Talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

message: 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)
thread_title:  The most dangerous man alive 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New page? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rio Linda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ma Richards 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ruth Ginsberg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rush's books anyone? 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Rev'rennnnd Jack'suhhnnnnnn

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I missed the last AFD nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Tax on Gas" for Paul Tsongas missing in list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Iraqnophobia" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The New Castrotti 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Gorbasm

message: 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)
thread_title: Seeking your comments

message: 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)
thread_title: Eco-Nazi

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Chang Lim Bang

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  True (about giving up cigarettes) but the term is no longer used by Rush. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formerly nicotine-stained fingers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bella Pelosi 

message: 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)
replies: text: I could easily complete the phrase, but is it valuable or interesting enough? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having more fun... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was unsourced so I removed it.   Will Beback  talk   20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do we have a source for Limbaugh's definition?   Will Beback  talk   02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Liberalism"

message: 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)
replies: text: That appear to be notable. It's also been referenced in these sources:    Will Beback  talk   20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom on microphone as "safe talk" 

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

message: *
*
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)
thread_title: Sources

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cuber 

message: *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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Communist News Network

message: You are invited to join the discussion at . patsw (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination)

message: ; 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)
thread_title: Dead links

message: 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)
thread_title: Top ten female names

message: 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)
replies: text: I would assume so, but what the "T" stands for I have no idea.  Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Teleprompter Of The United States.  I believe Rush originated this, but I'm not sure.--Drrll (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Looking into this further... I think the redirect is misplaced... the term, as a bit of political humor, may be notable enough for a stand alone article... who ever created it. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOTUS 

message: Loppitoffomy
removal of penis
then
addadicktomy can move 70.53.71.107 (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  sex change surgery