Talk:Christine Gregoire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Duplicate info with Dino Rossi page

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)

Louisiana already has a female governor, Kathleen Blanco

NPOV on gas tax, first legislative session

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)


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)

Legitmacy of election

What is wrong about talking about the questioning of the legitimacy of her election. You may not remember, but a King 5 poll had people saying that Gregoire should concede both times Rossi won, and when he lost, another poll said he should NOT concede. Also, just becuase you may see Gregoire's win as legitamate doesnt mean everyone or even a majority does, just as you seeing Bush's win as illegitamte doesnt mean everyone feels that way either. This is important to the article becuase its the truth and part of her governorship, just as similar problems plague Bush, and I would not revert anything on Bush's article about questions of the legitimacy of his election, as that is part of the problems of his presidency. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Justforasecond on Gas tax increase

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)

Well you made some claims that were not properly sourced or discussed in the discussion page and a lot of the POV sounded like it came from the I-912. --8bitJake 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

One of these days I'll learn to read talk before making large changes. Sorry, Jake, didn't realize you were already trying to work this out. (BTW, any changes that refer to an Eyman-sponsored initiative as "grass-roots" will be reverted on sight.)--SarekOfVulcan 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure but I don't think this was Eyman's baby. He may have jumped on the bandwagon though. If it was Eyman's we should add it. -Justforasecond 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, guess it wasn't, unless there's more behind the scenes than I thought. "Sponsor: Ms. Jane Milhans" [1] Sorry for jumping to conclusions.--SarekOfVulcan 22:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No Blood for Edits!

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)

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)

I created the page Washington State 2005 Initiative Measure No. 912 --8bitJake 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You guys are two of the most agreeable wikipedians I've run into. It does deserve its own page. Don't have time to do any editing on it for now but I agree with the sentiment. The tax was Gregoire's baby but she didn't have much to do (pro or con) with I-912. BTW have you seen Rossi's page? It is really lacking, especially in areas like his links to BIAW, etc (though I guess he's little more than the guy that lost to Gregoire at this point) -Justforasecond 22:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I seriously doubt we have seen the end of Dino Rossi. --8bitJake 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"gay civil rights bill"

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)

HB 1515 has been debated for the past 30 years but the legislature has yet to pass it. It has been called the Gay-rights legislation or gay civil rights legislation. What is is about is this. In Washington State it is legal to fire someone if you think they might be gay or not rent to them if you think they might be gay. HB 1515 would change that. It is not about marriage or hate crimes but a nondiscrimination bill that many other states have already passed. Governor Gregoire has supported HB 1515 and would like to sign it into law if we can get it through the legislature. It is an on going political issue in Washington State. I am sure that my friends Equal Rights Washington could help you with any questions about this legislative issue.

Finkbeiner may hold key for passing gay-rights bill --8bitJake 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

But who called it the "gay civil rights" bill? Was this something that came out of Olympia? Is there a less controversial name (other than HB 1515?). I am pretty sure what caused the uproar about this bill was that it extended beyond what folks did in private to behavior at the workplace, etc. Behavior is not usually protected. The conservative talk shows went hogwild when they realized what this bill meant.

-Justforasecond 16:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the news media. Most supporters call it a civil rights bill or an anti-descrimination bill. Well in Washington State you can’t fire some one for being female, Jewish, male, Republican or what ever but you can still fire some one for being gay. That is an issue that resonates with a majority of Washington State voters so that is why this is going to be a wedge issue in 2006. I am hopeful for the passing of the bill. Luckily we don’t have a state government run by right-wing talk show hosts however they right did run a talk show host against Governor Locke. --8bitJake 19:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Merging Mike Gregoire

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)

There appears to be no interest in doing a "merge". Perhaps just stop hyperventilating over it, then? --Mike 05:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

hand recounts

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)

Strategic Vision Polls

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 (talkcontribs) 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:

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)

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)
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)


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)

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)
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)
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)

Even the Devil can quote scripture but the details are in the context and intent.

I have been following Washington state politics for decades and my face is known in Olympia at the capitol. I personally know Governor Gregoire.[2] --8bitJake 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I don't work for the Governor or her campaign. So you have been a talking head on Faux Newx. Woo!--8bitJake 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it is very poor form to edit my additions to the talk page. You have basically forfeited a reasonable attempt to be taken seriously on this page. I should request an investigation on your poor behavior here.--8bitJake 17:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Bull. You edited my tile text right here. [3] Don't forget that your manipulative abusive editing are recorded. I think I will request an investigation into your abusing editing here. --8bitJake 17:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

So you just admitted that you false accused me of lying. That is quite rich.--8bitJake 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

No you changed the title that I added. That topic title "FRCP11" was put there just to talk about your "contributions" the article. You changed it to one of your POV rants and that was extremely bad form.--8bitJake 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I never called you a Nazi and the record supports that. Jesus, your lies never stop do they?--8bitJake 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

POV: Tobacco settlement

Disputed edit. In addition, I would like the cite to Mother Jones, deleted by Bobblehead, restored.

This section is now POV because of 8bitJake's edits, who falsely characterizes as a consensus and justifies it because he has a photo of himself standing next to the governor. Can someone please correct?

  • Gregoire negotiated a tobacco settlement that resulted in billions of dollars of taxpayer money going to attorneys who had a relationship with her campaign and rewarded her with over a million dollars of direct and indirect donations. These donations and the settlement have been criticised from the left (Mother Jones)[4] and the right (Reason magazine)[5]. These cites have been deleted, and the accusation has been sanitized to make it seem like the defense of out-of-state tobacco lawyers is a dispositive fact (just a coincidence to reward Gregoire for a different political giveaway), rather than a single point of view. [6] [7] [8] -- FRCP11 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
More links: [9] [10] [11]

Actually it is Bobblehead version that I agree with. That is more editors that just you. You just said that you are a biased source involved with this issue as you are right-wing trial lawyer. Remember Morton Brilliant.--8bitJake 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FRCP11 on this. This is well cited information. Is there some rephrasing you'd like, Jake? Justforasecond 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotta love turf wars. Anyways, most of this argument seems better placed here rather than on the Christine Gregoire page. Aside from the campaign contributions the sources provided by RFCP11 are critical of the agreement, not Christine Gregoire's involvement. IMHO, it is also disingenuous to accuse Gregoire directly for the law firm payday as it is standard operating procedure for law firms involved in class action lawsuits to get a significant portion of settlements (hence the need for tort reform) and Washington was only one of 46 states to agree to the settlement. --Bobblehead 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second -- you have all this text lionizing Gregoire for the tobacco settlement, and you delete the criticism of that very same tobacco settlement? Either Gregoire is responsible for the tobacco agreement (in which case criticism of it is appropriate), or she's not responsible for it (in which case, no mention of it at all is appropriate, or a mention of how she improperly takes credit for it).
It's also not true that Gregoire had nothing to do with the fees being awarded. The attorneys general didn't have to agree to a multi-billion-dollar giveaway. They could have cut a deal that resulted in their campaign contributors getting a lot less than tens of thousands of dollars an hour. -- FRCP11 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Prior to your updates mention of Gregoire's involvement in the settlement was just that, a mention. The article made no claim about the settlement being a good thing or a bad thing it was up to the reader to research the settlement to determine that. The only thing missing from the original entry was a link to the MSA (which can be rectified) where the pros and cons of the settlement can be detailed. It was only after you inserted a blatant POV about the settlement and attempted to link the settlement with campaign contributions and implied bribery that any 'lionization' (The Tobacco-Free Kids reference) and 'sanitization' was added to counter your claims. Tort reform was a major issue in the 2004 election and it's not surprising that trial lawyers would donate to campaigns that opposed it and to make the implication that the reason why the contributions were made was because of the settlement shows either a complete lack of understanding for that reality or an intentional distortion of the truth. Long story short, revert the modifications back to this version and link the MSA to the article. That eliminates any POV in the article and leaves it up to the reader to determine if the settlement was a good thing or a bad thing. If you want to bring up mention of the campaign contributions they can be made in the 2004 governor election section and should be placed in the proper context of Gregoire's criticism of Rossi's 'outsider campaign contributions' and her stance on tort reform. --Bobblehead 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The prior version you cite made Gregoire's version of her role in the sleazy tobacco settlement all sweetness and light, with no mention of any criticism. That violated NPOV. I made it neutral by noting other points of view. You and 8bitJake (1) deleted a cite to Mother Jones; (2) deleted criticism of the effects of the settlement; (3) stated a particular POV as fact because you think that POV is right; and (4) added more lionizing statements to the beginning and end of the paragraph to hide the damaging facts. That violates NPOV.
Even above, your argument is not that your edit is neutral, but that it's correct. I disagree that it's correct, but your argument is in any event based on a misunderstanding of NPOV. You don't get to decide which points of view are correct and which are incorrect. One states both points of view neutrally, with verified sources, and let the reader decide. My edit did that. 8bitJake's edit-war reversion does not. -- FRCP11 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I don't have a misunderstanding of NPOV. All sides of the MSA debate are important and deserve mention, just not on the Christine Gregoire page. The article simply can not do it justice and any attempt to do so is a fool's errand. Regardless of your opinion of NPOV and your additions, they violate the Fairness and sympathetic tone guideline and it was in that light that I editted your additions.
Criticism of Christine Gregoire's involvement in the tobacco settlement is fair game in this article, but criticism of the settlement itself should be restricted to the Master Settlement Agreement article. The campaign contributions made are also out of place in the biography section of the article. As i mentioned, feel free to update the 2004 election campaign section with that information, but aside from a tangential reference to the law firms' connection to MSA, the proper context for that criticism is her opposition to tort reform and complaints about Rossi's out of state donors. --Bobblehead 20:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Criticism of Gregoire's role in the settlement" and "criticism of the settlement" is a distinction without a difference. Criticism of the MSA is criticism of Gregoire's role in the MSA, since she takes credit for the settlement.[12][13] I'm happy to see what you do with the campaign contribution question, and evaluate those particular edits, but this is more than a question of campaign contributions: it's about a multi-billion-dollar giveaway of taxpayer money through a regressive tax. Unfortunately, the bad-faith reversions by 8bitJake and my travel schedule prohibit me from returning to editing the main article before Monday. -- FRCP11 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The reversion had nothing to do with "tone." 8bitJake's edit was a wholescale deletion of neutral text I added. It is your edits that violate tone, because they overload positive assessment of the settlement, and delete criticism. -- FRCP11 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead's text stays then. FRCP11 has proven that he is not working in good faith here.--8bitJake 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

campaign contributions=

The article on George W. Bush does not mention donations from oil and military companies to his campaign. I don’t see why Governor Gregoire’s article deserves special treatment from Rightwing editing. This is grasping at straws.--8bitJake 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Gregoire's article emphasizes her role in the tobacco settlement. It's portrayed in the article as an unambiguously good thing that no one opposes, and that's neither true nor NPOV. Plus trial lawyers who directly benefited from Gregoire's actions are a bigger proportion of Gregoire's campaign contributions than oil and gas interests are for Bush, and the latter contributors haven't directly benefited the way trial lawyers did. -- FRCP11 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"oil and gas interests are for Bush, and the latter contributors haven't directly benefited the way trial lawyers did" Oh man you really should think about what you are saying before you hit save.--8bitJake 18:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are quid pro quo allegations with Gregoire, and not with Bush. If there are with Bush, you're welcome to add it to his article.-- FRCP11 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would mention that your position is that George Bush’s Iraq War, Military budgets, energy deregulations, massive tax giveaways for key corporations, hiring of industry leaders for key regulatory positions is totally kosher with the donations to his campaign fund but Governor Gregoire joining with over 90% of the other Attorney Generals in the nations in the state best interest to get back Washington states money was notably worse in campaign financing that the entire military and energy policy that the Bush Administration. No "quid pro quo" allegations with the Bush Aministration. Wow you really were on Fox news!--8bitJake 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think mention of oil industry donations (whatever they be) do belong in the Bush article, though they are somewhat less ear-perking. The president is involved in national affairs and presumably affects policy all over the world. But why would siblings of tobacco attorneys our in North Carolina want to donate to a candidate for governor in Washington? Because she did such a good job sueing their brother's bosses? The other thing about the Bush article is I imagine it is one of the most heavily edited pages on wiki and making a dent on it is near impossible.
I don't know if this was a quid pro quo...certainly a billion dollars in attorners fees is a bundle...but regardless, in such a close race these donations could have made the difference. Heck, at one point an individual *household* could have decided the election. It may have come down to Rossi neglecting to clean up his dog's droppings at the local park!
So I *do* support putting this in, with fair language, but please try to steer clear of partisanship and laughability such as suggesting that Bush's support from energy companies was just some sort of Texan good will. It won't fly here and will just cause mistrust. Justforasecond 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

substance of tobacco settlement

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.[14] 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)

Gregoire acted with the authority that the voters of the state gave her. It is painfully obvious that you don't have a clue about Washington State politics and that you have nothing of value to contribute here.--8bitJake 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

And "Toxic Sludge is Good for You!" In 2004 the voters of Washington State just don’t believe the Big Tobacco/CATO goons ratings. That is why we have the State House, State Senate and Gregoire is our governor. It is a shame that you have not been following Washington State politics --8bitJake 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)


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)

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)

That is a crock of crap.--8bitJake 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks for proving my point that you have nothing to offer the editors here.--8bitJake 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I just read the whole discussion above. It seems like there are two NPOV options: include the text showing the criticism from all sides, or simply remove the entire part about the tobacco settlement. I don't know how big a deal the settlement was in the grand scheme of things, but if it's going to be mentioned, it has to be mentioned in a NPOV way, and I don't see 8BJ's or Bobble's edits as being constructive or NPOV here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah enter FRCP11 best rightwing bud Badlydrawnjeff[15]. The tag team of neocon bias.--8bitJake 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil, again, Jake. The attacks are unwarranted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

Right Jeff. Your hands a not quite "clean".--8bitJake 22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

You just can’t pop in here and appear to be an unbiased source who thinks FRCP11 is being unfairly picked on by the big bad liberal media without mentioning of your own history on Wikipedia and your past Wikistalking.--8bitJake 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

FRCP11 continues his one sided edits.

This is getting old. He is working without a consensus and inserting POV rants that have no importance on Washington State politics.--8bitJake 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the disputed edit. The record reflects
  1. My edit complies with WP:NPOV, and I have expressed willingness to compromise, so long as valid criticisms of the tobacco settlement are noted;
  2. There were two other editors who agreed with my position and one other that agreed with 8bitJake's;
  3. Neither of the two editors who disagreed with my position made an adequate substantive response to my lengthy explanation of why the 8bitJake version flunks WP:NPOV;
  4. The text that 8bitJake claims was "long held" was first inserted less than 36 hours ago.
  5. You have reverted legitimate wikilinking in your efforts to purge the article of any edits I make. -- FRCP11 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

FRCP11 Yet again in bad faith changed my edits to this talk page. This is incredible. He is acting unilaterally without waiting for the request for comment.

POV problem: Sorority membership

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)

POV tag problem

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)

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

FRCP11 and 8bitJake

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)

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)


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)

I agree on every point. I like what you've done with the polling section. -- FRCP11 16:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

Do we need a Polling Section?

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)

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)

Any politician would be in a similar situation after an election like 2004. I could not imaging what a Governor Rossi’s numbers would be in 2006 with two years of not having the state House or Senate but her numbers in 2006 really are pointless because she is not going to be on the ballot again until 2008.--8bitJake 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I just don't think a 45% approval rating is such a massive bad thing two year after such an election. There are other politicians with similar numbers that don't get singled out like Governor Gregoire.--8bitJake 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

POV tag

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)

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)

Keeping the POV there negatively influences a reader’s opinion of the articles factual accuracy just like stickers on science textbooks. --8bitJake 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK the reader’s opinion of the POV of the article then. My point is I don't think we need a tag.--8bitJake 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

The rightwing frame “racist sorority” is a bit much. She attended an all white sorority around 1965. They are trying to frame that she is a klan member because of that. The George W Bush article does not point out that the Skull and Bones Society that he was a member of also does not non-whites in. I don’t see why Governor Gregoire should be delt harsher than Bush. She has apologized for it several times and it is hardly an issue in Washington state politics in 2006. Her African-American primary opponent Ron Sims endorsed her and campaigned for her.--8bitJake 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

It was not a big deal in 2004 and it is not a big deal now. Go find me one Washington State newspaper that wrote about the governor's sorority from the 60s in the last three months. It was a minor right-wing campaign slam and it did not work. She won the African-American vote by a wide margin in 2004. --8bitJake 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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.[16] 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)


I actually think the fact that she had and fought cancer before the 2004 campaign should be in the bio. [17] She mentions it in speeches on healthcare and the uninsured health care crisis in Washington State.--8bitJake 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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)