Talk:Ratfucking

&mdash; J I P | Talk 10:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

trying to edit
I’ve been trying to do an edit that should take five seconds for a day now. I am reverted instantly by multiple different people asking for reasons. My reasons are clearly given in the edit summaries. They are not engaged with or even mentioned. I really feel they are not being read.

There is no good faith whatsoever.

This is doing an end run around the fact that wp is set up for anonymous editing by making anonymous editing effectively impossible. 78.18.1.59 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * See


 * and so on. 78.18.1.59 (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Here’s a question for the three or four editors claiming to be anxious to preserve this material: if you were to make it its own section, which would at least get it out of what reads as the lede, what would you even call it? Because I am having a hard time not calling it something trolly like:  Occasions in the last ten years editors surfed in and added the instance that caused them to look up the term. 78.18.1.59 (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary Discussion

 * What? Really? And after The Onion even made reference to it? It may be obscure, but it's an aspect of Watergate. I'd certainly vote to keep it. --WWB 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

--- User:Graeme Harrison June 8, 2010: The Prime Minister of Australia (Kevin Rudd) famously described the behaviour of the Chinese Delegation to the 2009 Copenhagen World Climate Summit, using this explicit term (alone). The published quote from a recorded conversation is in an essay written by journalist, biographer and leading left-wing intellectual David Marr, 'Power Trip: The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd'. The quote was "Those Chinese f---ers are trying to ratf--- us," Rudd told journalists and aides. (Hypens inserted by newspapers in their recounting of the quotation.)

This was then republished in The Sydney Morning Herald 'Good Weekend' section of June 5-6, 2010 ('We have to talk about Kevin'). The same quote was republished in 'The Australian' newspaper of June 5, 2010. The notoriety of the Prime Minister using such a term was covered extensively in other Australian national media (eg 'The Daily Telegraph', 'The Herald Sun' and 'The Age') and numerous blogs.

The term itself was then further discussed in the Letters to the Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald on June 6-7, 2010. Clive Kessler of Randwick, NSW stated: "Conservative student activists in American universities in the 1960s devised various practices to sabotage radical anti-war initiatives by spreading disinformation and confusion. They called it ratf---ing. Its leading exponent was Ronald Ziegler, who became Richard Nixon's widely reviled press secretary and confidant. In his years in that job, which encompassed Watergate, he continued to advocate the practice and its distasteful soubriquet. Just for the record."

It would seem that, despite the apparent rudeness of the term, it has been used by political operatives over a 35 year period with a very explicit meaning. This ability to ascertain what was being discussed would be lost if the Wiki article on the term was deleted. There are a wealth of terms in English which derive in some way or other from a term for fornication. Let's not follow the example set by a medieval pope's removal of genitals from all statues, justifying such vandalism by a desire to remove items which might lead people to impure thoughts. The term is actually quite descriptive for the actions it describes. And it has been used by the Nixon US Administration of the 1970s through to the Rudd Australian Prime Ministership of 2010, clearly giving it historical continuity. Moreover, there is no other suitable term to describe the action. And a G20 leader using it at a world leaders conference to describe a world leading power's tactics makes the term forever 'notable'.

Another problem is that the Wiki page on Donald Segretti contains an explicit reference that he coined (invented) the term "ratfucking" but this now simply points to Dirty Tricks without any mention of the 'ratfucking' term or its use since Nixon's time and continuing to Rudd's time. We still need a page on 'ratfucking' with just appropriate link to 'Dirty Tricks' in general. Currently if you Wiki-search on 'ratfucking' you can ascertain no origin or usage of the term, which is unacceptable.

Prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2008 Nomination for Deletion
I have tagged this entry for deletion for a variety of reasons. I understand that a proposal for deletion has been done before, without reaching consensus, as noted on this talk page. However, this occurred on October 20, 2005. In a time period of over two years and five months, no contributions have been made to this entry whatsoever that justify its continued inclusion in Wikipedia.

This article should be validly considered for deletion for the following reasons under WP:DEL

-Specifically, it is not a dictionary - It is not a collection of slang / idioms - It is not a collection of original research (the sources do not back up the info included in the article... more below on the sources) - It is not, per WP:IINFO, a collection of indiscriminate info.
 * Content not suitable for an encyclopedia

-A Daily Kos link that uses the term, but doesn't actually provide the information on the term that the article includes other than notionally linking it to Watergate. -A "Green Institute" link which requires registration to see any content, thus proving useless as a source as the link provides no information on the term - A Rolling Stone article that mentions the term, again in association with Watergate, but again, providing none of the explanations that the article invents - Two Namebase.org sources that do not mention the term - Two sparticus.schoolnet sources which doe not mention the term - A jstor link which does not mention the term - A sniggle.net link which does not mention the term - A wizbangblog link which does not mention the term - A military.com link which does not mention the term - A Huffington Post article that is self-referential in that it's sole citation of the term is this dubious Wikipedia article itself (ie: the source for the source of this Wikipedia article is this Wikipedia article).
 * Article has no reliable sources or verifiability, per WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. The article says things, but the limited "sources" cited don't actually include the information used in the article. An examination of the sources:

- There is no significant coverage by reliable sources -The term itself is merely a slang term associated with pillaging MREs (maybe, again - the "source" for this never actually uses the term, thus is worthless), and a slang term about individuals associated with the Watergate scandal via All the Presidents Men.
 * Article fails to meet WP:N on notability.

As a whole, the article presents random information without relation to the topic itself. After mentioning that the term means sabotage or dirty tricks in politics (without sourcing), it mentions the Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr feud for seemingly no reason. The justification, it would seem, is that their fall-out occurred because "dirty tricks" used in politics... and "ratfucking" is dirty tricks too! A list of various, random political dirty tricks used throughout history with no relation to the term is not a valid use of this article. Afterwords, it delves mostly into a summary of Watergate-related issues that, if notable, should be included in other sources - specifically within Watergate scandal, or perhaps All the President's Men. I do not question the accuracy of the sources cited, nor their relevance as sources related to Watergate issues. However, they DO NOT address the term ratfucking.

The justifications to keep this article seem to be: -The Onion made a joke about it -A lukewarm keep vote, tacitly admitting that it needs to be moved to wiktionary as slang but mainly against the deletion because the deletion-position of the nominator (irrelevant fact) - The term has something to do with Watergate, thus it must be notable (flawed logic) - The fact that it's factual, verifiable, neutral (factual depends on verifiable, and as I have noted above - there has been no verification of this article's content) - We should keep it because the youngins today "don't understand" because they weren't around when Watergate would happened. Also, those whippersnappers should keep off my lawn. - This article is notable because the Huffington Post cites this article (circular logic)

None of these arguments seem valid to me. Following the article's first two unsourced sentences on what the article means, none of its content actually follows up on this, or is relevant to the term. I'm sure it may be claimed that, "Okay, but this article can be improved to provide proper sources." But the fact is that the article, given ample time and opportunity, has not been improved in the 2+ years since it's last vote for deletion, and does not seem that it will given a lack of verifiable, relevant sources. Furthermore, the existence of the article is in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's policy of not being a slang dictionary. The fact that, following the introduction of this short dictionary definition, a series of Watergate factoids already covered by the Watergate article are included, does not suddenly make it a valid article.

Discussion welcome, 71.255.235.176 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several references in the article, so there's definitely a claim of notability. There's also several Google News and Google Scholar hits.  Given that there's a claim of notability and that a deletion would be controversial, this should go to AfD if you think it should be deleted.  Removing prod. Klausness (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Other definitions
Not sure where to find a source, but the term is in limited use at Caltech to refer to the act of freezing a rat in liquid nitrogen, then throwing it into someone's room such that it shatters into small fragments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.184 (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Objection: This should not be an article in the first place!
When I looked at this talk page and saw "nomination for deletion" I felt at least somewhat vindicated. It shouldn't be an article. Additionally, the content of this article is patently false. "It was here that the term ratfucking had its origin." To quote Dustin Hoffman's character (Bernstein) in the movie, "That's total bull shit!" The word was in use at least as far back as the 1950s as a term for slanderous collusion, i.e. collectively bad-mouthing someone behind his back. It had no overtly political sense.

One of the University of Redlands yearbooks 1958-1963 has a photo with "RF" in giant letters that someone had made on a hillside in the background. The caption said that it stood for "Redlands Forever," and that was a joke among the students then, who often just shortened it to "rat."

Consider the precedent that this poorly-written "article" sets: now any bit of college slang (which has an incredibly high turnover rate) can be the subject of a Wikipedia article? This silly stuff should be relegated to the Urban Dictionary. CousinJohn (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

When?
The large paragraph in the background section gives no indication of what time period is being discussed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

H. R. Haldeman didn't attend USC
the Background section includes H. R. Haldeman as one of the staffers who attended USC, but he didn't attend USC he attended UCLA.

https://alumni.ucla.edu/awards/h-r-haldeman-48/

H._R._Haldeman

apologies if this post is incorrect in some way - I am not quite sure how/where to post this or if/how I should correct the error. 1.46.175.75 (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not the same as field stripping
This is not the same as field stripping. Field stripping is the space reduction and removal of unnecessary items from individual MREs. It's a repacking of an MRE to be more compact and lightweight.

http://www.itstactical.com/survival/how-to-field-strip-an-mre-in-12-easy-steps/

Coupdeforce (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ratfucking. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707093702/http://www.greeninstitute.net/subpages/editor_2005-07.asp to http://www.greeninstitute.net/subpages/editor_2005-07.asp
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120903142114/http://www.namebase.org/usctrust.html to http://www.namebase.org/usctrust.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Sarwark’s 2020 ratfucking campaign in the libertarian party
There have been multiple credible sources and primary references for this activity. However, it is understandable that those outside the know may see this story as vandalism. At the same time, they must realize that 1) the LP has been a significant force in US politics for decades, 2) have a member in the House of Reps, and 3) continually play a visible part in the continuing conversation of the US’s current bipartisanship. Ignoring these facts makes the burying of Sarwark’s behavior similar to censorship, antithetical to the purpose of this website and the internet in general. I opened this discussion so that we have figure a path forward that neither involves vandalism nor censorship. So I please ask all of those involved to respectfully discuss what may be a fair compromise to record a historical and notable event in the story of the largest 3rd party in the United States. DarkfnTemplar1 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This article would not be the appropriate place. Move it to the article Nicholas Sarwark as it is about him. Tgmod (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)