Talk:Bushism/Archive 1

message: :Quotes from Bush's speeches that create an impression of incompetence are also called Bushisms. Many quotes include misconceptions about geography, history, political process and the world in general, but there is no easy way to tell how many of them reflect Bush's knowledge and opinions and how many are just results of verbal mishaps.
This should read as follows:
* Bush opponents select quotes from his speeches to create an impression of incompetence. Other politicians make just as many mistakes, but get a pass (see liberal media bias).
* Some books of "Bushisms" choose quotes to highlight what they claim are "misconceptions", etc. These books typically make no attempt to divide verbal mishaps from either (a) points they simply disagree with politically or (b) outright errors of fact. These books take a lighthearted tone but basically call Bush an "idiot" more from political motives than anything else.
Or am I just biased? Let's think about it over the weekend and try to find a neutral way to describe all this. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:The version suggested above is more biased than the original, only in a different direction. It is not factual to state that "Other politicians make just as many mistakes, but get a pass (see liberal media bias)". Perhaps that opinion could be attributed to someone notable, but to simply state it  definitively is not valid (I am relatively certain that Bush has made humorous errors in speech with significantly higher frequency than the average politician, but lacking data on the subject we shouldn't conjecture in the article). Also, I don't think its accurate to state that these books are "more from political motives than anything else". "Bushisms", at least in the context of the Bushisms book that I paged though at a bookstore, are more humor-motivated than anything else. The book I saw wasn't about disagreeing with the president as much as about laughing at him. I would not oppose including some of your suggested text if it can be NPOVed a bit, but for now here is my attempt at a more NPOV version of what was already in the article:
::Quotes from Bush's speeches that create an impression of incompetence are often called Bushisms. Many quotes, sometimes taken out of context, seem to imply that Bush has significant misconceptions about geography, history, political processes, and the world in general. There is no easy way to tell how many of the quotes reflect Bush's actual knowledge and opinions and how many are merely results of verbal mishaps, but that has not stopped some of Bush's critics from using a number of embarrassing mistakes in efforts to discredit him.
:~leif ☺ HELO 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Quotes such as "Wow! Brazil is big." and "You forgot Poland" are a direct attack to Bush. According to the article "A Bushism is a word, phrase, or other grammatical configuration unique to the style of President George W. Bush", which means that Bush should be quoted on grammatically incorrect phrases, instead of the significance of these. Whether these quotes might seem semantically stupid or incoherent is beyond what should be discussed here. I suggest deleting this article or at least working on its NPOV. This article is clearly POV.--Sampi 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the removal of the NPOV tag. "You forgot Poland" is not an accurate quote, and should be edited. In fact, you're right, it should be removed, because there's no Bushism in the correct version, which is "Well, actually, he forgot Poland." However, "Wow! Brazil is big" does not push any point of view, and it is a Bushism in that it would seem to indicate that President Bush is entirely ignorant of the geography of South America. The reader will make his or her judgement based on President Bush's words, and that is all that we can do at present. NatusRoma 07:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "a word, phrase, or other grammatical configuration unique to the style of President George W. Bush while speaking publicly and usually extemporaneously."
"Wow! Brazil is big" does not use a style unique to Bush.
If we wish to create an article, we must first define what bushisms really are; if they are indeed stupid or redundant things that Bush has said, then bring back "You forgot Poland" and others; otherwise, stick to Bush's lousy grammar. --Sampi 21:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Actually, he forgot Poland" is not stupid or redundant. "Wow, Brazil is big" is. Even if I'm wrong about both of those, neither is worth an NPOV tag. NatusRoma 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "It's your money. You paid for it." —La Crosse, Wisconsin, October 18, 2000
I didn't catch this speech, nor did I ever come across it before this article, but I'm (fairly, at least) sure that this had something to do with taxes, writeoffs, et cetera.
I'm not certain about this particular quote, but all of the quotes on this list would benefit from at least a paragraph of context available... somewhere (if not just linking to the whole text itself).
In my opinion, until context is provided for the quotes, NPOV stays.
--KyleP 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Removed two badly faked entries from top of quotes section that were added by 205.149.177.3 in September. The "-Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005" from the previous entry had simply pasted underneath them. Fakes were: 
"I'd like tuh say that John Kerry tried hard but losed fair n' square"-Washin'ton, D.C., May 31, 2005
"Our childrens is bein' misundereducated"
-Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005 
Of course, if anyone can prove them real, please re-add, preferably without the pronounciation insults like "tuh" and "bein'". No need for those.
Tale 11:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake quotes 

message: Most of the quotes can be found at Wikiquote, so I've removed them from here and provided a link to Wikiquote. I've left the ones that aren't on the Wikiquote page, as well as You forgot Poland since it has a Wikipedia article. --Angr/ 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: It looks like everyone is getting along on the language of this one...  And its probably about time to remove the tag.  If I don't hear anything in the next few days 'bout it, I'll remove it, I think...  Seems like the page is pretty calm now.
 Windsagio 00:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: but that has not stopped some of Bush's critics from using the unusually large number of embarrassing mistakes in efforts to discredit him.
is superfluous, and not entirely npov. "this has not stopped X from" implies that X was not deterred by a valid objection, while the preceding sentence only explores the possibilities that (a) Bush has really no idea about anything, or that (b) Bush is simply incapable of speaking for half a minute without butchering English grammar. Both possibilities entail a remarkably low intelligence on the potus' part.  It may be a matter of opinion whether Bush is sent from God. It is certainly beyond dispute that he is essentially aphasic. I am not proposing the term aphasia is inserted (although it may be justifiable), I am arguing that the sentence suggesting that  Bush is in some way "made look" (rather than simply making himself look, or being) stupid. 83.77.216.101 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove NPOV tag? 

message: I've never seen any proof that the President ever said this.  Sure he's quoted with it all the time, but verbal speech doesn't leave evidence in the air.  Maybe he said, "Is...Are children learning?"  When politicians speak freely, they often change the tense of the sentence in the middle of it.  I know it would ruin everyone's day if "is our children learning" is a misquote, but I just don't see it.  -65.66.103.43 16:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is our children learning 

message: I'd like to find the original quote where Bush used the neologism "tacular" (referring to tactical nuclear weapons). There are tons of Google hits for this phrase, and reputable sources such as the Washington Post and CNN seem sure that he said it, but I cannot find the exact quote or the speech it was part of. Can anyone help? Firebug 05:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try adding "transcript" to the search terms... Occasionally it is possible to find such things, although for old press conferences and speeches, the material is sometimes removed... Dzerzhinsky 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tacular Weapons" 

message: In general these example quotations seem reasonably referenced and chosen. I propose categorizing them in the interest of readability, perhaps by the issue that he is speaking about (Terrorism, Trade, Social Security, Iraq, etc.) Savidan 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Didn't he say "Liberty Tower" instead of "Library Tower"? I figured it was because "freedom" features in so many of his speeches, and he's probably never been in a library himself, so... :-) Wouter Lievens 13:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, dubbya said "Liberty Tower" when referencing the supposed foiled terror attack on L.A. "Library Tower". It was even shown on his Fox News channel. I also seriously doubt that dubbya has ever been in a library other than the kids library when he read that kids book to some children during the 9/11 attacks. -- Vinny 12:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Tower? 

message: I reformatted Make the Pie Higher to expose grammatical errors so they don't get mistaken as wikipedia errors. Also changed mental -> mential apropos the actual speech, the same as was previously done with 'human being and fish can coexist -> can coexist peacefully'. While this isn't part of the poem as is generally found on the internet, it makes more sense in the context of a Bushism article to keep the poem closer to actual Bushisms so long as they don't interfere with flow or meaning in any way. If you don't like what's been done to it, by all means revert it -- I was just experimenting with a different way to convey the same thing and will by no means defend it to the death. Arrenlex 05:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like these edits.  The poem is an original composition by well-known satirist; you can't change it as you see fit and claim it is the same work.  The link to Urban Legends Reference Pages is enough for the reader interested in exactly how accuratly it quotes Bush.  You are free to add notes following the poem that specify deviations from Bush's actual utterances. nadav 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make the Pie Higher edit 

message: (Disclaimer: I am in no way a Bush supporter.) I think the summary leading up to the Frank quote is far more on-topic than the quote itself. The quote proceeds to talk about "untreated symptoms," etc., with some rather alarmist rhetoric. The lead-up, on the other hand, makes a relevant and sourced statement that this individual thinks the Bushisms may indicate certain specific conditions (though I'd remove the words "thought disorders," as it's a technical term and usually used to refer to psychosis-type conditions).Lawikitejana 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The rest of the quote seems more about Frank's politics than the reasons for Bush's bad speaking skills. (BTW, earlier I did not see the citation of Frank's book at the bottom) nadav 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Frank quote - can we compromise? 

message: I don't this think is accurate.  Some of the lines are just chimeric idioms.  "Make the pie [become] higher" is neither ungrammatical nor a logical error.  One could conceivably take a pie and make it higher by adding another layer of crust.  It's a Bushism because it mixes one idiom (a bigger piece of the pie, or some such) with another (reach higher or raise the bar, perhaps?) in a metaphorically awkward way.  Similarly, "put food on your family"="put food on the table"+"feed your family", but it fine grammatically and logically.  The pitbull at the pantleg of opportunity line isn't even a metaphorical mixup, it's just a weird metaphor.--ragesoss 15:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Each line contains some sort of grammatical or logical error"

message: Does anyone else think the photo looks funny?  Has it been Photoshopped?  His head looks disproportionate to his body. Dubc0724 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, it's identical to the photo on the White House website that is cited when you click on the photo in wikipedia.  nadav 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was my monitor.  On a different PC today and it looks alright.  Sorry for the mixup Dubc0724 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about changing the picture to the cover of one of the many books that deal with Bushisms?--Roland Deschain 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow the photo looks like he saying a "bushism". The photo seems a good fit. A book cover would make a cheesy article look even more cheesy ("..and if you like bushisms, here buy a book full of them"). --MarsRover 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Photo of Bush in the Article 

message: Did all the list of Bushisms make it to wikiquote? The list here was more complete than what is there. --MarsRover 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Bushisms 

message: You know, I still can't believe what a mentally challenged man the Americans actually elected for president... Ah well. —Nightstallion (?) 13:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughing out loud. 

message: I suspect that the relative youthfulness of editors on wikipedia has produced an article that contains an underlying assumption that is false.  Namely that the term "Bushism" relates only to George W. Bush.  However, the first use of this term that I know of was in 1992 and it referred to similar linguistic problems by George Herbert Walker Bush.  The underlying sense of the article (and some of the speculative conclusions) are, as a result, invalid. --Blue Tie 13:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who could forget Bush I's "Nitty Ditty Gritty Nitty Great Speckled Bird"? Gzuckier 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is somewhat messed up

message: Is there a page regarding famous persons' neologism, & famous mispronunciation, more generally?
I do think that this morning George Bush, the Second, called me " agnostarc" [ ignostic].
Thank You.
hopiakuta 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Is everything that Bush says a "Bushism"?  This section makes no sense in the context of errors.  The word "Decider" is acceptable English.  Why is this a "Bushism"?  --04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Decider?

message: I've taken out these two mistakes from the list, they were not sourced and Google was unable to locate any other hits for them other then Wikipedia-sourced sites.
* Use of two modal verbs, such as "musta could've."
* Slang and double negatives, as in "We've not got no better friend and ally than South Korea."
If editors can supply sources, they are welcome to put them back. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi and Prince Phillip don't get this much attention paid to their verbal gaffs, and they are all just as notorious for them. Naturally most Americans won't know who those people are with the possible exception of Putin, but I'd just like to point out that if Bushs misspeech warrants its own article, so does that of the people I mentioned. Damburger 18:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please write articles for those if you can.  I am interested to see what kind of funny utterances the seemingly stoic Putin puts out.  On another topic, I find it funny that the gigantic section of quotes (rightly moved to wikiquote) is now being slowly restored one quote at a time by various befuddled people (only this time without proper citation). nadav 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: George Bush%2c the Second, has declared that
he has seen into President Vlad Putin's soul;
he's claimed to see Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's heart.
Please, what's your opinion??:
Does he have x-ray division,
or extrasensory prevarication??
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vlad]] 

message: This section was in the article but I have removed it.  The word "Decider" is not improper english nor was Bush's use of the word improper english.  Bushisms involve errors in usage and this is not one.   I removed it here to keep the record straight. --Blue Tie 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Decider" is a world. Just not an English one. It's an Old French word. Since I rather doubt Bush was aware of this, it's a Bushism. 71.203.209.0 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken.  Please see the extensive discussion above.  nadav 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Bushism

message: It is a legitimate Bushism.  But should they all go in here?  A few examples are good enough for the article, with a link to other lists.  I don't think it is that famous or that noteable. --Blue Tie 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is a Bushism anything that someone makes fun of when Bush says it?  That is not in the description of what a bushism is.  The article should not include EVERY possible Bushim, but only some examples and if that is so, then it definitely should not include things that do not meet the definition of what a Bushism is. --Blue Tie 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything you said.  However, because of the phrase's great popularity, discussion of it in secondary sources, and its usage in the media, I believe it deserves mention on wikipedia.  The quote used to have its own article, but an afd decision (see above for link) was to move its content to Bushism.  I started a deletion review, but there was not enough interest to reinstate the article.  So I think it is better that decider appear here rather than nowhere.  nadav 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it deserves mention on wikipedia (I do not think it does) then it belongs in some other article.  This is an article about gaffes and ordinary quotes are not appropriate.  I do not think all Bushisms should even be listed. Just some representative examples. And when they appear, a simple list is enough, not a detailed discussion of the event.  Maybe you should include it in wikiquotes.  Then it would be part of wikimedia but not inappropriately part of this article. --Blue Tie 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Though you appreciate the article the issue is really: Is it correctly categorized as a Bushism?  If it is not a Bushism, it belongs somewhere else.  You are incorrect about the origin of the term. The term was originally created by the editors of the New Republic, specifically Jonathan Bines back in the early 1990's.  There is a good "Quotes" area in wikimedia.  It is called "wikiquotes".  The Decider is also not a Bushism unless a Bushism is ANYTHING that Bush says.  In which case we should include things he said to his wife and phrases written for him by speech writers.  But wait... there's a place for that.. its wikiquotes! --Blue Tie 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is agreement on this page, I think, that decider quote is correct English (it has been in use since 1592).  The question is merely whether Bush's comment and discussion of its use by critics deserves to be on wikipedia.  Judging from the afd and deletion review decisions, as well as comments made earlier on this page, consensus is that it does. I urge you to reinstate the material.  nadav 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Google

message: < http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061106-5.html >:
Well, let me give you an example of what that means for you. Anybody here got four kids, three kids? You got four? Four. Three, okay. Shhh. All right, wait, wait. (Laughter.) I don't know why I asked that? (Laughter.) Oh, I know why I asked it. When you're at dinner tonight -- and, say, you got four kids -- if the tax cuts are not extended, the child tax credit goes from $1,000 per child to $500, see.
[[ hopiakuta  | [[ %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  -]] 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I don't know why I asked that?"