Talk:List of political catch phrases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Third party help here

Hello all - I restored "I'm the decider" with the edit summary "with nearly a million google hits to "the decider" it is pretty clearly a well known and used catch phrase. User's edits show a clear POV bias" after it was removed by User:Telecineguy. He or she then did this edit with edit summary "(with nearly a million google hits to “the most ethical administration in American history.” it is pretty clearly a well known and used catch phrase. User's edits show a clear POV bias," apparently as a response to my edit.

I'd be fine with the Clinton quote appearing there, as long as it was moved into the correct chronological order, except for one thing, the phrase "the most ethical administration in American history" has 430 google hits and "the most ethical administration" has 900. This makes it hard to assume good faith about the User:Telecineguy's intentions. However, I'd like to leave the resolution of this to a third user, who hasn't been personally drawn into it. Also I'm really curious if anyone else can find a systematic POV trend in my edits. Cheers, Debivort 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree thank you. for the note. Telecine Guy 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Still no comments here?


Third Party Opinion
Hardly any of these (judging from the U.S. list) are "catch phrases". They are famous statements, which is quite different. I don't think WJC saids "I have never had sexual relations with that womon" more than once. Not just google--trying doing a news search--LexisNexis, GoogleNews, whatever you want. People had a field day with that one--for "I'm the decider" not to be there, well, that's odd. Now about the Clinton issue, that should be here. Look at the list--the President didn't have to say it more than once to qualify--everyone else did. And everyone else certainly did. However, like forgotten Poland, it's generally remembered (and mocked with a bad accent) more simply: "I did not have sex with that woman". Fix the dates if it needs fixing. What's the other issue? Also, remember, that when you need a third opinion you can always go to Wikipedia:Third opinion Miss Mondegreen talk  08:30, July 20 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's "Ask what you can do for your country?

It's missing the JFK quote, "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." EGarrett01 17:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's "Ich bin ein berliner"?

It's missing the JFK quote, "Ich bin ein berliner" 84.193.0.25 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is a "catch phrase" different from a quote

Half of these are merely famous quotations. Hult041956 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


I would say that a catch phrase is a phrase that has caught on and is often repeated in regular speech. Famous phrases such as Churchill's "Never in the field of human conflict..." or "We shall fight on the beaches..." are quotations from wonderful speeches, but not catch phrases. --YuriBCN 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriBCN (talk • contribs)

By that definition, most of the US "catch phrases" are not catch phrases at all, they're quotes. Who has repeated "Actually, you forgot Poland?" in everyday speech?Sottolacqua (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India

Since this is the English Wikipedia, the Indian quotes should be translated to English or removed (this applies to all foreign quotes. Also, I don't see what is remarkable or memorable about "we have to take india to the 21st century". Politicians say this sort of think all the time.

One more thing: Some of the quotes do not have their own article, and the article about the person who said them does not address the quote. I would like to know what was meant by "It's liquid so I drink it. If it was solid I would eat it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.27.154 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Let's try to address this in the discussion below titled Policies for being listed. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup on United States section

I have deleted a large portion of quotes in the US section for three reasons.

1) This made the US section disproportionaly larger than the other countries. This is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia.

2) The list skewed to far into recent history, from the Clinton/Bush years.

3) The majority of them were posted by User:Lucky Mitch, who if you look at his profile is clearly conservative in his political leanings and appears to be trying to make George W Bush look good while at the same time demonizing Bill and Hillary Clinton. Now I admit I exacerbated the problem by adding some "Bushisms" to the list. However I feel that deleting the inflammatory quotes will maintain the NPOV rule. Richiekim (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This section had gotten out of hand, I agree, but weapons of mass destruction is certainly a catch phrase. I had put in President Bush's quote about having found them (from an interview with Polish television) because it was a clearly documented use of the term. Proclivities (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned it up again. All due respect, I hardly find Bush's or Clinton's numerous utterances on the same level of importance as 'we shall fight on the beaches' or 'ich bin ein berliner' --Eadingas (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "The list skewed to far into recent history, from the Clinton/Bush years." unfortunately, those are the only presidents we've had in the last 20 years. ;) Ryratt (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I added a few older ones I thought of. I was trying to think of some regarding Geroge HW Bush, but I can't remember if he actually said them or it was just Dana Carvey saying "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture" and "not gonna do it." Ryratt (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Countries

Catalonia is a country? Excuse me? Have I read properly? Please correct that inmediately, that's totally unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.179.67 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nowhere does it say that the headers are specifically countries. I included Catalonia because it has a clearly defined territorial and political environment which generate specific catch phrases and are very clearly associated with Catalonia and nowhere else.
    All this is besides the fact that Catalonia is a country, although not a sovereign state (See Nation, country and state: a comparison in the Country entry, and also Pays Catalan or Basque Country as other examples of territories that are considered countries but not sovereign states).
    BTW, you say it is totally unacceptable, a clear indication of your POV.--YuriBCN 10:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan Quote

The full quote is "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'", it is currently "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I didn't edit because I didn't know if there was a trend to just say the end, but, the quote definitely loses its meaning without it. Ryratt (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On the same note the full quote is "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." I think it loses it's funnier that it's prolonged and that's what people would say when they spoofed it. I remember Keifer Southerland saying "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. I am no Jack Kennedy" on Saturday Night Live. Ryratt (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desperately needs clean-up (if not deletion)

I can see why this has twice been nominated for deletion. Not really any references to speak of, no cohesion as to what belongs and what doesn't, as well as a total lack of chronology. Even if it were an acceptable entry, it probably would need to be multiple entries, broken up by country. Jickyincognito (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of multiple entries would you suggest? One way to handle this page is to go through it, phrase by phrase, and seek out citations, as I have just done for Hay que pasar el invierno. Another is to Revert any new phrase added without a Source. I doubt that another round of comments would result in a different decision as to deleting the page entirely; the best thing to do is to slowly fix it up and refuse to let new, unsourced catch phrases be added. "I feel your pain." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policies for being listed

To quell some of the dispute about this section, can we settle on some policies for being listed here? I suggest that the phrases should be:

  • at least 40 years old (with a date attached to them). This is just about two generations, so the limitation should serve to underscore that the phrase actually entered mass consciousness and was not merely a fad.
  • accompanied by an explanation that is encyclopedic in nature.
  • attributed to a Notable person (with a WP entry), even if that person is Notable only for having uttered the phrase. If there is no entry, then the editor who adds the phrase should create one.
  • cited to a source, preferably in the English language. The explanation should be cited as well.
  • preceded by a Google or Yahoo! search that indicates the phrase has gained a life of its own in popular culture and imagination.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)