Talk:not in my name

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

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.

---

===Phrase===

{{infl|en|phrase|head=[[not]] [[in]] [[my]] [[name]]}}

# A [[declaration]] by an [[individual]] that he [[disapprove]]s of some [[action]] of his own [[government]], especially a [[democratically]] [[elected]] one.

===See also===

* [[not on my watch]]

---

not in my name

Is this a set phrase? Is that meaning widespread? Dmcdevit·t 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not one I've ever encountered. --EncycloPetey 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote that gives the flavor of the would-be set phrase use:

1. • 2007, Frank Furedi, Politics of Fear, page 43

     It was fitting that one of the most prominent slogans of the movement against the 2003 invasion of Iraq was 'Not In My Name'.

It is a political slogan, usually appearing in caps and/or in quotes. I don't think that makes it an idiom and still less a proverb. DCDuring 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not "an idiom" but surely "idiomatic" - the phrase would be useless as a slogan if it were not understood to have a set meaning (but shouldn't it be "not in our name)? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A phrase only needs to have meaning to work as a slogan.

"I like Ike", "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?", "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion", "A chicken in every pot", "new beginning", "new deal", "fair deal", "new frontier", "morning in America", "four freedoms", "Labour's not working", "return to normalcy", "a cross of gold", "peace in our time", "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice", "never again", "vote early, vote often", "a war to end all wars". I see many, many new entry possibilities. DCDuring 04:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If a phrase can be shown to have a set meaning - a single exclusive meaning that conveys more information than the words alone - then it should be included. I doubt "vote early, vote often" or "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice" would meet that standard, because they mean just what they say (even if they are famous for who said it, in which case they belong on Wikiquote). By contrast, reference to "a cross of gold" would sound like it literally meant a cross made of gold, and not the concept that the entire country was crucified by its reliance on the gold standard. Similarly, the "war to end all wars" refers to a specific war (which didn't end all wars after all). bd2412 T 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with applying CFI, although I struggle with applying it to phrases of all kinds. The full sentence slogans given above probably aren't includable, but some might be. The others have more meanings, generally shared among those interested in political history. "run, romanism, and rebellion" was about US nativism. "vote early, vote often" is an encouragement to corruption. "a chicken in every pot" was about American populism. "a cross of gold" was about populist/rural hatred of "Wall Street". "peace in our time" is about appeasement. "never again" is about the Holocaust. "new frontier" was about John F. Kennedy. "morning in America" was about Reaganism. "labour's not working" is about Thatcherism. "a war to end all wars" is certainly hard to take literally. I think each political slogans has an ephemeral element also takes on durable meanings connected with the situtation that gave rise to it. DCDuring 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is it really restricted to politics? Interesting. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)