WP:RS doesn't require this. If you're going to merge this, then move everything over there & then let the material be fought over there. BTW, why do you think that there was adequate consensus for you to unilaterally decide for merger???--Drrll (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Merge" was the outcome of the AfD discussion. As a practical matter, only a relative few items could be accommodated in the article on the show. Items that have secondary sources are obviously the most notable, as they're the ones that have been noted by outside sources. Even limiting it to just those with secondary sources will still leave 20 phrases, plus four terms Limbaugh uses for himself. That's still probably too many, but it's a start.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with AfD nominations, but it didn't seem to me that there was adequate consensus to merge. just as there wasn't for the 3 prior nominations. Did one administrator unilaterally make that determination?--Drrll (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that "unilateral" is the right word for it. He or she evaluated the discussion and arrived at a conclusion. If you're not sure how such decisions are made you could read WP:DELETE.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, You can challenge the result if you wish (instructions for doing this are at WP:DELETE). In the meantime... I have finished my trim... the remaining entries are those with independent sources. I would say the next step is to evaluate which of the remaining ones are cited to high quality sources that indicate the bit of jargon has more than passing interest. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... I took a look at the sourcing... and have removed those that merely use the term without attributing it to Rush... this let me trim a bit further. I have kept two entries unsourced... EIB and Feminazi... both of which are very well known Rushisms (Yes, a source is needed, but I tagged instead of removed)

I think we have a manageable list that can be merged into the article on The Rush Limbaugh Show. We can let them trim it further. Is there any thing else that needs to be done before we merge? Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing in this article

I believe that the case can be made reliable secondary sources are not necessary when editors can agree that the jargon had frequent usage in the course of

• 900 minutes per week
• 46800 minutes per year
• for the prior year with 20 million listeners that would be approximately one trillion listener minutes (2009)
• average down that to 10 million listeners over 20 years, that comes to ten trillion listener minutes (since 1989)

If editors can come to a consensus that they heard it/they saw it that Senator Depends refers to Patrick Leahy, that should be enough. This exception persists throughout the Wikipedia for popular culture articles. patsw (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree... we need independent sources to indicate that a particular bit of Rush's jargon is note worthy, not just that Rush said it. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with Blueboar. We aren't going to make an exception to fundamental policy for this. Dougweller (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Practice in the Wikipedia does not follow policy in this area. This inconsistency results in the strict application of WP:RS to articles when deletions of content are being made ostensibly for WP:RS. Articles connected to controversy get the scrutiny and other articles (less read, less edited) get a pass. If you are into wiki-lawyering, it revolves around what challenged or likely to be challenged in bold print in WP:V means. patsw (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:V specifically require that we avoid writing content based on our own personal knowledge. It doesn't really matter if there are a hundred or a thousand editors who hear the same content. Secondary sources are required to establish the notability of the terms and to inform us of their meaning. Otherwise any editor could add whatever he or she wanted.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

'Other stuff exists' is never an excuse. Less read articles don't get a pass, they are just overlooked. If you find them then deal with them according to policy and guidelines, they aren't an excuse for ignoring policy and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Including information in this article that only has primary sources is not ignoring policy; it's permitted by policy. WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources "can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." This is a clear case of this. This is an article about the content of a radio show that is citing various terms from the show, but not offering any interpretations or analysis of them. The primary sources allow this jargon to "be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." There is no need, according to policy, for secondary sources to be cited for each and every term. Ithizar (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:PRIMARY also says "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources".--Drrll (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Drrll and Ithizar misunderstand my motivations for removing the SPS material... so let me make my motivation clear:

The recent AfD resulted in a decision to merge this article into The Rush Limbaugh Show article. My actions are directly tied to that decision. The reason why I am trimming this article is to prepare for the merger. I agree with comments made elsewhere that if we simply cut and pasted the entire list to The Rush Limbaugh Show it would make that article overly long and unwieldy. What that article needs is a short list of the most note worthy examples. To show that these examples are note worthy, we need to demonstrate that the terms have been noted and discussed by reliable sources.

In other words... My trimming has nothing to do with whether this article should or should not cite primary sources... my actions are focused entirely on what is best for the target article. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The entries in this list have contained plenty of interpretation. In fact, every entry has included interpretation since every entry has followed the formula of "X means Y". This article isn't a description of the plot of the Rush Limbaugh Show, which would be a shorter and very different article. Blueboar is right that only the most notable entries should be kept for a merger to the Show article.   Will Beback  talk  13:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Admittedly, this is a matter of opinion, but I do not believe that providing a definition is the same as providing an interpretation or analysis. The primary sources are sufficient to verify that the term is used by Limbaugh and to define what it means. Anything beyond that would require secondary sources, but I do not believe pure definitions do. Ithizar (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I see your motivation here. I don't think the merge result of the AfD discussion was an accurate reflection of consensus, but that is for the debate taking place over at the deletion review. If the article is to be merged, I can see where trimming is necessary. Ithizar (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you understand. In the event that the AfD is overturned (which I don't think likely... but is always possible) I would have no qualms about self-reverting all my trimming and returning the citations to Primary sources.

That said, if this article is not to be merged (or deleted) we would have a different issue to contend with. Essentially we would have to address the valid concerns which led to the AfD's in the first place... The article would need to start off by establishing that Rush's use of jargon is notable (I am not talking about showing that a particular bit of jargon is notable... I am talking about clearly establishing that his use of jargon, in the abstract, is notable.). For that we would need independent sources that discuss his use of jargon as opposed to sources that merely comment on a particular bit of jargon. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD under Review

I see Drrll has asked for a review of the AfD decision... see: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show . We should wait on that before we actually merge. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Review is complete and merger has been endorsed. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

TOTUS

TOTUS redirects here, but no mention of it in the article. Is it an acronym (T___ Of The United States)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would assume so, but what the "T" stands for I have no idea. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Teleprompter Of The United States. I believe Rush originated this, but I'm not sure.--Drrll (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks... do we have a secondary source that discusses Rush's use of the term? Other wise I don't think it is note worthy (especially since we are trying to trim things down in prep for the merger). Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No secondary source, but there's a good chance he didn't originate it anyway, as I see some TOTUS blogs on the web.--Drrll (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)