This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(a lot of talk moved here from talk:Bushisms -- refactoring underway)
We foreigners like our handy "Cut out and keep guide to the presidents..."
"A Bushism is a public verbal gaffe by United States President George W. Bush." -- Misleading; the term was first used in reference to his father George Herbert Walker Bush. The earliest Google hit I find is from 5 Aug 1992. [7]
The term was used as the title of a 1992 book by the editors of New Republic magazine. [8]
Amazon.com books on Bushisms by *both* Bushes [9]
All quotations here are misquotations, since that seemed appropriate, given the topic... :-)
There was a brief digression on whether Sanger had insulted soulpatch, or made an ad hominem attack on him (and others), and whether Sanger should continue to "chastize people for their lapses into idiocy" (his words), practice "shame culture" (his words), "resort to personal insults" ( soulpatch's words), and be a "butthead" ( Stormwriter's words). Sanger decided that he should, because other people "have no excuse", and anyway "it takes way too much effort to restrain myself".
Why has this page and Gore-ism been protected? Maybe Larry is right in his assertion that there can never be a worthwhile page here, but a lot of people don't think he is, and in protecting the page you're depriving them of the ability to prove him wrong. If I'd been an admin for more than three days I would unprotect them myself, but as it is I'm very wary of using my powers. -- Camembert
Yes, I'm not sure I'd want to protect them myself, if I had the power. -- Larry Sanger
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree that the topic heading, regardless of content, is not NPOV. On the other hand, wikipedia is already full of non-NPOV headings, so why should this one be any different?
Which others? Let's go to work. -- Larry Sanger
I wrote a 375-word article on discrediting tactics and redirected Bushisms and Goreisms to it. -- Ed Poor 14:28 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
It is very very hard, read impossible, not to come off sounding like an idiot if a bunch of smart-aleck reporters is listening to every word you say. Of all the American politicians I recall personally, only JFK was never flustered or ill-spoken.
When I covered "the mayor" Richard J. Daley, of Chicago, he made all sorts of ridiculous errors; "tantrum bicycle" for "tandem bicycle" was one of my favorites. We reporters used to get together after each press conference to agree on what he was trying to say so as to make his public utterances clear to the public for whom they were uttered. We didn't cover up for him, but we didn't make fun of him either. (Or, not often. I wrote "The Mayor got red-faced and angry." He pounded the table, his face turned bright red and he screamed, "The Mayor does not get red-faced and angry!"). I put some of this quietly into the article and kept the rest to myself. These were all minor aspects of his dominating, but successful terms as mayor.
I don't like the Bushes, individually or collectively, but it is silly to play into the idea that they don't know what they are doing if you are their enemy. This stuff is trivial. The only "bushisms" worth noting are those that have something to do with his policies. "The folks who did this ...", for instance, reveals a certain cast of mind, but that observation would be much better in an article about him, just as Dan Quayle's much more serious stumbles belong in an article on him, not in an article on his stumbles. Bush has been sure-footed in his public pronouncements for the most part.
By the way, it was totally uncalled for to lump Hitler has only got one ball in with this article. There was some serious information in that (rather fun-loving) article. The serious information in this article has migrated to discrediting tactics. I hope the rest of it will migrate to George W. Bush. Ortolan88
Uggh. Here we go again.. Someone dust off the Goreisms page..
I find this page quite valuable for understanding 21st Century American politics. Lir 05:57 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)
One more note. I did a Google search attempting to find the earliest reference to FOOism, where FOO was a national politician and it was clear that the -ism referred to a collection of quotes and not a set of beliefs. The oldest reference I could find was here [10], for "Quayleisms", which dates from 11-27-1990. I found no evidence of "Reaganism" being used in this sense prior to this date, so I believe that Dan Quayle has the distinction of being the "patient zero" of this wordsmithing. --" TMC"
Cunctator, moving "Bushisms" to "Bushism" was a bad idea, because "Bushisms" and "Goreisms" are sayings (some of them silly, embarrassing, or stupid), while Bushism is the emerging doctrine of the George W. Bush administration. Try searching Google for Bushism and then for Bushisms and you'll see what I mean.
See Weng Ming's scholarly article at http://www.uscc.gov/bush.pdf -- cached as HTML at http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:QHhkm7XTBhcC:www.uscc.gov/bush.pdf+bushism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Surely, Bush's domestic political opponents are focusing on picking out embarrassing remarks. But let's not conflate emerging ideology with off-the-cuff speaking style.
Or let's write an article explaining the POV of partisans that the totality of Bush's character, platform and administration can best be understood via soundbites. But that would only be one POV, and the Wikpedia should neither endorse nor oppose it, just report on it. -- Ed Poor
I'm going to move this article back to Meta, or just delete it. I invite everyone to join me in editing damaging quotation instead. We can put a few Goreisms and Bushisms in there, just so readers can understand what a damaging quotation is, and why partisans are so keen to collect them.
The Wikipedia, which is not permitted to be partisan, should not join either side in partisan activity. And "contributing to both sides" like a corporation that donates one million dollars each to Democrats and Republicans is just a case of two wrongs don't make a right.
Please don't fight me on this, but help build a good article. -- Ed Poor
This new article seems like a rehash of discrediting tactics. How many articles on this subject are really necessary? I vote for eliminating this article as it now stands. soulpatch
Not a rehash. It's just one kind of discrediting tactic. Another kind is the "revelation of misdeeds".
Let's list all the different kinds of tactics partisans use to tear each other down, but let's not employ those tactics ourselves by perpetuating lists of damaging quotations. We have an article on pornography, but there's very little pornography on this site. -- Ed Poor
Soulpatch, you wrote the above as if it were stating general rules, but each "rule" only apparently refers to one case each:
Let's try to find a way to include the point you are trying to make AND conform to NPOV at the same time. This is not censorship -- just editing. Work with me, pal. -- Ed Poor
Okay, but be careful lest the article even seem to endorse the anti-Republican point of view implicit in the malaprops and "pollution from plants" things. One would have to be a simpleton not to realize that Bush and Reagan are meant. The "pollution" quote should be cited in full. Anyway, did Reagan really mean that 80% of ALL pollution came from vegetation, or just 80% of ONE PARTICULAR GAS? Was he wrong? Who says so? Did he ever recant his statement?
It's well known that partisans make up all sorts of things to drum up support for their cause. I'm not saying Republicans or Democrats do it more or less. (I am not a member of either party, fwiw.)
I hate to do this to ya, pal, but I'm gonna revert it again. It still looks like a partisan swipe against Republicans. -- Ed Poor
Oops! United Nations Senate -- how could I have missed that one? That's why in a good shop, two other pairs of eyes read every line of code. Good catch, Brion.
When I added that tag, this article was in only one category: Political terminology. That category has the note "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable."
-- Rob Kelk 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
the article lacks a selection (no, not a list, ffs!) of examples of what it attempts to describe or define. it's currently vague to the point of obfuscation, & useless to anyone coming across the term for the first time. fix it or delete it.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(a lot of talk moved here from talk:Bushisms -- refactoring underway)
We foreigners like our handy "Cut out and keep guide to the presidents..."
"A Bushism is a public verbal gaffe by United States President George W. Bush." -- Misleading; the term was first used in reference to his father George Herbert Walker Bush. The earliest Google hit I find is from 5 Aug 1992. [7]
The term was used as the title of a 1992 book by the editors of New Republic magazine. [8]
Amazon.com books on Bushisms by *both* Bushes [9]
All quotations here are misquotations, since that seemed appropriate, given the topic... :-)
There was a brief digression on whether Sanger had insulted soulpatch, or made an ad hominem attack on him (and others), and whether Sanger should continue to "chastize people for their lapses into idiocy" (his words), practice "shame culture" (his words), "resort to personal insults" ( soulpatch's words), and be a "butthead" ( Stormwriter's words). Sanger decided that he should, because other people "have no excuse", and anyway "it takes way too much effort to restrain myself".
Why has this page and Gore-ism been protected? Maybe Larry is right in his assertion that there can never be a worthwhile page here, but a lot of people don't think he is, and in protecting the page you're depriving them of the ability to prove him wrong. If I'd been an admin for more than three days I would unprotect them myself, but as it is I'm very wary of using my powers. -- Camembert
Yes, I'm not sure I'd want to protect them myself, if I had the power. -- Larry Sanger
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I agree that the topic heading, regardless of content, is not NPOV. On the other hand, wikipedia is already full of non-NPOV headings, so why should this one be any different?
Which others? Let's go to work. -- Larry Sanger
I wrote a 375-word article on discrediting tactics and redirected Bushisms and Goreisms to it. -- Ed Poor 14:28 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)
It is very very hard, read impossible, not to come off sounding like an idiot if a bunch of smart-aleck reporters is listening to every word you say. Of all the American politicians I recall personally, only JFK was never flustered or ill-spoken.
When I covered "the mayor" Richard J. Daley, of Chicago, he made all sorts of ridiculous errors; "tantrum bicycle" for "tandem bicycle" was one of my favorites. We reporters used to get together after each press conference to agree on what he was trying to say so as to make his public utterances clear to the public for whom they were uttered. We didn't cover up for him, but we didn't make fun of him either. (Or, not often. I wrote "The Mayor got red-faced and angry." He pounded the table, his face turned bright red and he screamed, "The Mayor does not get red-faced and angry!"). I put some of this quietly into the article and kept the rest to myself. These were all minor aspects of his dominating, but successful terms as mayor.
I don't like the Bushes, individually or collectively, but it is silly to play into the idea that they don't know what they are doing if you are their enemy. This stuff is trivial. The only "bushisms" worth noting are those that have something to do with his policies. "The folks who did this ...", for instance, reveals a certain cast of mind, but that observation would be much better in an article about him, just as Dan Quayle's much more serious stumbles belong in an article on him, not in an article on his stumbles. Bush has been sure-footed in his public pronouncements for the most part.
By the way, it was totally uncalled for to lump Hitler has only got one ball in with this article. There was some serious information in that (rather fun-loving) article. The serious information in this article has migrated to discrediting tactics. I hope the rest of it will migrate to George W. Bush. Ortolan88
Uggh. Here we go again.. Someone dust off the Goreisms page..
I find this page quite valuable for understanding 21st Century American politics. Lir 05:57 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)
One more note. I did a Google search attempting to find the earliest reference to FOOism, where FOO was a national politician and it was clear that the -ism referred to a collection of quotes and not a set of beliefs. The oldest reference I could find was here [10], for "Quayleisms", which dates from 11-27-1990. I found no evidence of "Reaganism" being used in this sense prior to this date, so I believe that Dan Quayle has the distinction of being the "patient zero" of this wordsmithing. --" TMC"
Cunctator, moving "Bushisms" to "Bushism" was a bad idea, because "Bushisms" and "Goreisms" are sayings (some of them silly, embarrassing, or stupid), while Bushism is the emerging doctrine of the George W. Bush administration. Try searching Google for Bushism and then for Bushisms and you'll see what I mean.
See Weng Ming's scholarly article at http://www.uscc.gov/bush.pdf -- cached as HTML at http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:QHhkm7XTBhcC:www.uscc.gov/bush.pdf+bushism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Surely, Bush's domestic political opponents are focusing on picking out embarrassing remarks. But let's not conflate emerging ideology with off-the-cuff speaking style.
Or let's write an article explaining the POV of partisans that the totality of Bush's character, platform and administration can best be understood via soundbites. But that would only be one POV, and the Wikpedia should neither endorse nor oppose it, just report on it. -- Ed Poor
I'm going to move this article back to Meta, or just delete it. I invite everyone to join me in editing damaging quotation instead. We can put a few Goreisms and Bushisms in there, just so readers can understand what a damaging quotation is, and why partisans are so keen to collect them.
The Wikipedia, which is not permitted to be partisan, should not join either side in partisan activity. And "contributing to both sides" like a corporation that donates one million dollars each to Democrats and Republicans is just a case of two wrongs don't make a right.
Please don't fight me on this, but help build a good article. -- Ed Poor
This new article seems like a rehash of discrediting tactics. How many articles on this subject are really necessary? I vote for eliminating this article as it now stands. soulpatch
Not a rehash. It's just one kind of discrediting tactic. Another kind is the "revelation of misdeeds".
Let's list all the different kinds of tactics partisans use to tear each other down, but let's not employ those tactics ourselves by perpetuating lists of damaging quotations. We have an article on pornography, but there's very little pornography on this site. -- Ed Poor
Soulpatch, you wrote the above as if it were stating general rules, but each "rule" only apparently refers to one case each:
Let's try to find a way to include the point you are trying to make AND conform to NPOV at the same time. This is not censorship -- just editing. Work with me, pal. -- Ed Poor
Okay, but be careful lest the article even seem to endorse the anti-Republican point of view implicit in the malaprops and "pollution from plants" things. One would have to be a simpleton not to realize that Bush and Reagan are meant. The "pollution" quote should be cited in full. Anyway, did Reagan really mean that 80% of ALL pollution came from vegetation, or just 80% of ONE PARTICULAR GAS? Was he wrong? Who says so? Did he ever recant his statement?
It's well known that partisans make up all sorts of things to drum up support for their cause. I'm not saying Republicans or Democrats do it more or less. (I am not a member of either party, fwiw.)
I hate to do this to ya, pal, but I'm gonna revert it again. It still looks like a partisan swipe against Republicans. -- Ed Poor
Oops! United Nations Senate -- how could I have missed that one? That's why in a good shop, two other pairs of eyes read every line of code. Good catch, Brion.
When I added that tag, this article was in only one category: Political terminology. That category has the note "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable."
-- Rob Kelk 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
the article lacks a selection (no, not a list, ffs!) of examples of what it attempts to describe or define. it's currently vague to the point of obfuscation, & useless to anyone coming across the term for the first time. fix it or delete it.