Talk:Bushism

incorrect URL (and, missing item number ... "26.") in footnote no. "[14]"

This is just a "heads up" (and maybe a "request for comments" [Rfc]) before I [really get going, and start to] fix an incorrect URL in footnote number "[14]" ... the first of two footnotes on the penultimate (second to last) bullet point of the "General" sub-section (Bushism#General) of the "Notable statements" (Bushism#Notable statements) section of this article.

This "heads up"/"Rfc" is based upon the current version (the 11:31, 19 May 2017‎ version) of the article, "as of" [May 23, 2017] when this ["Talk:" page] section was first written.

URL seems to "forward" to a page about "Bush 41"

As of the "11:31, 19 May 2017" version of the article, the link in footnote number "[14]" points to the URL http://quotations.about.com/od/georgewbush/a/bushquo.htm and ... that LINK, when I tried it (on May 23, 2017), seemed to automatically (without any command from me!) forward to the URL https://www.thoughtco.com/george-hw-bush-41st-president-usa-104652 ... which is about "Bush 41" (George H. W. Bush), the father of "Bush 43" (George W. Bush) ... so ... it is NOT about "Bush 43" (George W. Bush) himself.

Is it possible that the automatic forwarding, from one URL to another, has changed, chez the target web site, "http://quotations.about.com/" -- ? -- Maybe!

I do not know the answer to the above question. Anyone have any answers? (or, any other comments?) In general, it is probably advisable for footnotes from places like Wikipedia to use URLs in links, (e.g. in footnotes, such as this one), that bypass such automatic forwarding, from one URL to another, to the extent possible ... if/when that can be done ... by using a "final destination" URL (if known) instead of a URL that will be subject to "forwarding". (Of course, things can change over time. Hence the question in the previous paragraph! But at least we can TRY [to bypass such automatic "forwarding"].)

By the way, there is a VIDEO at https://www.dotdash.com/ which might shed some light on the reason for the automatic "forwarding" ... and the reason why there might be some things that have changed, since some previous editor coded (in wikitext) the "ref tag" for footnote no. [14]. I am not sure ... but I do not have the time (/the "inclination") to look in to it "further" today.

that web site does [also] have a page that IS about "Bush 43"

I noticed that -- besides the fact that https://www.thoughtco.com/george-hw-bush-41st-president-usa-104652 ... which is about "Bush 41" (George H. W. Bush), does not contain the quotation ["See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."] that this footnote (footnote no. [14]) is attached to, as a source ... there does exist an analogous web page -- at https://www.thoughtco.com/dumbest-bush-quotes-of-all-time-2734076 -- and that web page IS about "Bush 43" (George W. Bush) ... and that web page about "43" DOES contain -- (in item number "26.") the quotation that footnote no. [14] is attached to as a source.

Also, as long as the item that contains that quotation does have an item number, ("26."), IMHO the footnote should mention that item number.

I do not know how things got to be "the way they are" here, with this footnote -- footnote number "[14]". (For example, with [a] the forwarding from one URL to another, and with [b] in so doing, winding up at the wrong URL.) However, I intend to fix some things -- for one thing, by changing the URL in this footnote. I also have a good mind to might add something about "item number "26." to this footnote, along with changing the URL.

Any advice or other comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Wings take dream" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wings take dream. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

'Linguistic errors'

I don't think this phrase makes sense, as linguistics is, for the most part, a descriptive science that aims to describe. Therefore, by nature it cannot declare anything to be erroneous or correct as this would fall under prescriptivism and thus lies outside the domain of linguistics. Perhaps 'grammatical errors' or 'usage errors' would work better here? Fluoromethyl (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of iraq I mean ukraine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of iraq I mean ukraine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 30 § Wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of iraq I mean ukraine until a consensus is reached. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Bidenism

If you want to document W's goofups, where's the page with Biden's odd statements? 2800:E2:C80:192E:41E0:9C40:50B:5CB8 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)