Jump to content

Talk:List of nicknames for George W. Bush

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyan (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 22 September 2003 (i’m done/peer review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Is this page really necessary?

And what the heck is "Debuya"? RickK 00:07, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like this page (yes, this means I oppose deletion). However, perhaps it would be better to have a general page on George W. Bush and nicknames that could include a list of Bush's nicknames for other world leaders - he's noted for his love of them, after all. Martin 02:10, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I am extremely ambivalent about the existence of this page. Could it be better dealt with by being merged into the article on him? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:13, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

from VfD

  • List of nicknames for George W. Bush. Is this page really necessary? I won't comment as to the originator's motivations in including it, but if his/hers isn't political, this page will still turn political very quickly. Besides, do we want "List of nicknames for ..." every person, famous or infamous, to get stated? RickK 00:10, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • My feeling is lists should go into the article they refer to, when possible. -- Cyan 00:40, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • We won't get lists of nicknames started for very many people at all, simply because most people have acquired no more than one or two nicknames. The president, on the other hand, is stated on his page to be known for his love of nicknames. If you'll count, the nickname page already has more than 20 appellations for George W. Bush alone. How many people could approach that? I created this page because George W. Bush lists a few of his nicknames and expands on their use but leaves some other popular names such as "Shrub" out, and doesn't offer room to list all his nicknames. (We had a vandalism a few days ago from someone who replaced his listed nicknames with "Shrub", "Moron" and some third name, then when cleaning up the vandalism the next person changed the three names right back to the original, without even keeping "Shrub".) And how can a mere list get political? If we're just listing straight names, we won't have to worry about POV comments creeping into the article. Wiwaxia 01:45, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • A list like this is very likely to become pov. If I have my own nickname for the President or anyone else can I add it or is there a certain criteria that a nickname must be used or known by x number of people or percentage of a population. Somewhat off topic, but it has occurred to me that Bush has been President for only about 3 years now not yet as long as JFK and certainly not as long as FDR was president or Lincoln or Washington yet I bet more has been written about W ( in Wikipedia) than all 4 of those Presidents combined, Can we have some sense of balance not everything a person does or every aspect of a person's personal habits needs to have a page.Smith03 01:55, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think I will start a list tomorrow Food that George W. Bush Likes. Smith03 01:58, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Then there obviously needs to be a list Food that George W. Bush Does Not Like. RickK 02:03, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Than we need to allow those foods or people who support those give a balance pov as why Bush is wrong in not liking those foods. Plus maybe there are some foods that he sometimes likes and sometimes doesn't like so maybe that could be a list:) Smith03 02:08, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • (sigh) The way to avoid POV, as always, is to state facts without editorializing. A list of popular nicknames, citing sources, will not be POV in and of itself. And folks, the whole sarcastic List of some other stupid thing rejoinder has grown really, really old. Just say, "I don't think that's a good idea because of X, Y, Z," instead of trying to be clever, and succeeding only in being repetitious. -- Cyan 03:42, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I can go over to FreeRepublic.com and get a few hundred nicknames for President Clinton, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, etc. Is it really a good idea for me to do that? Is it really a good idea for someone to go over to DemocraticUnderground and add every name somebody calls George Bush to a list here? Believe me, the Clinton and Gore lists can get very long and somebody like JoeM WILL do a tit-for-tat list and there will be no valid excuse for not allowing it. Lets not do this.Ark30inf 23:53, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • My idea was that giving citations avoids the POV problem; whether lists of nicknames are appropriate at all is another question. As to the point about "retaliatory" lists, I can't say I find it compelling: if the lists are properly cited, then they contain valid information about the individual. By its nature Wikipedia will always have more pop culture information in it than other encyclopedias, so why not have extensive lists of stupid nicknames? (Always assuming that someone wants to go to the effort.) -- Cyan 02:23, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Note also that under the policy I espouse here, the current list is considered POV and should be blanked. If others agree, I will do this shortly. -- Cyan 02:28, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I understand Cyan's policy is that every nickname should be cited with an example of actual use? This sounds like a good idea, if everyone can agree that it's a good idea. But I'd like to have that agreement first - otherwise it won't be worth putting in the effort to get citations, only for them to be deleted anyway.

I moved this back because, for example, Cyan's proposed policy is relevant to content as well as deletion. Martin 08:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My idea is that the text of this article should read something like:

The following affectionate nicknames for George W. Bush are used by his family [reference]:
  • <etc>
The following derogatory nicknames for George W. Bush have been used on the partisan website http://www.DemocraticUnderground.com:
  • <etc>

Examples of actual use aren't necessary, as long as the instances in question are relatively easy to find. The POV problem is avoided by appropraite attribution of the use of the nicknames. -- Cyan 23:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page should certainly be deleted. It clearly exists for no reason other than insulting Bush, I can't believe that it isn't apparent to everyone. I mean stuff like "Bushitler" and "Dumbya". I don't even like the guy but I can clearly see that this is pure POV insulting of a political figure that some people dislike strongly. Come on. Maybe JoeM wasn't entirely incorrect. ThereIsNoSteve 06:27, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Somebody is going to have to go over to FreeRepublic now and cull out the 10,000 insulting and obnoxious nicknames for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary, or for that matter ANY politician and establish articles here listing them. When some jerk does that there will be absolutely NO REASON not to keep them since the precedent was set with this page. Bush cannot be treated as a special case. Keeping this page is such a bad decision I think. Ark30inf 19:07, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If anyone were arguing that the content isn't encyclopedic, I might agree. (After all, Wikipedia picks up a lot more pop culture than other encyclopedias, including some very marginal material.) But people here seem to have let this point slip (cf. "NO REASON" above), instead arguing that the list is POV. My idée fixe is that as a general principle articles shouldn't be deleted for being POV - they should be rewritten. I will make this argument as forcefully at List of nicknames for Bill Clinton as I do here. (I won't speak for the motives of the person who created the article, but I personally don't care what epithets Americans hurl at their past presidents or the current one.) -- Cyan 21:35, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the point is that its useless info AND POV at the same time which will generate opposing useless POV material which would then have to be accepted based on this precedent. I'm not sure that it is useful to know that somebody over at DemocraticUnderground once called Bush "Bushitler" or that someone at FreeRepublic called Hillary Clinton "Shitlery" or "The Clintoris". Useless, POV, and with a high probability of provoking tit-for-tat ridiculous articles that can't be deleted. Take your pick. Regardless, the VfD failed and hopefully the list will fade into obscurity without provoking anything similar. Ark30inf 21:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It's already setting a precedent, with the newly created List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton for example. If these things need to exist, they can go in the article about the person. I see no need to have them as separate pages. Angela 23:24, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

The original nomination was because the article was or would become political (which was interpreted to mean POV). After much discussion, there was no consensus on this point. You can always (re)nominate this list and others like it for VfD, on grounds of unencyclopedic material and uselessless. (Just mention the fact that it's a renomination on different grounds than the original nomination.) -- Cyan 00:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you look at the size of the Bush article, its clear that there is no room there. The wiki has plenty of harddrive space for some lists of nicknames of famous people. Pizza Puzzle

In what sense does the main Bush article not have room? One place this list could go is under George W. Bush#Public Image and Personality, which already has some discussion of Bush and nicknames. -- Cyan 00:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This article should only list common nicknames. A simple Google test can be applied. I removed, for example, "Shrubbleyou" which Google didn't find at all. --Wik 01:26, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Gee Bushitler Bushitler is a play on his last name to make a connection with to both Adolf Hitler and shit. Boy if some one put this in the main Bush page it would be removed for npov reasons but having this kind of page sure is a nice way around that policySmith03 02:51, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page still doesn't conform to my idea of a NPOV list - many of the nicknames on this list are uncited, and the citations that do exist are unsatisfactory. I am adding the NPOV dispute header, and I will try to put it into what I think is reasonable shape. When I am finished, I will note so here, but I will leave it to others to remove the header. -- Cyan 04:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My plan:

  • I will rely on Google to measure popular usage.
  • I will cite major usage.
  • Minor nicknames (as measured by Google) will be discarded. The exact threshold will be determined as I work and reported here during or after.

Cyan 04:40, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

At least its a plan. I would also say that you should measure the variety of websites using the term as well as the quantity of hits. For example if you hypothetically found 5,000 references to "Shitlery" but every single one of them was from FreeRepublic then it wouldn't be widespread usage despite the quantity. Ark30inf 04:51, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm finding a lot of name collisions, but I'm trying to narrow in on Bush nickname usages only. After surveying the nicknames, I am boldly establishing the threshold of 1000 Google hits; as a check, hits a quarter 100 down the list must still refer to the nickname in question. All denigrating nicknames will be prominently cited as such. -- Cyan 04:55, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's my bed time, so I'm stopping for now. What do you think? (I won't see your answers until tomorrow.) -- Cyan 05:20, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Better, but I'm not sure that the ones from a single website belong. The Hillary list needs to be done also but its my bedtime also. Ark30inf 05:29, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think you mean the ones where I cite a single partisan website. These ones are actually in widespread use as measured by Google; the idea is to cite a prominent and clearly partisan source. I intend to move other nicknames into those lists. -- Cyan 19:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would want to delete the nicknames that was added with explanations in what context they where added and with sources. Wasn't that the way to make them NPOV? BL 10:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I could run over to a website real quick and add a bunch of derogatory names, then come back and list those names and cite the website as the source. My uncle has said a lot of bad, bad, things about Hillary. Is it useful for me to list those things and cite my uncle as the source? Ark30inf 17:52, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What do you mean by that? That you think I invented the nicknames I listed? Did you try to search for them? BL 22:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some of these are prominent nicknames; such as "Pilot in Chief" or "King George". Pizza Puzzle

Oddly enough, the nicknames with cited usage that I deleted had among the lowest Google hit counts. Also, some of the cited links were broken when I tried them. I think 1000 Google hits is a fairly low threshold for popular usage - if a nickname doesn't even have that much presence on the web, then it ought not to be listed on Wikipedia. Case in point: "Pilot in Chief" falls far below the threshold I established, and many of the listed links aren't even using it as a nickname for GWB. -- Cyan 19:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have to go. I had enough time to respond to these comments, but not enough to actually make any changes. Doh! I'll do more in about six hours. -- Cyan 19:18, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


A general solution

I think I've found a general solution, that takes care of the partisanship issue. How about a List of nicknames for US Presidents page? We can start with Tricky Dick and 'the Father of his country'. If most of us can recognize which 2 presidents these nicknames refer to, then it means there is a venerable tradition of nicknames that stick.

I daresay there'll be a lot of anti-Bush nicknames, but I don't care. It's neutral to report that many people have partisan motives for making up nasty nicknames.

Better yet, list of nicknames for public figures and include everyone we can all think of. --Uncle Ed 19:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like this idea. -- Cyan 22:55, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think a threshold of 1000 is pretty high, 1000 is the current threshold to determine whether we write an article on a person at all; so we shouldnt require there to be 1000 websites using that nickname. Pizza Puzzle

Agree and disagree, there are many famous persons that get less than 1000 Google hits. BL 22:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If I went to Hillary Clinton's home page and put "Some people call her 'Shitlery'." it would rightfully be deleted (I hope) because it adds nothing. I suppose someone could come behind and put "Some people call her 'Wonder Woman' though." and that would make it fair and balanced in a way I guess. But neither would be particularly useful additions to an encyclopedia article. Putting them in a separate list doesn't improve their smell much. We would not smile on someone putting a bunch of anti-Semitic nicknames in Joe Lieberman's article nor would we be happy with a bunch of racist nicknames in Al Sharpton's article (I hope). So why would we think a separate page would improve the quality or usefulness of this information and make it worthwhile for inclusion? The current format opens the door for a page of these for every politician someone has complained about somerwhere (all of them). This will be my final comment on this one...I think my views have gotten a proper airing. I hope it works out to everyone's satisfaction. Ark30inf 23:13, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Peer Review

I’ve done my best to make this article NPOV by citing usage. I have also requested peer review at the appropriate page. -- Cyan 23:42, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_nicknames_for_George_W._Bush&oldid=1564401"