Talk:Winston tastes good like a cigarette should/Archives/2012

GA

Congrats, this is now officially a Good Article. Way to go on documenting such an interesting piece of Americana. pschemp | talk 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MAD Magazine parody

The back cover of MAD's January 1971 issue (distributed in November 1970) features a color photograph of a cemetery with four thought balloons superimposed. Their dialogue is as follows:

• 1: "Winston tasted good like a cigarette should've."
• 2: "You mean, as a cigarette should've."
• 3: "What did you want, good grammar or good taste?"
• 4: "I wanted to live a lot longer than this!"
• Caption at bottom of page: "Winston may not say it right, but they sure know how to put you right -- six feet under with CANCER BLEND tobaccos."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Angilbas (talk • contribs)

Grammatically incorrect?

I think it should be changed from "many noted that the slogan was grammatically incorrect; it should, correctly, say.." to "many claimed that the slogan was grammatical incorrect, saying that it should, correctly, be..". Somehow I doubt it actually is grammatically incorrect. --Ptcamn 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed change isn't right either. As far as I can tell from the article, consensus at the time was that the phrase was grammatically incorrect, even if modern standards of grammatical correctness might not have judged it incorrect back then (if it was already in use in speech, which the article doesn't address). To complicate matters, this use of like is no longer considered ungrammatical today by more than a minority.

I propose "many noted that the slogan was grammatically incorrect; it should have said..." This removes the present tense altogether. 194.151.6.67 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical correctness isn't just a "standard", defined by consensus. It's an objective thing. If they thought it was grammatically incorrect at the time, then they were just as wrong as they would be if they claimed the same today (in my opinion). --Ptcamn 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that grammatical correctness is not defined by concensus--it's defined by what people actually do (Ptcamn, is that what you mean by it being 'an objective thing'?). I agree with Ptcamn's proposed changes above. Just because people agreed it was incorrect doesn't mean it was--it is quite normal that how people speak, and how they think they speak are quite different. Actually, I'd like to see someone characterise exactly what it is about the construction that is grammatically incorrect. Dougg 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical correctness is not defined by consensus, but standards of what is considered grammatically correct are. Speakers of the language actually define the grammar, but grammar lawyers are the ones who point out what is and isn't correct (according to their learnéd opinions).

What I'm trying to say is: even back then, the phrase might have been grammatically correct (in the sense of "everyone was using it and only the pundits were complaining based on some argument with no basis in fact") but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered grammatically incorrect by said pundits. 194.151.6.67 11:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is explained: like should not be used as a conjunction in this sense, but replaced with as. In any case, I do propose that any changes we do to that section be written out here and discussed before being changed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an injunction, not an explanation. And 'like' (in this usage) is usually described as a comprative preposition: I'm not sure why it's called a conjunction here. Surely it's not very different from, say, 'he's strong like an ox'? Dougg 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, do find a source where grammarians or English professors or the like defend "like a cigarette should." It'd be an interesting addition to the article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll be possible to find a discussion of exactly this example, but I'm sure similar constructions have been described. I've emailed a colleague (I'm a linguist, but not an English specialist) about this. Hopefully I'll have something to post soon. Dougg 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This has resurfaced, see this diff. Can we "teach the controversy" somehow? maybe grammar has changed over time. Certainly descriptivists would say so. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I agree... —Nightstallion (?) 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it really changed, though? The Oxford English Dictionary cites "[y]e have said lyke a noble lady ought to say" from 1530, "[t]o act like Judith did with Holofernes", among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.202.51 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PD on TV!

Evidently (one of) the TV version(s) of this is PD, as the Internet Archive/Prelinger Archives has this availible for download: http://www.archive.org/details/ClassicT1948_3 along with several other cigarette commericals. 68.39.174.238 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GA review

This is a great piece of work by editors, it still meets the required elements asked for it to be of GA status.

A minor point can be sounded in that some claims made in the lead section aren't mentioned elsewhere in the text and since the lead section should summarize the article, it would be appropriate to see these statements extended in the article, if possible. Lincher 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean; please explain in simpler terms. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA status kept, required elements met.

The slogan was so well-remembered that it was added to Simpson's Contemporary Quotations in 1988. and In 1999, Advertising Age ranked the jingle eighth-best out of all the television jingles that aired in the United States in the 20th century. are phrases that are found in the lead section only. Please make a paragraph about legacy or such to include these phrases. It is because a lead should summarize the article and not add information to the article. Please refer to WP:LEAD for more information. Lincher 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jingle Parody and Variations?

Some children used to sing:

Winston tastes bad
Like the one I just had.
No flavor, no taste,
Just a [clap, clap] fifty cent waste.

That leads me to ask whether there were variations on the jingle, or if there was more than one version. Instead of repeating the same line twice, the second time with the [clap, clap], was there ever a DIFFERENT second line?

Winston tastes good
Like a cigarette should,
[Flavor and taste ???]
[??? [clap, clap] rhymes with taste??] AdderUser (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What New Slogan?

"With the new slogan in wide use, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was retired permanently in 1972."

I couldn't find any new slogan mentioned in this article and was wondering what the new slogan is you are saying took the place of "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should". Not the AS a cigarette should one was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantsayit (talk • contribs) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GA

Congrats, this is now officially a Good Article. Way to go on documenting such an interesting piece of Americana. pschemp | talk 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MAD Magazine parody

The back cover of MAD's January 1971 issue (distributed in November 1970) features a color photograph of a cemetery with four thought balloons superimposed. Their dialogue is as follows:

• 1: "Winston tasted good like a cigarette should've."
• 2: "You mean, as a cigarette should've."
• 3: "What did you want, good grammar or good taste?"
• 4: "I wanted to live a lot longer than this!"
• Caption at bottom of page: "Winston may not say it right, but they sure know how to put you right -- six feet under with CANCER BLEND tobaccos."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Angilbas (talk • contribs)

Grammatically incorrect?

I think it should be changed from "many noted that the slogan was grammatically incorrect; it should, correctly, say.." to "many claimed that the slogan was grammatical incorrect, saying that it should, correctly, be..". Somehow I doubt it actually is grammatically incorrect. --Ptcamn 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed change isn't right either. As far as I can tell from the article, consensus at the time was that the phrase was grammatically incorrect, even if modern standards of grammatical correctness might not have judged it incorrect back then (if it was already in use in speech, which the article doesn't address). To complicate matters, this use of like is no longer considered ungrammatical today by more than a minority.

I propose "many noted that the slogan was grammatically incorrect; it should have said..." This removes the present tense altogether. 194.151.6.67 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical correctness isn't just a "standard", defined by consensus. It's an objective thing. If they thought it was grammatically incorrect at the time, then they were just as wrong as they would be if they claimed the same today (in my opinion). --Ptcamn 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that grammatical correctness is not defined by concensus--it's defined by what people actually do (Ptcamn, is that what you mean by it being 'an objective thing'?). I agree with Ptcamn's proposed changes above. Just because people agreed it was incorrect doesn't mean it was--it is quite normal that how people speak, and how they think they speak are quite different. Actually, I'd like to see someone characterise exactly what it is about the construction that is grammatically incorrect. Dougg 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical correctness is not defined by consensus, but standards of what is considered grammatically correct are. Speakers of the language actually define the grammar, but grammar lawyers are the ones who point out what is and isn't correct (according to their learnéd opinions).

What I'm trying to say is: even back then, the phrase might have been grammatically correct (in the sense of "everyone was using it and only the pundits were complaining based on some argument with no basis in fact") but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered grammatically incorrect by said pundits. 194.151.6.67 11:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is explained: like should not be used as a conjunction in this sense, but replaced with as. In any case, I do propose that any changes we do to that section be written out here and discussed before being changed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an injunction, not an explanation. And 'like' (in this usage) is usually described as a comprative preposition: I'm not sure why it's called a conjunction here. Surely it's not very different from, say, 'he's strong like an ox'? Dougg 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, do find a source where grammarians or English professors or the like defend "like a cigarette should." It'd be an interesting addition to the article. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll be possible to find a discussion of exactly this example, but I'm sure similar constructions have been described. I've emailed a colleague (I'm a linguist, but not an English specialist) about this. Hopefully I'll have something to post soon. Dougg 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This has resurfaced, see this diff. Can we "teach the controversy" somehow? maybe grammar has changed over time. Certainly descriptivists would say so. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I agree... —Nightstallion (?) 18:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has it really changed, though? The Oxford English Dictionary cites "[y]e have said lyke a noble lady ought to say" from 1530, "[t]o act like Judith did with Holofernes", among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.202.51 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

PD on TV!

Evidently (one of) the TV version(s) of this is PD, as the Internet Archive/Prelinger Archives has this availible for download: http://www.archive.org/details/ClassicT1948_3 along with several other cigarette commericals. 68.39.174.238 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GA review

This is a great piece of work by editors, it still meets the required elements asked for it to be of GA status.

A minor point can be sounded in that some claims made in the lead section aren't mentioned elsewhere in the text and since the lead section should summarize the article, it would be appropriate to see these statements extended in the article, if possible. Lincher 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean; please explain in simpler terms. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA status kept, required elements met.

The slogan was so well-remembered that it was added to Simpson's Contemporary Quotations in 1988. and In 1999, Advertising Age ranked the jingle eighth-best out of all the television jingles that aired in the United States in the 20th century. are phrases that are found in the lead section only. Please make a paragraph about legacy or such to include these phrases. It is because a lead should summarize the article and not add information to the article. Please refer to WP:LEAD for more information. Lincher 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jingle Parody and Variations?

Some children used to sing:

Winston tastes bad
Like the one I just had.
No flavor, no taste,
Just a [clap, clap] fifty cent waste.

That leads me to ask whether there were variations on the jingle, or if there was more than one version. Instead of repeating the same line twice, the second time with the [clap, clap], was there ever a DIFFERENT second line?

Winston tastes good
Like a cigarette should,
[Flavor and taste ???]
[??? [clap, clap] rhymes with taste??] AdderUser (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What New Slogan?

"With the new slogan in wide use, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was retired permanently in 1972."

I couldn't find any new slogan mentioned in this article and was wondering what the new slogan is you are saying took the place of "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should". Not the AS a cigarette should one was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantsayit (talk • contribs) 03:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)