Talk:Trumpster diving
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
"(US, politics, informal, humorous) The act of scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a candidate." Graham11 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if the term exists, the definition itself is hardly of neutral style. brittletheories (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not seeing a neutrality issue with the wording at all, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect this term was in vogue in the runup to the 2016 election when Trump was seen as an unviable candidate. Note that the National Review is conservative, but specifically labeled itself as anti-Trump in 2016. But I suspect once Trump became president, even his enemies within the GOP would have had a difficult time using a term like Trumpster diving and getting the intended meaning across. —Soap— 10:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to stand corrected, but it really seems like there are some puerile editors casting around for terms they can find a derogatory or obscene rhyme for, and then creating portmanteaus of them as entries (like Bangcock and Buttswana). Can’t roll my eyes high enough. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- How exactly is a scrappy bit of wordplay questioning a U.S. president's fitness for office equivalent to a bunch of racial slurs? 🙄 WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree its not equivalent, but as I understand it the wording of the new CFI policy provides no exclusions and so a comparatively mild term is still subject to the same strict verification process. I expect this term to fail attestation because it was coined by an anti-Trump faction of the Republican party who within months fell apart as they saw Trump win the nomination and then the election. As such the term quickly lost all relevance as an insult and I wouldn't expect to see its use span more than a year. —Soap— 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- The policy specifically states that it applies to any term which is derogatory of a named person; it’s not necessary to show that the term is racist, sexist, etc. A higher degree of caution is justified for terms that denigrate individuals, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's entirely fair to hold this to the new attestation requirements for derogatory terms. I just don't think there's a call for grouping this in with what seems to be a pattern of low-effort provocation. Politicians are generally viewed as fair game for criticism and that particularly applies when they hold the highest office in what is arguably the world's most powerful country. There are plenty of uncharitable coinages for other (former) U.S. presidents (e.g. Bidenflation, Obamunism, Bushtard). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- The policy specifically states that it applies to any term which is derogatory of a named person; it’s not necessary to show that the term is racist, sexist, etc. A higher degree of caution is justified for terms that denigrate individuals, I think. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree its not equivalent, but as I understand it the wording of the new CFI policy provides no exclusions and so a comparatively mild term is still subject to the same strict verification process. I expect this term to fail attestation because it was coined by an anti-Trump faction of the Republican party who within months fell apart as they saw Trump win the nomination and then the election. As such the term quickly lost all relevance as an insult and I wouldn't expect to see its use span more than a year. —Soap— 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- How exactly is a scrappy bit of wordplay questioning a U.S. president's fitness for office equivalent to a bunch of racial slurs? 🙄 WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to stand corrected, but it really seems like there are some puerile editors casting around for terms they can find a derogatory or obscene rhyme for, and then creating portmanteaus of them as entries (like Bangcock and Buttswana). Can’t roll my eyes high enough. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @TheDaveRoss: FYI someone has re-created this, but before doing so they added new quotations to Citations:Trumpster diving. 98.170.164.88 05:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced citation
[edit]"you trumpster-diving dittoheads" is apparently an adjective (or arguably a verb), but certainly not a noun. Equinox ◑ 03:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)