Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/List of Presidential gaffes - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

708:'s rebuttal sum up very nicely what this page, if it is kept, will become. A collection of non-incidents being blown up by one side and the listing ad infinitum of anything the anti-(fill-in-name-of-prez-past-present-or-future here) crowd will use to jump on to make a point, especially the presentday Bush-Bashing crowd. Who really cares whether Bush sr. puked on a PM or Carter wants to have intimate relations with the entire?!? Polish people except anti Bush or anti Carter people? If there's a really noteworthy gaffe then include it in said president's article. If it is just a partisan thing then spend your time more useful and write an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Do we want to set the precedent and create articles regarding gaffes by other professions. An article about gaffes by Hollywood people perhaps? Not that many of the same people who like this list would want to create thát list I suspect.-- 724:. We shouldn't be lured into thinking that NPOV requires that we have as many Democrat gaffes as Republican gaffes, despite the US's status as a 50-50 tribal partisan country. If Republicans are unhappy with how many Republican gaffes are on there, then they should try to add Democrat gaffes rather than complain about the existing ones (unless they're somehow false). As for Bush, I don't think there's a Bush fixation - obviously there will always be systemic bias towards the current president, but the fact is the man has said a lot of very stupid things. -- 986:: admirable as the desire for "neutrality" might be, it does not mean the suppression of all criticism of anybody featured in a given article. As for the tone, some of the arguments above seem to be bordering on the hysterical at the thought that the supposed gravity of Knowledge (XXG) might be dented by the inclusion of a humorous article about humorous events. If the stuff actually happened, and the documentation is available to prove it, it's a candidate for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Otherwise we risk our reputation being damaged by the obvious 553:. Utterly and permanently unencyclopedic. Especially in the ever-dire list format. These gaffes should be mentioned in relevant articles: if they do not bear mentioning there, they do not bear mentioning anywhere. Knowledge (XXG) is not a comedic jaunt through life; it is an encyclopedia. If you think this is hilarious, and that this somehow endows with a quality akin to knowledge, then really, you have to explain why, and not just tell us that it made you laugh. Not one of the keep comments gives a reason other than this. ( 455:] News reports at the time described the weather as mild, not requiring an overcoat, and did not consider Harrison’s removal of coat and hat to be a gaffe. Cause and effect with his death can not be established, although Harrison could be accused of bad judgement given his age. Kennedy, the youngest elected President, famously delivered his inaugural without an overcoat on a bitterly cold day in February. 866: 453:, is not a gaffe even if it causes a diplomatic incident). Few have gone down in history as such, because they mostly relate to Bush, and history has yet to render judgement. They also betray a severe lack of knowledge of Presidential history. Harrison, the oldest President until Reagan, delivered his inaugural address on a cool March day without an overcoat (like many Presidents before and since). 599:
may have thought was the same but actually meant the exact opposite to what Greenspan was suggesting. No wonder Greenspan was said to be on the warpath afterwards (Greenspan suggested a slight soft spot, Bush suggested, inadvertently a rough and bumpy road ahead!). One stupid homespun Bush term cost
339:
so is irrelevant here (Its on the NDD page.) It would be interesting to compare the educational standards of recent Republican versus Democratic presidents. Looking at Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all three, in terms of academic attainment or measurable intellectual ability were better than either of
484:
which we already cover on WP.) It was deliberate. Carter's slip up with names, Bush's verbal slip-ups, etc do qualify as gaffes (unintentional and caused embarrassment). The mistranslation of Carter's comments when visiting Poland, though hilarous, does not belong here, as he was the not the author
334:
I've added in the Carter Poland one. Can you find verifiable links for the others? BTW it is very hard to find Democratic POTUS gaffes apart from Carter's! I've tried to find any. It seems that recent Republican presidents where gaffoholics, whereas the Democrats don't seem to be. (Clinton's "I did
457:] This was also not considered a faux pas. Instead, by the logic of this list, Kennedy’s major gaffe did not come until Nov 22, 1963, when he ruined his wife’s dress by spraying brain matter on it. By the same token, Lincoln committed an unforgivable faux pas, when he spoiled the performance of 479:
perfectly valid article on a real topic, which was outrageously deleted without a vote first time around. It just needs clear definition. It should cover gaffes, as in unintentional comments or actions which caused embarrassment or defence. Clinton's denial of having sex "with that woman", for
678:
are both commonly used in the financial press and mean largely the same thing. Bush's comments date from Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2002, at which point the Dow was down roughly 17% YTD. It rose in the next three sessions, ending with a near 200 point gain on the week, and closed out the year down an
800:
You must be joking. Considering the cascade of distortions or untruths in the entries for Bush I and Bush II, who incidentally warrant more attention here than all other presidents combined, I think the intentions of the editors are clear. I also think the comment by
399:
on a very funny article, I have to because 1) It's POV. What makes an incident a "gaffe", as opposed to simple misfortune? For example, Bush choking on the pretzel seems to me to be just bad luck. 2) It's an attack page. 3) It's original research.
313:
and NPOV. No Democrat Presidents are currently included. Possible examples of gaffes from Democrats include Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms Lewinsky." Jimmy Carter calling Australian Prime Minister
449:: As per my remarks below, I have to disagree. Most of the list contents are taken widely out of context , framed to mislead, or sarcastically misconstrue the meaning of gaffe (sickness, as pointed out by 681:]. It could thus be argued that Bush's "bumping along" gained trillions for the US economy, but in fact there was no real impact, as the markets, unlike blogs, do not react hysterically to non-gaffes. -- 118:, and formally protest Merovingian speedy deleting the article. There is a move option if the title is none too good (I didn't come up with the title, incidently, though I don't really see an issue). - 370:(Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). Expanding the list of victims to include Democrats would only serve to increase the number of people who are being attacked. -- 968:
No wonder there is a problem when you can't be bothered actually adding in sources to stuff you add in, just out of context, unexplained quotations. Deliverately adding in unexplained stuff
782:
pov and vandalism magnet. Anything put here can be rolled into presidential articles. The amount of anti-GWB sentiment on WP is so great that you can shovel it and sell it as fertilizer.
821:
Inherently POV. No uniform definition of gaffe. Not encyclopedic. Vandal magnet. Generally useless, Knowledge (XXG) is not lolfunnyjokes.com. Get rid of this worthless page.
435:
That is ridiculous. They are widely referred to as such. Most of them have gone down in history as notorious gaffes. Calling them original search sounds like clutching at straws.
322:
as Hubert Horatio Hornblower at the 1980 Democratic convention and a mistranslation of a 1977 speech by President Carter in Poland in 1977 saying I desire the Poles carnally.
770:
Dubya's best known for his gaffes, whether while speaking or otherwise. If a Republican wants to add Dem gaffes on there, let them. As it's often said "It's a Free Country".
583:, encyclopedic, important topic of substantial scholarly interest. Could do with more in-depth study of these events -- how did they affect public approval ratings, etc. 595:
I've mentioned how one GWB gaffe hit the US economy and Wall Street when the ejjit replaced a bit of carefully worded Greenspan spin by another homespun Texan term that
217:: I am not sure that this can be kept NPOV. Is Bush the Wiser's vomiting and passing out necesserily a gaffe? It could also be called health problems. Alternatively, 340:
the Bushes, Reagan or Nixon. That doesn't mean better presidents, but intellectually more able, which may explain their lack of a gaffe-history.
301:
as per Ta Bu; but I'm not sure what the best title would be. Obvioiusly it needs some broadening and a lot more historical perspective.
646: 17: 877:. Intersting, but this is the stuff of a coffee table book, not an encyclopedia article. Potentially infinite (which President 643:: Obvious POV issues that need to be addressed, although the Bush fixation will remain problematic into the foreseeable future. 146: 998: 976: 963: 949: 928: 916: 900: 885: 869: 838: 825: 809: 795: 786: 774: 762: 750: 728: 712: 696: 685: 654: 633: 621: 604: 590: 575: 563: 545: 528: 514: 497: 467: 439: 430: 421: 404: 376: 358: 344: 329: 305: 287: 278: 247: 238: 229: 209: 171: 153: 135: 122: 110: 97: 85: 68: 52: 92:
Note: Page name has been changed by someone. The correct name is piped at the top now so people know what it now is called.
225:
and write an article about the most famous clear-cut examples and how they were handled and what were their consequences.
412:
how can it be original research? The mistakes related to presidents are public (and most of them were made live on TV).
257:
for now, but unless notable 'gaffes' by presidents other than GWB emerge (is vomiting, or stating untruths a 'gaffe'?),
1016: 36: 587: 78: 1015:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
942: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
426:
The events are verifiable. The clasification of the events as "gaffes" or "faux pas" is original research. --
222: 58: 584: 326: 995: 802: 725: 191: 897: 747: 618: 525: 243:
It was probably the food. The gaffe is not that he vomited, but that he vomited on the Japanese PM. :-)
925: 64:
I find this to be entirely arbitrary and inherently non-neutral. Even the page title is rather iffy.
946: 835: 792: 284: 119: 82: 805:
that Republicans should try to uncover Democratic gaffes is an excellent argument for deletion. --
459: 270: 186: 167: 49: 679:
insignificant 30 points from the date of Bush's remark. The dow then went on to gain 25% in 2003.
541: 510: 417: 991: 861: 336: 244: 150: 132: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
894: 822: 744: 663: 615: 107: 65: 367: 319: 485:
of the gaffe. It belongs in a page about translation gaffes. Or a page about gaffes made
771: 709: 572: 315: 302: 266: 235: 182: 163: 45: 662:: Changing my vote after rereading the comments here and considering the overlap with 960: 882: 783: 759: 537: 506: 427: 413: 355: 865: 758:
with expansion and cleanup. Be interesting to see how it looks six months from now.
941:
an article. Sheesh. Are you saying we can't fix bias? Why, I'll just go and delete
854: 505:
I wonder what would be an appropriate title to include "translation gaffes" too.
323: 973: 959:
Totally silly and a waste of time. This kind of drivel gives wiki a bad name.
737: 701: 691: 667: 630: 601: 558: 494: 436: 383:
Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject ("insult pages",
372: 341: 94: 849: 645:
Nevertheless, has more potential already than a similar list I contribute to-
450: 226: 131:
a better word than gaffe ? (it's funny how both words are of French origin :)
909: 806: 791:
Please point to anti-GWB sentiment on this page. I doubt you'll find any. -
705: 682: 651: 571:
hopelessly unency and an open door invitation for partisan POV additions. --
464: 401: 851: 463:
at the Ford Theatre, due to his urgent need to die across the street. --
206: 128: 924:. Biased and well short of an encyclopedic addition to Knowledge (XXG). 848:
and where the hell is the Richard Nixon "Fuck You Australia" screw up?
262: 881:
screwed up in some way?) with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion.
614:, but encourage the editors to expand the effects part of the points. 44:
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, kept by default.
831: 1009:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
335:
not have sex . . . " was neither a gaffe nor a faux pas but a
354:. Inherently POV, unmaintainable, and original research. -- 59:
US presidential faux-pas, gaffes and unfortunate incidents
385:
e.g., "OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11").
690:
The markets appear to be unlike Knowledge (XXG), too. -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1019:). No further edits should be made to this page. 972:to 'prove' the article is drivel, is vandalism. 8: 853:I mean that is certainly a big "faux-pas" 147:List of gaffes of United States presidents 234:Stole my sodding suggestion, didn't you. 990:of perfectly good information. HTH HAND 557:those opting to keep to Uncyclopedia.)- 704:'s comment regarding the markets and 205:to better title as bogdan suggested. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 480:example, was not a gaffe. (It was a 647:List of U.S. Presidential nicknames 24: 395:- as much as it pains me to vote 864: 1: 999:09:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 977:03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 964:03:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 950:05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 929:19:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 917:12:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 901:15:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 886:07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 870:07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 839:05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 826:07:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 810:08:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 796:06:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 787:05:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 775:21:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 763:20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 751:18:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 729:09:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 713:17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 697:12:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 686:09:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 655:08:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 634:07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 622:05:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 605:05:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 591:03:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 576:02:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 564:02:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 546:22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 529:22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 515:22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 498:21:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 468:20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 440:00:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 431:00:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 422:22:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 405:21:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 377:20:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 359:20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 345:05:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 330:17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 306:15:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 288:14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 279:14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 248:14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 239:15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 230:14:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 210:14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 172:16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 154:14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 136:14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 123:14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 111:14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 98:05:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 86:14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 69:14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 53:12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 162:United States presidents"? — 489:the presidency rather than 79:List of Presidential gaffes 1036: 283:No longer about gaffes. - 834:. Suggest you read it. - 830:There is a definition of 600:the US economy trillons. 1012:Please do not modify it. 943:Christian views of women 536:- and expand of course. 223:US presidential faux-pas 221:to a better title, like 32:Please do not modify it. 181:per Ta bu shi da yu. - 670:do some research as 158:Surely you mean "... 460:Our American Cousin 381:Read more careful: 318:John, referring to 585:Christopher Parham 327:Capitalistroadster 937:been a reason to 695: 562: 544: 513: 482:Non-denial denial 420: 337:Non-denial denial 277: 1027: 1014: 914: 908:inherently POV. 868: 859: 694: 664:List_of_bushisms 561: 540: 509: 416: 269: 189: 34: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1017:deletion review 1010: 947:Ta bu shi da yu 910: 855: 836:Ta bu shi da yu 803:Last Malthusian 793:Ta bu shi da yu 726:Last Malthusian 666:. Suggest that 629:. Delightful! 368:CSD criteria A6 320:Hubert Humphrey 285:Ta bu shi da yu 187: 145:. It should be 120:Ta bu shi da yu 83:Ta bu shi da yu 81:. No longer. - 62: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1033: 1031: 1022: 1021: 1004: 1002: 1001: 981: 980: 979: 954: 953: 952: 919: 903: 888: 872: 843: 842: 841: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 777: 765: 753: 731: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 657: 636: 624: 609: 608: 607: 578: 566: 548: 531: 519: 518: 517: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 444: 443: 442: 390: 389: 388: 361: 349: 348: 347: 316:Malcolm Fraser 308: 292: 291: 290: 252: 251: 250: 232: 212: 196: 176: 175: 174: 140: 139: 138: 113: 89: 88: 61: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1032: 1020: 1018: 1013: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1000: 997: 993: 989: 985: 982: 978: 975: 971: 967: 966: 965: 962: 958: 957:Strong Delete 955: 951: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 927: 923: 920: 918: 915: 913: 907: 904: 902: 899: 896: 892: 889: 887: 884: 880: 876: 873: 871: 867: 863: 860: 858: 852: 850: 847: 844: 840: 837: 833: 829: 828: 827: 824: 820: 819:Strong Delete 817: 811: 808: 804: 799: 798: 797: 794: 790: 789: 788: 785: 781: 778: 776: 773: 769: 766: 764: 761: 757: 754: 752: 749: 746: 742: 739: 735: 732: 730: 727: 723: 720: 714: 711: 707: 703: 700: 699: 698: 693: 689: 688: 687: 684: 680: 677: 676:bumping along 673: 669: 665: 661: 660:Strong delete 658: 656: 653: 649: 648: 642: 641: 637: 635: 632: 628: 625: 623: 620: 617: 613: 610: 606: 603: 598: 594: 593: 592: 589: 586: 582: 579: 577: 574: 570: 569:strong delete 567: 565: 560: 556: 552: 551:Strong delete 549: 547: 543: 539: 535: 532: 530: 527: 526:Alexander 007 523: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 501: 500: 499: 496: 492: 488: 483: 478: 475: 469: 466: 462: 461: 456: 454: 452: 448: 445: 441: 438: 434: 433: 432: 429: 425: 424: 423: 419: 415: 411: 408: 407: 406: 403: 398: 394: 391: 387: 386: 380: 379: 378: 375: 374: 369: 365: 364:Speedy delete 362: 360: 357: 353: 350: 346: 343: 338: 333: 332: 331: 328: 324: 321: 317: 312: 309: 307: 304: 300: 296: 293: 289: 286: 282: 281: 280: 276: 274: 268: 264: 260: 256: 253: 249: 246: 242: 241: 240: 237: 233: 231: 228: 224: 220: 216: 213: 211: 208: 204: 200: 197: 195: 194: 190: 184: 180: 179:Keep and Move 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 156: 155: 152: 148: 144: 141: 137: 134: 130: 126: 125: 124: 121: 117: 114: 112: 109: 105: 102: 101: 100: 99: 96: 93: 87: 84: 80: 77: 73: 72: 71: 70: 67: 60: 57: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1011: 1008: 1003: 987: 983: 969: 956: 938: 934: 921: 911: 905: 890: 878: 874: 856: 845: 818: 779: 767: 755: 740: 733: 721: 675: 671: 659: 644: 639: 638: 626: 611: 596: 580: 568: 554: 550: 533: 522:Strong keep. 521: 502: 493:presidents. 490: 486: 481: 476: 458: 446: 409: 396: 392: 384: 382: 371: 363: 351: 310: 298: 294: 272: 258: 254: 218: 214: 202: 198: 192: 178: 159: 142: 115: 103: 91: 90: 75: 63: 43: 31: 28: 974:FearÉIREANN 926:Lackingleft 823:Vonspringer 768:Strong Keep 745:FreplySpang 722:Strong keep 702:FearÉIREANN 668:FearÉIREANN 627:Strong keep 602:FearÉIREANN 534:Strong keep 524:I love it. 495:FearÉIREANN 437:FearÉIREANN 342:FearÉIREANN 215:Weak delete 108:Merovingian 95:FearÉIREANN 66:Merovingian 672:soft patch 236:Rob Church 933:That has 772:Karmafist 710:Kalsermar 573:Kalsermar 555:Transwiki 303:Guettarda 199:Weak keep 183:Kookykman 164:Wahoofive 46:Johnleemk 988:omission 945:then. - 883:Gamaliel 784:Klonimus 760:Turnstep 616:James F. 428:Carnildo 356:Carnildo 129:faux pas 961:jucifer 857:ALKIVAR 736:as per 503:comment 447:Comment 410:comment 366:as per 263:Bushism 939:delete 922:Delete 906:Delete 898:ntnood 879:hasn't 875:Delete 780:Delete 748:(talk) 738:Splash 734:Delete 692:Splash 631:Durova 619:(talk) 588:(talk) 559:Splash 538:+MATIA 507:+MATIA 414:+MATIA 397:delete 393:Delete 373:Allen3 352:Delete 245:bogdan 151:bogdan 133:bogdan 104:Delete 935:never 912:Grue 895:Insta 832:gaffe 741:et al 650:. -- 487:about 451:Zocky 261:with 259:merge 227:Zocky 106:. -- 16:< 996:Talk 992:Phil 984:Keep 970:just 893:. — 891:Keep 846:Keep 807:JJay 756:Keep 706:JJay 683:JJay 674:and 652:JJay 640:Keep 612:Keep 581:Keep 477:Keep 465:JJay 402:Reyk 311:Keep 299:move 297:and 295:Keep 255:keep 219:move 203:move 201:and 168:talk 143:Keep 116:Keep 50:Talk 267:dab 207:PJM 188:(t) 127:Is 76:was 74:It 994:| 743:. 597:he 491:by 325:. 265:. 170:) 160:by 149:. 48:| 862:™ 542:☎ 511:☎ 418:☎ 275:) 273:ᛏ 271:( 193:e 185:| 166:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Johnleemk
Talk
12:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
US presidential faux-pas, gaffes and unfortunate incidents
Merovingian
14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
List of Presidential gaffes
Ta bu shi da yu
14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
FearÉIREANN
05:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Merovingian
14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu
14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
faux pas
bogdan
14:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
List of gaffes of United States presidents
bogdan
14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Wahoofive
talk
16:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Kookykman
(t)
e
PJM

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.