Talk:Goreism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"Busts of Famous Founders: While on the campaign trail in 1992, Clinton and Gore toured the museum at Monticello. At one point, Gore stopped in front of busts of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, the Marquis de Lafayette, and John Paul Jones, and asked the curator "Who are these people?" Although this quote appears embarrassing, most Americans would have difficulty identifying a bust of many of these figures. Bronze-cast busts are not as easily recognizable"

Eh? I saw this clip on the evening news and I could recognize them on the tiny television screen. I could recognize Abraham Lincoln and George Washington when I was 4 years old.. bronze bust or no bronze bust.

Larry, you planning on moving this to meta as well, or are you only censoring anti-Bush articles? -- Zoe

Zoe, it's idiotic to call this censorship. Grow up.

And yes, I did move this article too. --Larry Sanger

Gee, Larry, thanks for the kind words. Nice to know my work here on the pedia is appreciated. -- Zoe
And what makes you think, Zoe--I don't know you from Adam--that I was commenting on your work here on the pedia? --Larry Sanger

Well, I don't agree (with Larry; I do agree with Zoe). It's not idiotic to call something censorship if it looks like censorship. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at the situation from a distance, Larry, so you can get a perspective on why it looks like censorship to Zoe, myself, and others. BTW, calling someone's views 'idiotic' is a sure way of alienating them, even if you've got wonderful supporting evidence for your own viewpoint. Ciao! Stormwriter

I frankly think that being accused of censorship is a lot more damning than being accused of doing something idiotic. I stand by that characterization 100%. The notion of censorship has been so watered down as to be rendered meaningless, when used by many people. And, Stormwriter, thanks but no thanks for your advice. --Larry Sanger

Actually, Larry, it looks like in this case you're driven more by an anti-anti-Bush POV than by a NPOV desire for NPOV. Of course the two can converge to some extent, but they can't be totally identified. My 2 cents. FvdP 23:10 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC) (But, OTOH, I admit Bushisms & Goreisms are a bit too smallish the for Wikipedia. What about my-sister-isms ?)

Well, you clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about here; you're simply making a guess in order to discredit me, which is contemptible. I care far more about NPOV than anything else--you would know that if you knew me, but you plainly don't.
Folks, if you do me the service of actually understanding and responding to what I say, and treating me nicely, then I will treat you nicely in return. But if you take potshots, expect the same (albeit probably more cogently) in return. --Larry Sanger
This claim that Sanger only attacks others in self-defense is in total variance with what he has claimed elsewhere, and with my own experience. He stated quite clearly elsewhere that he considers the use of name calling to be a virtue, and that attacking people he disagrees with (and attacking their motives) is simply a case of "calling a spade a spade". So either he has a strange concept of what "treating me nicely means", or more likely he considers any disagreement with him to be a case of not treating him nicely, which then calls for an immediate questioning of the other party's motives and the use of name calling and personal attacks. Certainly in my own case, rather than simply restricting himself to trying to rebut the points I raised on a particular issue, he immediately questioned my motives and accused me of being a "political hack". This is what he calls "treating people nicely", apparently. No, wait--it is "calling a spade a spade". He deserves ongratulations for doing his best at lowering the quality of discussion in this encylopedia. Yes, let's all treat him nicely, let's all defer to him, let's all make sure that we don't actually try to disagree with him, because if we do, he in his omiscient knowledge will be able to discern our true evil motives and then he can call that spade a spade. Statements like "it's idiotic...grow up" is, it is becoming obvious, is just par for the course. soulpatch

Soulpatch, unbunch your knickers. You'd think that someone had whacked you over the head. This isn't about me, as much as you'd like to make it. It's about this ridiculous sort of article. --Larry Sanger

I frankly agree with Larry. These verbal gaffes should have a brief mention in the bio pages (of Bush, Gore, Quayle, etc), but they really don't deserve their own articles. Why? Because no reasonable, fair minded person takes them seriously or considers them on election day. It's the stuff of late night talk shows and geeky newsgroups & internet websites, not encyclopedias or history books. -jazz77

Many of us believe the stuff of late night talk shows, geeky newsgroups, and internet websites is highly informative and of great value. Lir 23:24 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Hi Jazz -- I'm afraid if you really think people don't consider this stuff on election day, you're sadly mistaken. Remember the early Nixon-Kennedy debates? People who heard them on the radio thought Nixon had won, because of his grasp of the issues. People who saw them on TV decided Kennedy had won, mostly because he looked great and was relaxed. Nixon, on the other hand, looked tired, poorly shaven, and washed out, because he refused to wear any makeup on camera. Never think that seemingly minimal factors have no bearing on election results. That's demonstrably not so.

Pedagogically, Stormwriter.

Well that's true.. and Gore's "sighs" during the 2000 debate obviously hurt him. But in the case of Bushims and Goreisms, I don't know anyone that really takes them seriously. People that don't like Bush like to quote them and list them on websites, but I don't know anyone (Democrats included) that *actually* thinks he's stupid. The Gore ones are funny as well, but, like the Bush quotes, most of them are explanable in some way. - jazz77


This page should not be erased. It is highly indicative of the problems facing America. Lir 23:26 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

That is so obviously not a good reason to keep the page, Lir. We're engaged in writing an encyclopedia, not in cataloging "the problems facing America." If you want to engage in the latter, Jimbo can always set up a wiki for that. --Larry Sanger

LOL. Good one, 216.229.90.232. But probably not appropriate for the Wikipedia.

eh? I just recrated the existing page the way someone recreated Bushisms, using exactly the same text. If these pages exist, they should be the same. - Jazz77

Gore-isms and Bush-isms aren't very biased when Gore and Bush are opponents and both are being equally criticized. Such inclusions hardly lower us to the level of everything2. rather it raises us to encompassing all information we can put our greedy GNU hands onto. which makes the site pretty sweet. Lir 23:40 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

No, Lir, you're just wrong. Read Neutral point of view--carefully. --Larry Sanger

I protected this page, until the NPOV lesson is over. Read and learn, my friends! --Ed Poor
I don't see any need to protect - there isn't even an edit war going on here (no edits for half an hour before you protected). --Camembert
Well, I've unprotected it now. --Camembert

My $0.02: This page was a load of crap, and I'm glad both it and Bushisms are gone. These pages were crap both because they were irreparably NPOV and also because they were trivial and not encyclopedia-worthy.

BTW I especially enjoy how someone "restored" the older version of this page without my edits, which were a furious and desperate attempt to (1) counterbalance an inherently NPOV article by adding more detailed information and (2) add some semblance of organization to a formless mass of irrelevant quotations. Yes, let's "restore" the content, but only the most disorganized, one-sided content, which was originally copy-and-pasted from a hit piece on a partisan website! The fact that the pro-Bushism/Goreism editors engage in behavior like this belies their claim that they merely want to present encyclopedic material on an "important" issue.

In any case, good riddance. k.lee

I restored it without your comments because someone had restored the Bush-isms page, which was always an unbalanced, disorganzied and partisan page that *never* included explanations or sources for any of the quotations. My argument all along was *if* these pages exist, both needed to be set up in same way, with exactly the same wording.

But, as I stated before, I don't think either one belongs at wikipedia and I'm glad to see them both gone.. or at least pointing to the page they now point to. It is appropriate because it calls them what they are. No one should take Bushisms or Goreisms seriously, and if Wikipedia is a "serious" encyclopedia, it shouldn't either. Mention them if we have to, but let's not pretend that they're important. -jazz77

OK, point taken. I think it would have been preferable to edit the Bushisms article to be more balanced rather than restoring Goreisms, but anyway, we're both agreed that it's a good thing they're gone now. k.lee

Quick note before I edit the source page. The phrase "Goreism" was in use before the election of the current president Bush, so "Goreism" can't be a response to the current "Bushism". Regarding this phrase being coined by Limbaugh, I'd love to see a citation.

VP Quayle was known for his verbal gaffes, which were known as "Quayleisms". Here [1] is a citation from 1997 showing this usage. --Cock

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 [2], 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. --Cock
Did you mean to say "before the Bush-Gore campaign"? "Bushism" was certainly used before G.W. got elected. Whatever the case, it should certainly be noted that "Goreism" is a rarely used term, as opposed to "Bushism". --The Cunctator
Yes, the phrase "Goreism" was *absolutely* in use before the Bush-Gore campaign. Here [3] is a reference from 1993 where "Goreism" was used in this sense. Stating that Bushism is more common today seems redundant, since Bush is the president today. When Gore was still VP, Bushism still referred to Bush the 1st, and Goreism was more common. I'm going to take a whack at an edit that hopefully will start to bring things closer to being encylopedic (and NPOV) --Cock
Pointing out which word is used less than others seems unnecessary. It's not a competition. Each should be a stand alone article, each should be linked to and from the "discrediting tactic" article, and each should have basically the exact same wording (if they exist at all).
Besides, it would be hard to prove which one is used less. People that hate Bush will hear "Bushism" more, people that hate Gore will hear "goreism" more. If we surveyed the Wikipedia family, I think we'd hear from our fair share of both groups. -jazz77

OK, who the #$%#! resurrected this article? k.lee

Should this page be retitled LarryTopia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/o/r/Talk%7EGoreism_4d5a.html"