Talk:1000 percent

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal

I am proposing that ‎1000 percent be merged into this article. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the term has taken on a life of its own and deserves a separate article rather than a mere link to an episode 40 years ago that makes it look obsolete. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1000 percent article asserts that it has become a byword, but presents no sources or evidence to back this up. This web search for "1000 percent" doesn't find any use of this byword in the first five pages of hits. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safire makes the point in Safire's New Political Dictionary (1993) pp 796-7Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, but it could still use some more, such as some specific examples in the years since where the phrase has been used. See for example what the Read my lips: no new taxes and Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy articles do. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safire is definitive. The term turns up all over the place: 1) "Aren't Manhattan Portage bags completely indestructible and one thousand percent waterproof, ready to whisk a messenger's precious booty to the ends of the earth?" asks Lynn Yaeger, "Totemic Totes," The Village Voice Volume: 44. Issue: 7. February 23, 1999. p. 12. 2) Treasures of War by Don Stewart Nimmons - 2003 - Page 425; 3) Jake Page, "Myths, Legends, and Folktales of America: An Anthology' (Oxford University Press. 1999) p 200; 4) Melissa Checker and Maggie Fishman, Local Actions: Cultural Activism, Power, and Public Life in America (Columbia University Press, 2004) p. 172. 5) Mikel Holt, Not Yet Free at Last: The Unfinished Business of the Civil Rights MovementOur Battle for School Choice (ICS Press, 2000) p, 55. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of uses of "one thousand percent" that predate and have nothing to do with the McGovern episode – it's a general expression denoting beyond-the-bounds effort or commitment, similar to the sports cliché "he gave 110 percent on the field". That's why McGovern said it in the first place. The Village Voice one here does not, as I read it, carry any McGovern connotation. Spotchecking another of your examples, this one, that usage doesn't seem to have anything to do with the McGovern sense either. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]