Talk:Christine Gregoire/Archive 1

message: duplicate info with the dino rossi page about the 2004 election.  detailed election info should be broken out.
:Detailed chronology of the election is at Washington gubernatorial election, 2004; I see no need for it to be duplicated here and at Dino Rossi. RadicalSubversiv E 23:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate info with Dino Rossi page

message: I felt the latest edits with the heavy emphasis on the negatives behind the gas tax shifted NPOV  quite a bit.  (Note that my first edits, as original author, were fairly favorable.  Glad we could strike more of a balance.)  I edited the content to be more NPOV.  If you disagree, feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Velvetsmog 08:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on gas tax, first legislative session 

message: There is no problem with saying she lost the initial count and a machine recount. Its not biased, its true. EVERYTHING in the introduction is later repeated, and its important to say that she lost the first two counts, because the way it is now makes it look like she won all three counts.
:I've offered a more concise, and I hope equally accurate, version. Please remove the NPOV dispute tag if you find it acceptable, or detail your objections here if you don't. RadicalSubversiv E 00:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recounts 

message: Do you think you could re-write your additions to the Gregoire article so that they are at a NPOV perspective. You make some good points but your additions are full of your views on the topic.
--8bitJake 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justforasecond on Gas tax increase 

message: How about we avoid and edit war and make the I-912 VS transportation funding issue to it’s own page. I think it was a big enough topic in Washington state politics in 2005 to have it’s own page besides it is a much bigger issue that the Wikipedia entry on Governor Gregoire.
--8bitJake 21:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I didn't get the sense during the campaign that it was really a Gregoire issue. --SarekOfVulcan 22:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Blood for Edits! 

message: was this *really* called the "gay civil rights bill"?   i can't find any descriptive name for it other than HB 1515.   what is gregoire's connection to this bill?   we can't just put every bill up here that was voted on in the legislature if she didn't have some interaction with it.   the bill, like I912 could have a story on its own, including the antioch bible church and hutcherson the pastor boycotting microsoft until balmer caved.  the real shocker about 1515 was that the EXPRESSION of sexual orientation/gender was protected, such as cross dressing and "acting gay".  no other class has that that protection -- the law is USUALLY about "acting professional" and leaving any other discrimination out of the workplace.  -Justforasecond 01:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I used this terminology.  I believe I grabbed the term from either the P-I or the Times, but I can't remember if I sourced the article.  I'm not sure if this is a controversial term or not.  Gregoire expended a lot of political capital during the first legislative session between HB 1515 and the gas tax, making them defining moments in her governorship.  Yes, we shouldn't have a laundry list of bills that passed, but we should certainly highlight definitive moments. Velvetsmog 19:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "gay civil rights bill" 

message: There was an "empty link" set up under Spouse in the summary box for Christine Gregoire, and I, seeing the incompleteness thereof, went ahead and added the contemplated article.  Now some zealot (and I mean that in the most complimentary way), Deiz, wants to merge my article into Christine Gregoire's article.  Discussion of the issue over at Talk: Mike Gregoire. --Mike 08:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging [[Mike Gregoire]]

message: i'm not going to weigh in on what exactly should be said about hand recounts, but both of the claims (hand is better, hand is worse) need to be cited.  "many people dispute" is classic "weasel words" -- who are the "many"?
"secretary of state claims" is better, but still needs a cite.
Justforasecond 01:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hand recounts 

message: Should the results from Strategic Vision polls be included?  Strategic Visions polls are always heavily skewed in the direction of the Republicans and is often at odds with less biased polls like SurveyUSA - someone that really needs to set up an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2006
Whether they should or not, can we at least stop it with people trying to eradicate all mention of Strategic Vision's bias? The following are among the sources that specifically identify Strategic Vision as a Republican polling firm:
*The Hill
*Boston Globe
*Atlanta Journal-Constitution
*Philadelphia Inquirer
*Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com''
*Bloomberg
*Fox News
*Salon
*Orlando Sentinel
*The Ledger (Lakeland, Fla.)
*Sarasota Herald-Tribune
*Fox News!! (it's the same link; I just thought it was worth repeating)
*The National freakin' Review
*townhall.com
Do I need to continue? I can, but I really feel the point is made at this point. —phh (t/c) 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if there is doubt about the WA Dems considering them biased, here's a press releases from the Dems referring to Strategic vision as "GOP firm Strategic Vision" and another referring to David Johnson as "A Republican party pollster". --Bobblehead 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the SV polls could be included but the wording would have to be very careful to point out the bias without being biased itself.   Even "Republican polling firm" doesn't really get the point across.  Users from outside the US might not really get the implication.  Justforasecond 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Vision Polls 

message: FRCP11 is wikistalking and making edits without knowledge of Washington state politics. He is a hard core Republican Neocon activist and I am skeptical that he wishes to make a positive contribution to this article.--8bitJake 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the good things about wikipedia is that it encourages involvement from all sides and we shouldn't be discouraging updates from our brethren just because Christine Gregoire is a Dem and Washington leans more towards the liberal side of the political spectrum.  While FRCP11's modifications might have been contentious, in the end it got us to source the claim that SV was a GOP PR firm and improved the tobacco settlement paragraph. That's good stuff if you ask me. --Bobblehead 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And note the difference.  When editors verified the fact that SV was GOP, I yielded.  When editors sourced the fact that Henry Jackson was an inspiration to the neoconservative movement with eighteen cites, 8bitJake engaged in a revert war and got himself barred from Wikipedia twice. I cited Mother Jones on the tobacco settlement, hardly a right-wing propaganda source.  -- FRCP11 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And the accusation of wikistalking is ironic: you've been reverting my edits.  You didn't write anything about the tobacco settlement, you've just been trying to sanitize the fact that Gregoire gave away billions of dollars of taxpayer money to her out-of-state campaign donors after I added verified notable neutral facts about that arrangement. -- FRCP11 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If Wikipedia were a game of resume-trumping, you'd still lose, Jake.  But it's not, so I'm not going to point to the fact that I've been interviewed on national television and by newspapers about the tobacco litigation.  We'll instead have to rely on verifiable sources instead of personal experience, and you haven't yet provided any.  Also, if "you personally know Governor Gregoire", beware the tale of Morton Brilliant, who got caught modifying Wikipedia biographies related to campaigns he worked for to make them look more favorable to his employer...  -- FRCP11 17:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a lie. -- FRCP11 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please ask for an investigation.  Changing section title that's a misleading personal attack into something else is appropriate, but I'd be happy to have an administrator evaluate your conduct versus my conduct.  To date, you've been barred from Wikipedia twice for 72 hours for your edit wars. -- FRCP11 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But you did lie.  You falsely accused me of editing your talk-page contribution, when all I did was refactor the organization of the page, rather than anything substantive. -- FRCP11 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The person who called Hillary Clinton a neoconservative and every editor who disagreed with him a Nazi is accusing my refactoring a section criticizing my edits about the tobacco settlement to "tobacco settlement" of being a "POV rant".  Ok, whatever.  Please, report me to the administrators, I'd welcome intervention from a neutral third party.  -- FRCP11 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My apologies for the imprecision: you called me a fascist.  Twice, actually.  You only compared me to a Nazi. -- FRCP11 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FRCP11 

message: :Gregoire didn't "get back Washington states money". She (without legislative or voter approval) imposed a regressive tax increase that was used to pay private attorney campaign contributors billions of dollars (Compare: the federal government's suit against tobacco companies on identical grounds uses public servants being paid GS scale); and guaranteed tobacco company profits, insulating them from competition. And, oh, by the way, the settlement was probably unconstitutional. And I didn't even get into allegations of campaign contributor Ness Motley's unethical behavior. If you want to make edits to Bush's page, be my guest, but Bush is irrelevant to how to make the discussion of the tobacco settlement NPOV.  -- FRCP11 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington taxpayers pay a $7-8 billion regressive tax, of which Washington government receives less than $5 billion.  Which part of the Washington state constitution permits the attorney general to unilaterally raise taxes $7-8 billion, give $2-3 billion to her friends and other states, and the rest to the treasury?  NB also that the MSA formula penalizes growing states like Washington, making the ultimate disparity even larger.  -- FRCP11 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fascinating rebuttal, but ultimately irrelevant to the substance of the article and its failure to adhere to WP:NPOV standards with respect to its description of a controversial tobacco settlement. -- FRCP11 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: substance of tobacco settlement

message: Guys, this was one of the friendliest pages on wikipedia before.   We need to settle this either way so can we do it nicely?   This info is cited, verifiable, etc, so it comes down to whether including it is POV-shading.   This is an argument I am very wary of, it is the weakest reason for disinclusion that wiki has.   I'm open to phrasing changes and the addition of mitigating info showing this is nothing out of the ordinary, that her opponent took donations from slimy folks too, etc.   Rossi would have been bad for the state, btw, but no one cares enough to edit the man's article.  Justforasecond 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that we have two editors for my version, two editors against, and one of those two is wikistalking me with edit-wars and is retaliating for being barred twice for WP:3RR reversions on Henry M. Jackson. Unfortunately, it's that last POV edit that's currently on the page. I'm trying to be cooperative; I'm not the one repeatedly violating WP:CIVIL. -- FRCP11 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for proving my point. -- FRCP11 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep it civil, again, Jake.  The attacks are unwarranted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never met Jeff.  We've worked together on precisely one article, one where I had been editing for a long time, and to which he came to because of a notice on an administrator's board penalizing 8bitJake's repeated violations of 3RR. -- FRCP11 04:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to accuse me of personal attacks, go right ahead.  But that has nothing to do with your edits here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I never claimed to be an unbiased source.  Wikistalking, no, as much as you like to think otherwise, but a guy who flaunts his contributions on his userpage is asking for people to take a look, regardless. Now, enough personal stuff, any comments on the article?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jake -- it looks like there is some tag-teaming here, but I've been on this article for a long time and I do think this should be mentioned.  Justforasecond 00:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good rule of thumb is that 8bitJake regularly projects when he makes accusations.  He accuses Jeff of tagteaming, but here's your tagteaming, plain and simple, with Bobble.  I also welcome readers to compare my contributions to 8bitJake's on the article for Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson and decide which one of us is interested in contributing substance to Wikipedia, and which one of us views it as a place for misspelled partisan firebombing. -- FRCP11 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright I give up.   If you're going to focus on editor behavior rather than the article I'm going to have to leave you two to duke this one out on your own.     Justforasecond 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pleeease

message: I reduced the already-existing paragraph about Gregoire's membership in a racist all-white sorority to a single sentence.  8bitJake has now deleted it entirely.  Can someone please restore it? -- FRCP11 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problem: Sorority membership 

message: 8bitJake has reverted my POV tag four times in the last twenty hours.  Can someone please restore it so I don't violate WP:3RR?  The article now has POV problems with the tobacco settlement and the sanitization of Gregoire's membership in a racist sorority. -- FRCP11 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add the glowing one-sided paean describing Gregoire's term in the AG's office to the POV problems. Plus perhaps an "alleged" can be added in there, since she didn't win a conviction of the pharmas?  -- FRCP11 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the POV tag be re-inserted on this article?  It seems one of the side effects of the re-organization is a disappearance of dissenting views. Also looks like none of your issues have been addressed so far. --Bobblehead 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And I seriously need to read. The first entry. *laugh* Sorry. Adding the POV tag. --Bobblehead 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag problem 

message: Y'all need to step away from this article for a bit. This is a wikipedia article and as such it is never complete. Continuing your turf war is not going to solve anything and just drive the rest of the editors off the page. --Bobblehead 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies.  I don't believe in the heckler's veto.  I have legitimate contributions to make to this page, and I don't think the fact that 8bitJake reverts every edit I make means I don't get to edit. But I'm out of town this weekend, so other editors can hash this out over the next three days.-- FRCP11 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FRCP11 and 8bitJake

message: FRCP11 is right about one thing at least: Reorganizing this article into a less insane structure really shows off how bad it is. There are exactly three sentences of biography in the entire thing. Gregoire's 12-year career as attorney general is entirely ignored except for the tobacco settlement. The 2004 campaign, from the primary season all the way through the closing of the polls in November, is entirely ignored except for the kerfuffle about the sorority she attended 40 fucking years ago. The entire article is little more than a battle between KVI talking points and Democratic Party talking points. The state of this article ought to make everyone who contributes to it (and I certainly do not exempt myself here) hang our heads in shame.
Still, kudoes to FRCP11 for what actually looks like a pretty good re-org considering what he had to work with. Let's all of us try to do better.
On popularity: I just looked at the pages for every other sitting U.S. governor, and not one of them have a meticulous little table tracking approval rating month by month. Most don't mention polls at all. A handful have a small section summarizing recent and historic polling data, which is what I've created here. --—phh (t/c) 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on every point.  I like what you've done with the polling section. -- FRCP11 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I rarely agree w/PHenry politically, but he's spot on here.  Hopefully with more eyes on this we can make this into something better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: The wikipedia articles on Governor Jim Risch of Idaho, Brian Schweitzer on Montana and Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming. Do not have a similar section on polling. So why does this article need one? She is not going to be on a ballot again for over two year.--8bitJake 18:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Approval ratings are of interest to people. So while she's the sitting governor it's appropriate to keep the polling in the article. Maybe not as it's own section, but it is of note that Gregoire is an unpopular governor at this time. I'd say incorporate it at the end of the governor section. --Bobblehead 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of the reasons, Gregoire is not a popular governor which is of note and the polls reflect that lack of popularity. The proximity to 2008 is not pertinent to the inclusion now. You can't have only the good about Gregoire in this article. Part of the bad is her lack of popularity. --Bobblehead 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No one is saying it's a massively bad thing and the section itself makes no reference to her rating be a good or bad thing. There are other politicians that have it included or make reference to ratings in polls (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ted Kulongoski, Jon Huntsman, Jr.). The lack of inclusion in other articles is not a valid reason for removing it from this article. The section could do with some explanations as to why her popularity is where it's at, but that's still not a reason to remove the popularity section. --Bobblehead 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a Polling Section? 

message: I don’t see a reason the keep the POV tag on this article article and propose deleting it.--8bitJake 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how we can remove it, personally. Very few of the issues identified by FRCP11 have been addressed and the removal would only be because FRCP11 left the project, not because the NPOV issues have been addressed. *shrug* But then, I don't currently have the time or desire to work on the NPOV issues FRCP11 identified. Heh. Just not seeing the harm of keeping the NPOV flag there for other interested editors. --Bobblehead 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The tag does not not cover factual accuracy, just neutrality. If Factual Accuracy were in question the accuracy dispute template would have been used.  Two different templates, two different reasons.--Bobblehead 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This still has POV problems.  What happened to the stuff about the racist sorority she was a member of?  Justforasecond 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: if you've got issues with the bush article go deal with them there.   the racist/all white sorority was a big deal in the media and should be included.   if it was no big deal she wouldn't have apologized for it.  anyway, jake, if you want to remove the pov tag this is the sort of issue you have to acknowledge.   Justforasecond 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err.. Gregoire did not apologize for her membership in Kappa Delta, but rather noted that she advocated to change the policy from within the sorority.. At least, according to the article that kicked the whole thing off. So saying she apologized is not accurate, rather she defended her membership in the sorority. It is also worth noting that Gregoire's alumnae advisor and later Kappa Delta's national president is quoted in the article as saying the UW chapter was ostracized by the national organization because of Gregoire's activism on the subject.. --Bobblehead 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I actually think the fact that she had and fought cancer before the 2004 campaign should be in the bio.  She mentions it in speeches on healthcare and the uninsured health care crisis in Washington State.--8bitJake 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be included, probably under the Personal section.  The main reason for the removal is that someone complained to User:Bcsurvivor that they shouldn't be adding it to the See Also links so the editor went back through and undid the additions they made. --Bobblehead 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer