Talk:Full Ginsburg

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Embarrassing[edit]

It's embarrassing that 76.106.56.225, an IP editor, had to point out what should have been obvious from the start, that President Obama's 20 September 2009 TV appearances did not meet the article's definition of a Full Ginsburg. Merely appearing on any five Sunday-morning talk shows is insufficient. Unless reliable sources say a) Al Punto is a "major" Sunday-morning talk show, and b) Obama's appearance counts as a Full Ginsburg despite appearing on Al Punto, we can't list him here. YLee (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could add it as a "modified full Ginsburg" or something, especially since some news media did refer to it as a full Ginsburg. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many in the media DID call it a full Ginsburg, and we'd have plenty of citations. But we should call it a "modified full Ginsburg" here.--71.95.156.167 (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If enough reliable sources call Obama's appearances a "Full Ginsburg," then that means we have to rewrite the article, not come up with modified definitions of our own. Remember, Wikipedia didn't create the "Full Ginsburg" term or its meaning; reliable sources did.

That said, I'd want to hold off on a rewrite for two reasons: 1) It would be a mistake to take a handful of cites (out of the hundreds or thousands of news articles on the subject of Obama's talk show appearances that Sunday), even reliable ones, as modifying the definition of a term that has existed for a decade. We need real evidence of a consensus.[1] 2) What is the new definition to be? Do any five Sunday morning talk shows qualify? Or can one be a non-major one? I think it's unwise to open this can of worms unless there's very good reason to and that, to me, means keeping Obama out of this list unless we can find satisfactory answers to both 1) and 2).

[1] Note that I have not checked how many such cites exist. YLee (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may have coined "Spanish Ginsburg" however (to refer to a Spanish-language talk show appearance plus four of the five majors) since I haven't come across evidence that the term existed before it appeared in this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Wikineologism deleted. Ylee (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. What's wrong with Wikineologisms? Could it be in part that it's not cool for Wiki (a good source) to cite Wiki because that would make the reporting or we the reporters (the authors) reporting, - the news?

But why not likewise with any good source citing self (or others) regarding the act or terminology/jargon of reporting?
Can "All reporters at Obama conference had hangovers," (citing each other)
...be legitimate news? ...or a legitimate wiki topic? (It's certainly important to, and openly discussed by; those good sources.) And what of reporter's jargon such as the story was "in the can?" Would that meet Wiki notability standards as a topic? Certainly reporters would get a (self-validating?) (self-referential?) kick out of it. To deserve a topic, jargon must be used beyond a rare group, entering into the common language to some degree, — no?

So why does the reporter's jargon "full Ginsburg" get special treatment? Since almost every time it is used in the news it must be redefined proves its obscurity. (Even in the newshound's news cites! ——Google this claim, test it.) In fact it's never used as a standard "real word" in the news but always as a (suspense) hook to be later defined. It's a writing gimmick similar to hyperbole or rhyming — but used solely to create further reading. Or as a "perfume" or "spice" to give a non-story some bite, or at least to make we super-newsies smile the secret handshake (jargon) at each other, —content that we now belong. But at least real jargon is used as a language shortcut to important real functions or concepts that are independent of the user; of the the scientist or specialist etc. And if it constantly needs defining, is it actually a shortcut—is it actually even jargon at all? Yet most jargon never rises to meet Wiki notability standards.

Yet a "full Ginsburg" has no import outside of reporterese, it is not "free standing." It's only important to us; the author class. Yet here it is. Right in Wikipedia. Ain't we privileged. Aint we self content. Aint we hip. Snort snort.
--71.128.255.226 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Ten years later, using the "modified Full Ginsburg" wording is appropriate, with appropriate attribution of the term to Politico. Ylee (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Full Ginsburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]