From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Revenge of the deplorables"

I'm restoring a mention of the phrase "Revenge of the deplorables" with the two footnotes I provided before. The footnotes are significant only because they establish that the phrase had currency as early as September 14, 2016. If you google "Revenge of the deplorables", you get 21,200 hits. Mksword ( talk) 07:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • @ Mksword: The citations used for the phrase are not notable or reliable. One is a Blog and the other is a Fox News repost of a Washington Times article. Also, most uses of the phrase came from the Election results. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 12:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The citations prove, undeniably, that the phrase had currency as early as September 14, 2016. That's all they are intended to prove. Mksword ( talk) 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Sure, WP:ITEXISTS. This phrase however saw very little usage. From anecdotal memory, there was a lot more use of the phrase "We're gonna need a bigger basket", but that's still minor. — JFG talk 10:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply
If I google "We're gonna need a bigger basket", I get 2,410 hits. If I google "Revenge of the deplorables", I get 20,800 hits. Mksword ( talk) 07:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Right. Both are minor and anecdotal, and my anecdote is no better than your anecdote. We must leave them out unless they received RS coverage. — JFG talk 08:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The phrase "Revenge of the deplorables" does receive coverage in some Reliable Sources (pardon my un-indenting):

Mksword ( talk) 10:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

"Background" section

Just over half of this appears to be OR and I have deleted that part of it for that reason. There needs to be sources specifically citing a connection between the phrase "Basket of Deplorables" and events prior to the phrase's delivery. Without such sources it is original research - the opinion of an editor about the context and origin of the phrase's use. All the sources for the material I have deleted are from August 2016 - it is impossible that they could be be commenting on a phrase before that phrase was spoken. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 22:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Tiptoethrutheminefield: There are several sources that connect the rally in Reno, Nevada to the "Basket of Deplorables" comment such as This CNN article published on September 9, 2016 and This New York Times article published on September 10, 2016. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 14:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Those seem fine to use - they are sources produced after the phrase was said which are talking about the phrase's meaning / origin / connections. With the provision that they are opinions, so should be attributed to those giving the opinions and not expressed as if they were unquestioned facts about the intent of Clinton at the time she said it. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 02:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 19:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The Deplorbles Meme

This should have a copy of 'The Deplorables' meme that Trump Jr tweeted out at one point among others. It was a parody of The Expendables movie poster. There are numerous reliable sources about it: [1] [2] [3] to name a few. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Charles Murray quote

As I try to steer broadly clear of topics that touch on my work, I will not express a direct opinion here.

This concerns the use of a quote from Charles Murray. The quote has been added and removed several times.

This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. I'm assuming you've all been notified. If you have not received the notice, say so and I'm sure someone will oblige.

One of the restorations of the quote is here.

In general, the arguments seem to hinge on two issues, WP:UNDUE and who is being quoted.

WP:UNDUE has to do with how prominently reliable sources have covered material. If the head of the UN gave a speech and included discussion of light switches, we might included it in an article about light switches if independent reliable sources discussed their comments about light switches. The question would likely hinge on how much those sources has to say about his comments and what the sources were. Banner headlines about the light switches comments in the New York Times, USA Today, coverage on the major networks, etc. would be one thing. Coverage in a single site dedicated to electrical wiring would be something else entirely.

If the quote itself is being widely discussed it's one thing. If a Wikipedia editor selected the quote from a longer piece it's possibly cherry picking.

That Charles Murray is who he is may be of some interest, but is not likely to be the deciding factor. Yes, the head of the UN is a more widely known figure, but that doesn't make their statement relevant. If it did, every major political figure, musician and actor would be quoted in thousands of articles: John Lennon likely mentioned orange juice at some point and someone might quote the pope's feelings on cotton vs. wool clothing, but it's likely those opinions are trivial. Coverage in reliable sources should decide for us. Meanwhile, some otherwise non-notable person's statement on avocado toast might make headlines.

Having not looked too closely at the question myself, I'd suggest: 1) How much attention has Murray's comment generated in independent reliable sources? Multiple high quality sources or just this one? Is the source cited independent of both Murray and the podcast being discussed? 2) Are the sources discussing the podcast discussing his comments re this topic or are we hunting for something to include here? 3) If included, should we use in-line attribution? "Diplomat Kofi Annan said..." is very different that "Secretary-General of the United Nations speaking before the UN General Assembly said...", etc. A generic language ("diplomat", "said") is often less informative than specific -- though still objective -- language ("Secretary-General of the United Nations", "speaking before the UN General Assembly").

Before anyone goes there: There might be similar content elsewhere or in this article that should/should not exist. Whether to include that content or not is a separate question that is irrelevant here. - SummerPhD v2.0 16:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Butler ref

@ MWD115: You've added a ref to the page with the name "Butler", but given it no definition. Could you please fill in the source or remove the ref? Thanks. -- Fyrael ( talk) 16:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Series on Hillary Clinton

If this article says it's part of a series on Hillary Clinton, why isn't it in the template under the list of articles? Are they trying to hide this? EytanMelech ( talk) 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Just add it to the template at the bottom, not the one on the side. That one's a bit more limited and specific. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

" Deplorable" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Deplorable has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8 § Deplorable until a consensus is reached. Duckmather ( talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Basket_of_deplorables&oldid=1217848512"