Talk:The Rush Limbaugh Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rush Limbaugh Show article.
Article policies
Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
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.

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia Mention

I'll consider my call to El Rushbo my first contribution to Wikipedia :) EddieH 06:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. — 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..."

[edit] Snerdly

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? 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. 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. --Catboy02 03:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Program staff" section of The Rush Limbaugh Show explains who Bo Snerdly and other members of the staff are. 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. 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. 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. Bjsiders 13:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affiliate stations

Rush's own website lists only 592 affiliate stations.

— DLJessup (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

————

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

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

[edit] 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)

The AfD failed.
— DLJessup (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staff

Does anyone want to make a guess as to what Rachel's role on the show is? patsw 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. Bjsiders 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that maybe Mscudder's observation - which is very correct - warrants submitting some sort of "AKA" or parenthetical mention on the mainpage???? Catboy02 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree... It deserves mention... 12.26.68.146 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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


[edit] 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? 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." Goeverywhere 04:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. —Doug Bell talk 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. --Dual Freq 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.145.91 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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 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. Arbustoo 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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. Arbustoo 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than discuss the issue the user refuses to address his claims. Arbustoo 05:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That user tried to remove the material again.

[edit] 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.155.6 (talk • contribs) 07:06, June 13, 2007 (UTC)

Please go climb back into the liberal greenhouse commune from where you crawled out, working your crop-growing job in Venezuela. Liberals are the real racists, and that is the reason that song was produced. A LIBERAL columnist for the LA TIMES called Barack a "Magic Negro." If it is racist and offensive, it is because the liberal establishment makes it so, and the Drive-By Media, as El Rushbo calls it, turns a blind eye on its own bigotry and idiocy. Wikipedia in favor of the right? What planet are you from? Pelosiuto? Count your blessings that your own ignorance is protected by the U.S. Constitution. You're welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.165.62 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2007
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?12.26.68.146 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. Fwgoebel 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.47.105 (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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? 2z2z 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2z2z (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limbaugh Sponsor?

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

  • It's the "EIB" logo. Editor8472 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Chaos

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

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.

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

Source: Limbaugh’s Lying Voters Under Investigation - The Nation 3/25/2008[1]--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. 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.[2]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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


The youtube video is an audio clip from Mike Malloy, a commentator and Limbaugh competitor, neither a reliable source nor objective. 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.Malatinszky (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


methinks, youthinks have nothing to do with sourcing per Wikipedia policies concerning 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. Flowanda | Talk 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also define the what exact censorship you feel you are experiencing in editing this article. 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. 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.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? 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.--Infohack (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malatinszky (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


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. Nathan44 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--The Jacobin (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)