Talk:Bushism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Suggestions for how to proceed with this article

1. Delete on sight all new additions to the Other Bushisms section, or enforce a strict policy of strong consensus on talk page on whether it's worth it to include them. A long list makes this article a quote farm, and wikiquote exists for this very purpose. Discussions on the merit of new additions are draining valuable effort that would be much better spent on providing sources for the rest of the article and expanding it.
2. Find reliable sources that define bushisms in detail. As everyone agreed above, this article is mostly quotes and original research and/or synthesis without this crucial first step.
3. Expand article to include reliably sourced, noteworthy views about the bushism phenomenon. Childhood's End has provided one such view above in the quote about UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. Also, this article used to contain analysis from Justin A. Frank's book, which might be useful. We need to add content, not just quotes and an OR definition.

--Respectfully, nadav (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of these things--though I think number 1 is harsh and too unilateral. Most have been reverted on site because they don't belong or aren't sourced properly and I do agree that the list shouldn't get too long, but I don't think that a policy of nothing else unless is the right way to go. Personally, I think the current list needs cleaning--it's missing some of the most notable Bushisms, and it has random stuff on there.

The quote by Childhood's end was directed at Slate especially, and I think personally that the Slate source should be replaced with a better source. Technically it's ok, but it's not a great source.

I also think that this article needs to be expanded, but I'd point to different areas. We have no section on the father, we have nothing on pop culture influences, like strategery, and we mention briefly that it's used to caricature them, but we don't mention anything else about it--not linguistically, not how it's used politically. W in particular used Bushisms etc to shape a persona of being a common man--we don't refer to any of that, not the speeches like the one I refered to above, nothing. This needs a lot of expansion, but we need to be careful that we expand evenly. We shouldn't write a section talking about one end of the political specturm and this without writing the other. At the moment, while this article is sparse in the extreme, it's pretty neutral. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:33, June 6 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To me, the only acceptable way to proceed with this article is to keep the first section and delete the poem and the quote list. It's ok to have an article that acknowledges the existence of some popular caricature phenomenom called "Bushism" and to attempt at describing it. Then the article could point to references, like Slate, that propose specific "Bushisms" or other related stuff. But listing here the Bushisms reported or made up by Slate comes to endorsing Slate's view that this or this sentence is a "Bushism", what of course should be avoided at all costs in an encyclopedia, especially if it is meant to be neutral. --Childhood's End 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

drug moved to characteristics?

• "This investigation is taking a long time, kind of being drug out."
• "And as to how Gonzales -- first of all, this process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political."

The one you removed--drug instead of dragged is a Bushism that's been made more than once, probably often and should probably be moved to the characteristics section. Do you think you could do this Nadav? I was having trouble writing it. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:26, June 12 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring it to the Other Bushisms section instead because of my concerns about the the approach taken in the characteristics section. It still seems iffy to me to attempt to describe his speech patterns without citing a secondary source, so I'm adding a synthesis tag to the section. I think the case can be made though that the list of Bushisms should include examples of patterns such as the one you describe. nadav (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am completely lost. Please justify

1. Why do we need the drug out example twice?
2. Why do we need the synthesis template? What exactly do you think is unreferenced?

Asbl 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For point 2, see "Concern about Characteristics/definition" and other previous discussions. Basically, this section lists a few (reliably sourced) examples of Bushisms, and then makes broad OR-like assertions that these few sourced examples are common characteristics of the way he talks. A secondary source must be provided that does the general linguistic analysis of his speech; we can't make it up ourselves. nadav (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have rephrased to take out your concerns that it is common to his speech. I think now there is no more a need for the {{synthesis}} template. --However whatever 22:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note about how he hasn't always had these speech difficulties?

Does some kind of note need to be made in here about how as recently as 10 years ago (while he was governor of Texas) he appeared not to have these same difficulties in putting together sentences? If you watch this video, he appears to speak quite fluently, without stumbling over words or pausing. There appears to be a very substantial decline in his speaking skills just over the last several years since he became President. Clinevol98 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nucular

Actually, nucular weapons is also correct because it is related to Nukes. I dunno why people make fun of it.-Saince 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Because nuke is short for nuclear,nucular is just a lazy mispronounciation.94.196.207.248 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nucular for more. 82.32.40.219 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

An example?

I have found a video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-S47qZm3CI) that shows some common 'bushisms'. Might it be integrated into the article?

There are already examples in the article, and I think wikipedia frowns on links to Youtube. --Blue Tie 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why no Youtube links, a picture speaks a thousand words. By example I meant actual footage, but never mind then. I can't imagine someone watching that video and not laughing, though, hehehe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.139.162 (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2007

No YouTube because it's not what's considered a "reliable source" (with which I agree); of course, that's despite Wikipedia itself being, basically, one giant unreliable source ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Page size limit ?

I added a couple of sourced quotes but only one is appearing in the article and I can't see why. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So tempting

The only thing keeping me from adding the caption "George W. Bush, grinning like an idiot" under Bush's picture on the article is my utmost respect for the Wikipedia project. Curses. - Throw 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This section brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department

OK, so at least some of the blame for the confusion and the mini-edit war here is my fault: I didn't see that the same example ("cash money") was used in both places. This was unintentional; sorry for the confusion.

However, I still say that these examples illustrate different things (so long as you remove the "cash money" example from the second item). The first illustrates using two words with the same meaning for emphasis; the second shows the use of redundant phrases ("Teresa Nelson who's a parent, and a mom or a dad"), which is similar but different. So they ought to both stay (but please take out the redundantly redundant parts which are the same in both parts and are repeated ...). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank God. For a while, I thought I have entered The Twilight Zone. Obviously, the two bullets are very similar, as they both deal with redundancy, and can therefore be combined. I don't feel like thinking about this right now. In a few days I'll draft some wording to allow combination of the two bullets which will hopefully satisfy everybody (unless someone else will beat me to it, which will be perfectly OK with me). --However whatever 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bush's APEC Speech

Shouldn't there be the phrase from Bush's APEC speech:

I thank you all for inviting me to this OPEC meeting...

Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's included. See first bullet of Bushism#Characteristics --However whatever 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandela?

I'm not sure about this one. Really it is more a case of people misunderstanding what he said, than him saying something stupid. It is perfectly understandable that he not suggesting Nelson Mandela is dead, just that an Iraqi Mandela-like person would be dead due to the actions of Hussein. Evil Monkey - Hello 11:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You may have had a point if Bush would have just said "Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas", but Bush added the specific phrase "Mandela's dead" -- not "all the Mandellas are dead". --However whatever 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I understood that to be a metaphor but everyone is taking the quote literally. He could have probably put it better. Of course it would go with the other quotes here of him referring to Africa as a country or Nigeria as a continent (both of which I'm sure he knows are incorrect). Evil Monkey - Hello 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Evil Monkey is correct. This is not a Bushism per the definitions of what a Bushism is in the article. Incidentally, the definitions Bushisms is original research. --Blue Tie 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with definitions and original research

• I believe this article must conform with WP:BLP.
• As far as I can tell, none of the characteristics of "Bushism" have been established from a reliable source and we do not have a definition from a reliable source.
• The examples given frequently do not fit the characteristics of Bushism as given in the article. Some are not errors of any kind and some are so minor as to not be notable.
• I have analyzed the examples vs the characteristics. Here is how I see it:

	Characteristics as desribed by the article
Examples given in the article	Malapropism	Neologism	Spoonerisms	Folksy pluralization	Informal Desc. of Presidency	Redundancy for emphasis	Change of subject midsentence	Wrong word order	Explaining the obvious	No characteristics
is our children learning?										X
the human being and fish										X
Enemies never stop ... harm our country ..., and neither do we."							?	X
I talk to families who die."										X
a half-glass-full mentality.								X
put food on your family.								X
OB/GYNs ...practice their love with women	?
Families is where .. wings take dream.				?				X
potential mential losses.	?
Fool me - you can't get fooled again..										X
he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.										X
disassemble—that means not tell the truth.	?	?
Africa is a nation										X
hold ... Hostile	X
Nigeria... a continent										X
Investigation drug out										X
a chicken-plucking factory...you know what I'm talking about."										X
War .. A dangerous place										X
Iran - I mean Iraq										X
Left hand / right hand										X
Mandela's dead. ...Hussein killed all the Mandelas.										X

• Per WP:NOT we should not list every example we can find.

--Blue Tie 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that what has gone on with this article is that there was a list of "Bushisms" floating around, and someone has come up with the list of characteristics. The cart went before the horse. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of original research. --Blue Tie 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I heartedly concur. --Childhood's End 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Military speech

"America needs a military were are breast and bridess are proud to serve, and proud to stay." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanknothingoknaruto (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

IS THIS FOR REAL?!?!!?

After I read this article about bush I assumed the article was about how funny and retarded bush is. But I'm still not sure if Bushism falls under the category of Politics or Political Humour. The only word mentioned in the article about Bushisms being afunny thing is how its refered to as a caracture. --• Storkian • 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

highly doubt this ones real but i remember reading it somewhere-

Bush's aids come into his office and tell him that 3 Brazilian soldiers died in Iraq. He then asked "Just how many is a Brazillion?" I'll try to find where i read it.Д narchistPig (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a joke.-Wafulz (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this really a Bushism?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but could someone explain to me what's wrong/funny about this quote, which is included in the article: "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured." --82.69.202.14 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I noticed it. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Misunderestinmate is NOT a Bushism

God people, he OBVIOUSLY meant that people have underestimated him, but not for the many things that he actually did wrong.

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.244.94 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It "obviously" IS a Bushism. By the definition we're going by here (as written on the first line of this article), if it's a phrase that didn't exist until it came out of Bush's mouth (which this one clearly is) it is, per se, a Bushism. Period. End of story. We're not concerned with "what he obviously meant", just what he obviuously said! Anything else is not NPOV.Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This recent one should be removed:

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." -- This is taken out of context. He is wishing eventual-President Barack Obama 'all the very best' in his attempts to combat global terror. You can easily derive this by reading/watching the entire interview. It should be removed. (Pl07442 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

It doesn't matter what context it was in, if people view it as a Bushism it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.36.182 (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a Bushism because Dubya doesn't know how to properly construct a sentence. You don't say "I wish him all the best" after describing someone that "...would like to attack America..." unless you want that someone (that you just described)to succeed... in attacking America... because that's how English works. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article needs more detail

Looking at the side of the talk section verses the amount of text in the article, I think a lot of people have an interest in this and it should be expanded. Bush was an idiot and more references of his stupidity should be included to show future children what a moron he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.242.32 (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Suicider?

Why does "suicider" redirect here? I can't find anything in the article relating to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.210.185 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It redirects here because Bush made up the word. It didn't exist until he made it up. See http://www.dubyaspeak.com/repeatoffender/suiciders, unfortunately it doesn't cite it's sources but that shouldn't be too hard to track down. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Do You have blacks too?

This list fails to quote him for asking the Brazillian President "Do you have blacks too?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.235.57.1 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? And? If you've got a source to cite that backs up that phrase as a Bushism, please, don't keep it to yourself. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chimp-O-Matic

Do you think the site http://chimpomatic.net is appropriate for Wikipedia?Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It's just a gimmick and I don't think it meets WP:EL. Yintaɳ  08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Intent

I think something should be said about the man's intent concerning some of these statements and malapropisms. For example, the quote: ""I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging", which was made at the dedication of his portrait in Austin. This was an intentional play on words, as was apparent to anyone in attendance or who has seen video of the event (which I have). There needs to be either a distinction made concerning intentional remarks of this nature, and/or a disclaimer in the beginning paragraph that states the fact that some of the remarks are purposefully done as humor or self deprecation. As the article reads now, every remark labeled a "Bushism" is the result of bungling on the part of the former President. In fact, the opening paragraph defines these remarks as such: "The term Bushism is a neologism that refers to a number of unconventional words, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms and semantic or linguistic errors". This definition is misleading, because some of the comments are not "errors", but rather intentional, humorous remarks and word play.

This may be corrected simply by rewording the aforementioned sentence, and perhaps a new topic may be created under which clearly intentional remarks could be listed. Supertheman ^(talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote "Bush goes to Hel. That's what a lot of people want" also sounds to me like a deliberate joke, rather than a gaffe. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"My Hanging"

I read the one about Bush welcoming people to "his hanging," and it sounds more of a joke than a gaffe. --Iliada 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hot Link for "neologism"

All the other words in the last sentence of the first paragraph have links to pages which I assume define the words, except "neologism"

<quote>It is often used to caricature the two presidents. Common characteristics include malapropisms, the creation of neologisms, spoonerisms, stunt words and grammatically incorrect subject-verb agreement.</quote>

I read the whole article, and most of the discussion page, and still have absolutely NO IDEA what a neologism is.

Nice long discussion about bushisms, ALL about bushisms, with a weak definition for the word and a desparate struggle to find examples, and faint hope of finding sources for those examples, yet here's this huge and (I assume) very well-defined word in the very first paragraph that has no link to a definition. And it's used throughout the article, and in your discussion pages also. WTF are you people doing, and thinking ?

"Neologism". How many people off the street are going to know what that is ? Seems like everyone wants desert, but no one wants to cook dinner first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neologism Hot Link

I wrote the above, and clicked save before signing it. Can someone please fix. (I would but don't know how.)

99.137.251.249 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Malamanteau

Wouldn't "malamanteau" more percisely describe what is coined as being a "bushism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.177.146 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"right decision ever"

That phrase contains no linguistic errors. To do something forever is semantically the same as doing something ever. "I will ever do it / I will do it ever." While Bush certainly didn't know this when he said it, it remains semantically valid and is only funny to people who haven't read a run of the mill 1940s strict verse poet or anyone else whose speech isn't solely composed of vulgarisms. I'm removing it from the list. Unless I'm not getting the joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalk (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong President Bush

The line "The first, Bushisms/President George Herbert Walker Bush in His Own Words, was released in 1992." refers not to GWB, but rather his father GHWB. It either does not belong here OR the article needs to be expanded a bit to be inclusive of GHWB style of speech, which also, shall we say, had a special "flair". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acm acm (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

French word for entrepreneur

I don't believe Bush ever said this. This link to this quote, http://www.newstatesman.com/200212160048, is a newspaper which is quoting a website which seems to now be defunct. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.13.31.236 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Economics/Wall Street got drunk

Can someone please explain the inclusion of the "Wall Street got drunk" quote on this page? It isn't readily apparent how it qualifies as a spoonerism, malapropism, etc. It just appears to be a candid assessment aided by an apt metaphor. Robert K S (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's him saying "How long will it (Wall Street) sober up" when he probably intended to say "How long will it be until Wall Street sobers up" or something to that degree. --Angeljon121 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the [sic] after "TV" referring to? I cannot seem to find any grammatical mistake there. 85.24.223.146 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See, free nations are peaceful nations

I don't see how this qualifies. One can agree or disagree with the merits of the statement, but how does this qualify as any form of "Bushism," as defined in this article? Dikteren (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the quote and removed the part that makes it odd. I restored the full version. --109.158.214.140 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Actual statistics

Has someone ever compiled actual statistics of Bushims? Or compared them to similar gaffs from Clinton or Obama? If so, they belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.75.149 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

John P. Briggs Statement

I removed the John P. Briggs statement as it doesn't appear to add anything productive to the article. It's mostly a partisan rant of nonsense. There's still a lot of work needed to make this article less biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.75.149 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent and probably wrong definition of 'Bushism'

At the top of the page it says two times that the article is about statements by George W. Bush, while in the Discussion section it says "Bushisms, particularly those of George W. Bush". This doesn't make much sense and is probably due to the fact that the term was used before G.W. Bush became a public figure, inspired by statements from G.H.W. Bush. MAKreler (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason may also be the fact that many of the published "Bushisms" have been found to be misattributions of the verbal faux pas of a large number of politicians and public speakers. Commonly mispronounced words like "nucular", have also been called "Bushisms", but have been used by other Presidents as well. Merennulli (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If people thought (or even thought they thought) George Bush's linguistically or semantically pronounceable errors were deliberate, they wouldn't find then as amusing as they do. Anonymous1 (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.39.232 (talk)

And how many actual Bushisms were (semi-)deliberate, to get some sort of reaction? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)