Talk:Lipstick on a pig

Comment

If people have concerns about this article, can we discuss them, rather than people simply removing it. There's time here to develop and discuss, no rush.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. For that matter, it looks like a perfectly good article (perhaps one that's a bit short and needs a bit more work), and there is no practical description of why the RFD was placed on the page. -- Javawizard (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

History of the phrase

The earliest hit for the phrase in the Usenet archives is from January 1990... anyone know anything earlier? DS (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

google books suggests 1969 in Computer & Control Abstracts

By Institution of Electrical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics :Engineers.Geni 23:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the title which they give for that entry ("Visual Programming: Lipstick on a Pig or a Real Silver Bullet?" is an article that Google Scholar dates to 1996). Not sure what's going on there. N p holmes (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ann Richards

Ann Richards' memorable use of the phrase has been referenced in a number of places: "You can put lipstick and earrings on a hog and call it Monique, but it's still a pig." - does anyone know when she used it and what she was referring to? JavaTenor (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Off topic

I think this article in its current form [9] is a coatrack for side discussion of US politics, and in particular the recent Obama remark, and is also quite a bad example of recentism. Other good articles in Category:English phrases describe the origins, and that's it. The usage sections should be merged to their relevant articles, and link back to this article as a phrase definition/origin explanation only. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the phrase's notability comes (in part) from it's recent media discussion. But you are right, the article does need some information on origins. If you've any suggestions as to sources, they'd be welcome.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would very much dispute the idea that the current news coverage is what makes this article noteworthy. I am re-adding the tag, as your solution [10], if anything has made the problem worse - it now looks as if discussion of politics in general is welcome, rather than as it was previously resembling a list of recent uses, albeit padded out. MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that it is only because of the news coverage we've got the article, it is hardly surprising that today that's where most of the example has come from. Over time the rest may expand. I thought my solution showed where the "missing bits" were. What's your solution?--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my original post, "The usage sections should be merged to their relevant articles, and link back to this article as a phrase definition/origin explanation only". MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Showing how the term has been used and in what contexts (Politics and IT mostly for some reason) is important.Geni 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? What information does that impart to the reader? If you are going to start adding conclusions based on number/context of usages that have been found in a Google search, then that sounds like original research to me. If you found a source saying the the phrase is used in Politics/IT because.... then we could maybe get somewhere. As it is, we don't even have sources for who came up with it and why. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This "research" is not original. There's plenty of reliable media sources making the same connections.--Troikoalogo (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've chopped the Obama stuff to record the controversy as a recent example - but I think it now has proper weighting.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vista remark

Hey folks, I'm gonna get rid of the Vista zinger on usage unless someone can defend keeping it. It's a reference to a 2 year old blog post, which is in turn a response to another blog post, which in turn is a response to interacting with a pre-release candidate of Vista. So, basically, it's hearsay about a product that wasn't on the market yet, from 2 years ago. Keeping it just smells of the usual techy "I hate Vista" attitude, which is cool for blogging, but kind of lame here. Jordanp (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Non American Usage

Here is an article showing non-American application of the phrase. Influenced by James Carville. --Voidvector (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not non-American - it says that this is what James Carville calls it. DS (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was looking for older usage of the phrase, and found that article, didn't realize at first that the Carville in the article was the same guy on CNN. --Voidvector (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can find uses of the term back to 2000 in the UK or 1999 in austrial but that was from a US based company (talking about windows 2000 heh).Geni 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional Sources to add

Digging up some sources for quick addition to this page.

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/06/earlyshow/leisure/books/main1282960.shtml - This is interesting - it covers the book by the same title and (strangely enough) covers current political discussion even though it was written 2 years ago.
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9903682-7.html - motorola discussion
• http://www.newsgroper.com/general-petraeus/2007/08/14/ive-never-put-lipstick-on-a-pig-just-a-little-blush - General Petraeus
• http://www.newshounds.us/2006/01/31/you_can_put_lipstick_on_a_pig_but.php - bush
• http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA516027.html?display=Digital+LibrariesNews&industry=Digital+Libraries&industryid=3760&verticalid=151 - library systems
• http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fed-puts-lipstick-bear-stearns/story.aspx?guid={A44AC566-7108-4797-BE94-74489B3A3A4B} - jp morgan
• http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/apple-tv-like-lipstick-on-a-pig--207616 - apple TV
• http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/052878.php - president thing - bush?
• http://www.vawatchdog.org/07/nf07/nfDEC07/nf120707-1.htm - VBA hiring practices

There are plenty more out there. The just need to be added to the article, have in line citations, and presented in a NPOV way. Turlo Lomon (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• They don't 'just need to be added', it needs to be justified as to why you are adding it, what is the source actually explaining/supporting in the context of the article? If they just demonstrate usage, all you are doing is compiling a sourced list of trivia, whcih is still trivia. If your concerns are NPOV then that shows that the aim of the source is not to discuss the phrase at all, but to ramble on about issues that belong in other articles - hence the Off topic tag. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama reference

I changed the wording from "...Barack Obama used the phrase to attack John McCain's message of change" to simply "...Barack Obama used the phrase, stating "You can...". We shouldn't take a stance either way, and should simply state the fact that it was said. The McCain vs. Obama view of the statement is included just after. - auburnpilot talk 18:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't McCain be mentioned before Obama in the sentence about their using the phrase, as it was McCain who used it first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.149.16 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More history

The "perfume" variant which someone puts in can be pushed back a little earlier with Google Books: Teamsters' Central State Pension Fund and General ERISA Enforcement: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, First Session , published by US Govt. 1977, p. 325, "Attempting to give respectability to these men is like putting perfume on a pig" (I can only see a snippet, so I don't know the context.) N p holmes (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And this (also from Google books) is earlier Proceedings of the First National Conference on Rural Public Transportation, by Douglas J. McKelvey, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board, National Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged, Published by U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Office of University Research and Technology Sharing Program, 1976, p. 43 "Others see marketing as a cosmetic solution similar to perfuming a pig". N p holmes (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

The article needs a copyedit. Example problems include: date format ("Jan. 31 1980", "3rd march 2006"), typo ("eptember 10, 2008"), word use ("whilst", "indeed"), dealing with the ({{Off topic}}) tag, eliminating extra white space, punctuation ("At the 1999 NetEvents technology symposium Novell's Stephen Davies used the phrase..."), style (entries in Similar expressions section are in bold vs. italics or quote marks), citations (Pallingston, Jessica vs. Eugene Robinson), etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent usage

First, this section is entirely unencylopedic, a collection of tangentially related news reports, a serious case of recentism, just an excuse for a coatrack masquerading as content.

Regardless, I've at least cleaned up the content not to sound SO POV. I replaced the McCain blog ref with a real news source, actually explained the context of the comment (with reference), and cited who was doing the criticizing.

I also tagged the section and update the intro to accurately reflect history. Really, what other English phrase has a list of every random usage of the term?

-- 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstickgate

I've remove the bulk of the US political stuff. It is enough to note that the phrase got some media attention because of Obama's use - and that other US politicians have used it too. The rest is really fun, but does not belong here. If anyone wants the material to go somewhere, then I suggest you fork it off to Lipstickgate or Obama lipstick controversy - but be ready for the inevitable afd.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse your changes, per WP:UNDUE. Nice work. Keeper ǀ 76 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even though I still think the entire section is more news than encyclopedia, I too agree the recent edit by Troikoalogo is nice work. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed this so it simply narrated that the phrase was used in recent debates, but it is constantly being reverted back into the story of Obama. That it was used in a controversy is notable (worth a line), that lots of US politicians have used it is significant (worth mentioning Cheney and McCain). That McCain's target was Clinton etc, or exactly what Obama's defence was, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PHRASE. Please can others help revert stuff like this [11]. I'm out of reverts.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point that the discussion of this recent issue should not go on and on. However, you have buried some of the irony of the incident, which is highly relevant, not from a political perspective, but in terms of the spinability of the term. Thus I cut out the extras and cut it down to its barest essence. It is now shorter and clearer than before, and cannot be argued that the former version is less convoluted. Let me just add that there is no reason to go into great depth quoting Obama here and talking about the controversy, at all. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, but I still disagree I am afraid. That the phrase is widely used is relevant to an understanding of the importance of the phrase - thus listing Cheney was relevant - you've removed that. Who McCain's target was is quite irrelevant - we are simply using him as an example of wide usage. The irony of the political situation is beside the point - this isn't an article about the political significance of Obama's remarks or the hypocricy of John McCain - that would belong on an article on the political controversy, not a linguistic one about the phrase. I think your changes should be reverted, but I will leave it for others to do that.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Who McCain used the phrase to refer to, DIRECTLY and OVERTLY is certainly as relevant as who Obama was ALLEGED to use the phrase to INDIRECTLY refer to. Yes, this is not about the "significance of Obama's remarks or the hypocrisy of John McCain", it is about an ironic turn of phrase and the spin around the recent use of a term which itself refers to spin. Furthermore, if one is arguing that the section should be reduced to its essence, then one or two sentences which explain the Obama-Mccain stand-off on this ridiculous incident is all that is necessary. Other users of the phrase do not need to be listed, simply saying "the term is widely used by politicians" suffices, and reference to other users of the phrase can be restricted to the footnotes. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The irony of the incident is not relevant. All that is relevant is that the phrase got passing news interest over the usage, and that various people have used it. I'm afraid that your edits are simply reinserting the coatrack that a clear consensus of people on this talk page have objected to. If you want to analyse the politics of Obama's use, that would be on a different article. I'm not going to edit war with you here, I'm sure someone else will remove the irrelevancies. What's Hilary Clinton got to do with this phrase? However, examples to illustrate that "lots of politicians use this" are precisely relevant (although the details of their usage are not).--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear consensus between who? I don't see anything of the sort on the page above.

• To illustrate 'lots of politicians use this' can be reflected in the footnotes.
• If the article/section is about the turn of phrase and not about 'the politics of Obama's use', why is obama's usage detailed?
• Mentioning Mccain's reference to Hilary does not in any way 'analyse the politics of Obama's use' - it mentions that Obama was thought to have used it against Palin and Mccain is known to have used it against hilary LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But how is it relevant who McCain used it against? How does it add to the reader's understanding of the phrase. It is only significant that Obama was accused of using it against Palin, because that accusation mad the phrase newsworthy. Mentioning McCain at all, is, just like mentioning Cheney - simply illustrations of the phrase's wide use. If you want to put Cheyne in the footnote, fine - but McCain would then go there too - and we'd just say "lots of politicians use the phrase" - personally I think to name two of them is illustrative.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Mccain has now garnered significant attention for his usage towards Clinton, starting with NBC. His use of the term is now part of the controversy around Obama's use of the term. If we mention the controversy around Obama's use at all, let's just stick to that for the sake of staying concise. I could say more, but for now I think it is self-evident.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. We are NOT covering the controversy here. Merely noting a) The phrase hit the headlines due to Obama's use. b) Lots of politicians use the phrase (examples include Cheney and McCain). We are recording that lot's of people use it, because that tells us something about the phrase - not because it tells us anything about the controversy (which would be off topic).--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case (which I don't buy), and none of the controversy it relevant, then the context might as well be removed and all that should be necessary is this: "Many American politicians have used the phrase of late, including McCain, Richards, Cheney, and in particular Obama, who came under fire for his usage of the term during the United States Presidential Election of 2008." I would agree to putting the rest in footnotes.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it says now:

• "In the United States Presidential Election of 2008, the phrase was at the center of media attention, when Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama during a campaign rally stated "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough." Obama was accused of using the turn of phrase in reference to Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a charge Obama rejected. It was later pointed out by commentators that the expression had been used by many US politicians, including Palin's running-mate John McCain in reference to Hillary Clinton, and Vice President Dick Cheney (who called it his "favorite line")."

Here's what it could say:

• "Many American politicians have used the phrase of late, including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Governor of Texas Ann Richards, 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, and in particular 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, who came under fire for his usage of the term during the United States Presidential Election of 2008."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the existence of the controversy as a reason for the prominence of the phrase is also relevant and noteworthy, so we outline what brought the phrase to prominence - which was Obama's usage, and the fact it was taken as a reference to Palin. That's worth mentioning. The follow up is not, since the follow up is not the reason the phrase came to prominence.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally and completely unconvinced of your point of view, sorry. Your arguments strike me as very inconsistent.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Troikoalogo, not to pile on, but the inconsistency seems clear "We are NOT covering the controversy" and then "the existence of the controversy as a reason for the prominence of the phrase is also relevant and noteworthy." Personally think it's bull and the "controversy" isn't by any means worth of an encylopedia. Here's a test, did it warrent being included in the arctile actually about this race? No. Oh well then it clearly must be included here... -- 71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't understand a word of that. All I'm suggesting is that we record, in a sentence, that the phrase came to media attention recently because of people objecting to Obama's use. That's all--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[restart indentation for sanity's sake]

I would like to renew my objection that this section is entirely unencylopedic, a collection of tangentially related news reports, a serious case of recentism, just an excuse for a coatrack masquerading as content. It was getting better (never quite good though) and is now clearly getting worse. Regardless, I'll take a crack at improving How about this:

In recent years the phrase has become standard political invective both in the United Kingdom and the United States. The expression has been used by many US politicians, including both the Democratic and Republican nominees during the United States Presidential Election of 2008, and Vice President Dick Cheney (who called it his "favorite line").

-71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Great solution. Please do go ahead and insert it and delete the other nonsense. (and please sign your posting, thanks)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you're being ridiculous. One minute, you want to mention Hillary Clinton, the next you want all references to Obama removed. I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith here (I am trying). Let's not remove anything until we've had more comment.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Troikoalogo, I think people who clearly have been talking themselves in circles should tone down their language. Please temper yourself. Further, it seems that editors of United States presidential election, 2008 disagree with the notability of this issue. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What? They agree that it isn't significant enough to put on the election article? I'd agree with that too. But, given the only reason we are discussing this phrase is Obama's use, I'd say there's no harm in a line referencing that - we (unlike the election article) don't have a lot of other material to use. Anyway, I cannot for the life of me see how editorial decisions made on that article, affect this one. As to my temper, sorry, but it is hard to discuss with someone who when he can't get what he wants starts arguing against you from the other direction. It is, well....annoying.--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You obviously did not understand my point, or perhaps I confused you/was unclear. My feeling was that if the obama controversy was to be represented in any detail, the full circle of the controversy -- i.e. it's start and its conclusion, not just its start -- should be briefly summarized. If the obama controversy is not to be represented in any detail, but simply mentioned in a word, fine. I like [Special:Contributions/71.178.193.134|71.178.193.134]]'s reduction - if people want more information on this ridiculous debate, they can read the assorted sources in the footnotes.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's reduce it to the briefest. "The phrase was discussed prominently in the media in early September 2008, when Barack Obama was criticised for using it." Except he wasn't criticised for using it. So in order to make it clear, and neutral, as to why it was of media interest, you do need to say that he was accused (but denied) using it as a personal attack.--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The briefest usage is what the anon editor suggested, and that's what I've put in it's place.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Schwab ad trivial??

I've reinserted the 2 short paragraphs on the Charles Scwab ad. This was removed because somebody thought it was "trival."

It certainly is not trivial - it was a nationwide advertising campaign that made news in and of itself. It was also clearly related to a national scandal involving brokers pushing stocks that they knew were pigs, or at least dogs.

If the article is meant to document usage in a number of contexts, especially in notable contexts, then this clearly belongs. If the article is only meant to relate to politics then it doesn't. But why should the article relate only to politics? Note that there is no question about documentation. I only chose the NYTimes ref because it was easy to get ahold of and not subject to "is this a reliable source?" but there are hundred of good references out there to this.

Smallbones (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama/Palin media storm

What is the problem with stating that this phrase came to brief prominence due to a media furore about Barack Obama's uses. Sure, lots of people used the phrase - but it was the "controversy" over Obama's use that gave it prominence?

I am not suggesting that much weight is given to this - or that we give an extended narrative - and I think we need to work on it so that it is clearly neutral and factual. But this factually happened, was notable, and for some years at least people are going to associate this phrase with this media-generated storm.

Really, why are two editors insisting that this can't even be explicity mentioned at all? I am not American - and I'm certainly not a Republican sympathiser - but this is begining to look to me like politically motivated censorship. Can't we find a way of briefly (but explicitly) referencing what it was that caused such media interest in the phrase?--Troikoalogo (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of 'lipstick on a pig' until Obama used the phrase. I think he has made the phrase known to an international audience. This is notable and significant in the evolution of the phrase. --Publunch (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I am suggesting TWO SENTENCES. Just something like: "The phrase received media attention in September 2008, when opponents of Barack Obama accused him of using as a direct attack on Sarah Palin. Obama's supporters dismissed the claim, pointing to the phrase's general political usage." I'm happy that we work on the wording--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your desire to add TWO SENTENCES. The problem is that the situation cannot be described in TWO SENTENCES. "General political usage" was not Obama's response. It's that the controversy was manufactured. It's POV to discuss the "controversy" without discussing the context of the comment. Further, it's unfair to say that Obama's use was the only "controversial" or notable use. McCain's use in reference to Senator Clinton at the time was "controversial" and much media attention was targeted on his use after the his objections to Obama's. Campaigns have a half life of about 20 minutes and that's just the way it works. That's why WP is not a news source but an encyclopedia.

If there's an NPOV way to describle this situation without going absurdly off topic (as it has in the past), I'm more than happy to discuss wording. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Obama's use was the only controversial use, the fact is that it is / was notable. If you'd like to include other notable instances of the phrase, that's another matter altogether. But we don't remove or argue about clearly notable instances of phrase usage simply because other notable usages aren't included. That's just silliness.

Speaking directly to your comment about wording, Troikoalogo has proposed wording. You seem to be the one with an issue with it. So either propose new wording or kindly move on. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride, I would recommend reading through some of the discussion above this one to get the backstory. Obama's reference has not been removed, it's included in the article in the current language. Troikoalogo suggested wording, as I noted above, is clearly not an accurate reflection of the situation (promblematic). --71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Specific mentions of the fact that Obama's use of this phrase led to the media furore, and resulting interest have consistently been removed [12].--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Troikoalogo, please read my previous comment where I explained that your edit was an incorrect assesment of the event. And again, please see that the article does currently as it did in your refernced edit, already include Barack Obama. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest a better wording which references the fact that Obama's use of the phrase led to the media furore.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I generally disagree with your characterization (furore? really?) and believe that the current edit best reflects the series of events. As I have suggested repeatedly to you, if you disagree with current revision, please suggest edits here. (And please use references to acurately support your edits). --71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's circular. I've made my suggestions, which are well supported by the sources. There's no point in us arguing. At the moment one editor agrees with you, two with me. I've filled a request for comment, I suggest we let some others speak and see where the balance of opinion is in a day or two. The article can then be changed to reflect that. I'll abide by that.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the Obama Palin dust up over the term is relevant to this article, although it looks like the article was created around the time it happened. You know what, I change my mind. I think that it should be part of the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's settle this

comment. This article has landed (perhaps unfortunately?) on my watchlist, hence this talkpage is on my watchlist as well. Everyone is talking past each other. Let me help. I'm going to give a format, below, for what everyone thinks should be the "correct" language for the "recent" section/obama/palin/mccain/ad naseum section. Type what you think should be in the article. Others may or may not support your inclusions/removals. But this is all getting really silly, because it is very apparent to me that everyone here wants the "best" for the article about a "phrase" that has attained some notability/notariety. Below, please add, with references, what you'd like to see as the wording of the article, specifically the "recent" section:

I hope I'm not breaking your comment for commenting before posting my version. I want to thank Keeper for your intervention. I agree this got a little out of hand. Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any real disagreement with the first paragraph ("More recently, the phrase..."). It seems centered around uses by the two nominees (shocking).

I've given some thought to Smallbones's comments. I completely agree that this has gotten all too political and that was the original reason for my involvement. I think researching similar phrases is a very good approach. The problem with that is there aren't a lot of good comparable sources. I've looked through the english phrases category with little luck. Possibly the difficulty originates with the possible uses of the phrase. There aren't many phrases that are controversial only in context (i.e. If Obama was referring to a female this could be sexism, if he was referring to policy it likely is not). The phrase seems similar to a Double entendre, but it doesn't seem to really have two definitions. Maybe it's more comparable to the English word niggardly, but again it's not a true fit.

Stipulating that the level of noteriety warrants inclusion in this article, which I'm not sure it does, in my mind one of the other outstanding issue is the source of the "controversy." It seems the McCain campaign would argue the source of the controvery is Obama's use of a sexist term. However, it seems the Obama campaign would argue that the source of the controversy is the McCain campaign manufacturing a "false controversy" by misleading the public about the context of the phrase. Whether the phrase is a common political expression used to refer to policy arguments or a likely personal attack seems relevant. How do we explain the history/relevance/context of this event without getting bogged down in this increadibly political topic? I'm not exactly sure. I attempted to discuss it here (at length) and edited for what I believe was the most NPOV and accurate wording (and the best we could come up with at the moment). --71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Troikoalogo's version

More recently, the phrase has been used in political rhetoric to criticise spin, and to insinuate that a political opponent is attempting to repackage established policies and present them as new. Victoria Clarke, who was Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, published a book about spin in politics titled the book Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game. The book argued, using anecdotes from her own career, that spin does not work in an age of transparency, when everyone will find out the truth anyway ("you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig").

In recent year, the phrase has become standard political invective both in the United Kingdom and the United States. In the United States Presidential Election of 2008, the phrase was briefly at the center of media attention, when Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama used it during a campaign rally." Obama was accused by opponents of using it to reference Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a charge Obama rejected. It was later pointed out by commentators that the expression had been used by many US politicians, including John McCain and and Dick Cheney (who once called it his "favorite line").

IP 71.178.193.134's version

In recent years the phrase has become common and sometimes controversial political invective both in the United Kingdom and the United States. The expression has been used by many US politicians, including both the Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain during the United States Presidential Election of 2008, and Vice President Dick Cheney (who called it his "favorite line").

(emphasis added to show difference from current version) --71.178.193.134 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa's version

I like this version, which is currently there, thank heavens" "In recent years the phrase has become common and sometimes controversial political invective both in the United Kingdom[19] and the United States. The expression has been used by many US politicians, including both the Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain during the United States Presidential Election of 2008,[1][20][21] and Vice President Dick Cheney[22] (who called it his "favorite line").[23]"LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

any other versions?

If everyone would just type what they want, instead of bickering and talking over each other about what they don't want, perhaps this article, one that is not about Palin or Obama or McCain or what the hell ever, but instead is about a historical turn of phrase can get settled so everyone can go back to their lives pre-rougepig? Keeper ǀ 76 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the Obama incident must be mentioned, otherwise this will appear as a whitewash (of Republicans or Democrats, depending on which side you're on), and probably suffer endless edit wars in the future. I think Troikoalogo's version looks fine, perhaps with the additional mention of (1.) Palin's lipstick/pit bull comment at the convention, (2.) the Obama campaign accusing the McCain campaign of manufacturing controversy. I think this would add a fuller context, and could be done without going into excessive length. Lampman (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

References

How has this been handled before?

Having watched this, with some minor participation, I'd like to support Keeper in his effort above. I may put in an "other version" after I see the main players' versions. In short though I'd like to say that folks are making this too political - of course Obama (and Palin) should be mentioned - but the article is not about them, but about the English Phrase.

It's always good to look what other articles have done in similar situations - but looking at category English Phrases doesn't give much help. I just found Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy, and Where's the beef?. Other possible comparisons are Lie back and think of England, Elvis has left the building (better) and TANSTAAFL. They are not great articles, but they do give a range of citations.

Smallbones (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See also?

• Giant sucking sound
• Read my lips: no new taxes
• Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy
• Where's the beef?
• It's the economy, stupid

I'm not sure these are appropriate - they are political invective (originating with named politicians) that have become common expressions, whereas this phrase is a more general phrase that seems to have got caught up in recent politics. I've strong objection, mind you.--Troikoalogo (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I added one above (stupid), but I assumed you didn't leave a "no" out of "I've (?) strong objection, mind you.--" and just put in the List of political catch phrases instead. Smallbones (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a picture.

I propose that the article can be improved with a photograph of a pig wearing lipstick. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You realize it's still a pig, right? I second the proposal. XF Law (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

We could have a picture of Governor Palin. But I'm sure someone would object. (joke) --Troikoalogo (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the new picture is ridiculous and should be removed. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we take ourselves too seriously (and just want to have pure politics here) then it doesn't belong. But I think that some "fun" articles are allowed in Wikipedia, maybe under WP:Not#Censored or at least under WP:IAR. Let's not take ourselves too seriously. If this ever becomes a weapon for one political side or the other (or both), then let's delete the whole article. Smallbones (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also users who find the image offensive should check out WP:NOIMAGE. You might think I'm joking by citing rules that otherwise seem meant to protect "pornography", but I'm serious that humor (even mild humor) deserves at least as much protection. Smallbones (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a big gap between "not taking oursleves seriously" and including an image that adds no benifit other than humor. This is not about politics or censorship. This is about an encyclopedia being encylopedic, not comedic. Might I suggest that all of your lipstick arguments aren't making your pig of an image any better... --71.178.193.134 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote itself is a humorous quote. It is meant to conjure up an image of lipstick on a pig. It's like having an article on clown, and saying the article picture is not encyclopedic. The picture is exactly inline with the spirit of the saying, which not meant to be taken literally. It does benefit the article by highlighting the intent of the saying - which is to show something as ridiculous. XF Law (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase is not supposed to be humorous. It's intended to criticize. What usage of the phrase do you have to support the claim of humor? (the reference to the pig is supposed to be insulting) Every use in this article as well as the origin and definition would seem to disagree with you. Further the image is of absudly poor quality. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the edit summary about my understanding means we are not going to agree, which is fine. If you feel the image is poor quality, you can remove it as easily as it has been added. The saying is sarcasm - a form of humor. When Coors started calling their beer 'banquet' beer, many referred to the former Coors Gold as lipstick on a pig. Yes, it is a jab, but it's a humorous jab. This article refers to it as 'political humor.' Many politicians use it, including Cheney, and McCain and it gets a laugh from the crowd, because it is clearly intended to be an asinine portrayal, and a humorous one as well. When you say that something is 'useless as tits on a boar,' it's humor as well as criticism. I respect your view, and hope the link I provided satisfies your request for supporting evidence. XF Law (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do a third visual pun when pigs have wings. Durova^Charge! 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You're "reference" does not refer to it as political humor. A comment on the reference does. The image adds nothing of value to article and is extremely poorly done. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's at least have the image on the talk page for wikipedians to enjoy. Whilst this most certainly political humour, I do tend to agree the image is a little too flippant. (Now, if we had Obama putting the lipstick on Palin....). But 71.178, perhaps you'd stop reverting everything you don't like. There's no harm on some discussion first. I'll be replacing the direct reference to the media furore surrounding Obama's usage shortly, as it looks like most of the fresh commentary above agrees that it is unnecessary to exclude all direct references. If anyone else feels moved to comment in the above section, it might help to form a real guide to consensus.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI I created the lipstick on a pig image seven months ago and never intended it for article use. Whether anyone else thinks it belongs in an article is an entirely different matter. Durova^Charge! 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's great fun at any rate.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I arrived at this article via a link in a edit summary at Sarah Palin by User:Ferrylodge where he commented that he liked the pic here. I also appreciate the image and feel it enhances the article with a visual representation that communicates the humor of the phrase. Including User:Jossi who added the image, there are eight editors that support inclusion. So unless it violates BLP policy (Biography of Living Pigs) I am reverting the deletion of the pig pic. IP75 75.36.70.205 (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to show how liberal we are, instead of a live pig with lipstick, we have a pig with a photoshopped lipstick, LOL. --Voidvector (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IP75, I'm not exactly sure how you counted up to eight, but I've created a clear section to get feedback and form consensus below.--71.178.193.134 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Current pic pleases the eye:)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image for Deletion

Is the current image appropriate for this article?

File:Lipstickonapig.jpg

Delete

• strong delete: The image is not funny and is of poor quality. It adds nothing to the article and misses the point of the phrase. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per 71.178.193.134. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per IP. Not appropriate. Keeper ǀ 76 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Silly and humorous are not synonymous. 32.164.133.229 (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per IP. Not for an encyclopedia. 166.196.236.182 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Photoshopping images like this is not encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There laughing at us not with us. This image is not appropriate. Cbackert (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove it. If we want a picture, we should have one that looks better than a 2 minute photoshop job. --Conti|✉ 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• remove the darn thing - unencyclopedic. Viridae^Talk 09:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Cheesy photoshop. Has no place here, as this article is for a metaphor. We are not talking about the literal meaning of lipstick on a pig. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete this is a nonsense image and degrades the quality of the article. 216.70.168.240 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep

• KEEP Homunq (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC).... Any image which did not "miss the point of the phrase" would probably be misogynistic. This one is funny and improves the overall quality of the article.

Funny notwithstanding, its a picture of a pig. Without lipstick. I'm failing to see how that's appropriate. Keeper ǀ 76 22:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep until someone goes out and actually puts lipstick on pig (with the pig's permission). XF Law (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP Illustrates the concept (and shows that it is a humorous concept).A different anon says that a 3rd anon miscounted above, but it looks more or less correct to me. 146.145.140.102 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep what's the problem? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Why not? It is a free image that illustrates the rhetorical expression ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I feel it enhances the article with a visual representation that communicates the humor associated with the phrase. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The phrase is humorous, so the image should be too. DoubleSidedTape (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I've no strong opinion here, but certainly let's no poll] (and this is not my vote). Let those that care discuss it. 71.178, I think if people agree with you then it will be removed again, there's no rush here. Articles evolve and the image is at worse a harmless distraction.--Troikoalogo

Point noted, but I think under certain circustances there's a benifit to polling. An anon user has alleged there are a specific number of editors in support of this image being included. I'm not sure that's the case. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording of this poll is biased and does not include the current image. It is meaningless pig shit that shows no consensus. IP75 (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this one?

File:Lipstick on a pig.jpg

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it! IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles are so much more interesting with images. This image is fine. Really, short of putting lipstick on a pig, (with PETA approval), this image represents the saying quite well with its humor. ^{XF Law} _{talk at me} 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This one is really good. Put it in, in addition to the other one :)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely horrendous. You can't possibly be serious. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement

As the creator of the original 'lipstick on a pig' image over half a year ago, I hadn't imagined the thing would ever be used to illustrate any article. I had made it in fifteen minutes as a joke for my user space, and was surprised to see it later appear at an article (relevant to the presidential election, no less). To see it become a bone of contention was even more surprising, but when things developed into a revert war today--that's just not something I want to be any part of. So in my capacity as an administrator on Wikimedia Commons, where the image was hosted, I have deleted the image per uploader request (the uploader being myself). Clearly, it had become more trouble than it was worth. We can all be doing better things with our time. Regards, Durova^Charge! 23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I am also appalled by the lame edit war. The image was fun and harmless, but the objections reasonable and weighty. Some of those engaging in the edit-war are experienced users and know fine how to use dispute resolution if they really can't just walk away from this insignificant quarrel. Durova has now taken her ball back, which is perhaps as well. (Although I didn't know you could unilaterally remove an image released under the GFDL, which others were using, but that's just a quibble.)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Uploader request is a standard deletion reason at Commons. It's one of the preformatted selections when performing deletion actions there. And at the time of deletion it was not used in any article (the revert war had shifted to the other image). Durova^Charge! 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'd forgotten they still had a second image to squabble over. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi is also a Commons admin and could do likewise for the other image, if he wished. Giggy (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't be necessary if y'all just stop the edit war.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

File:CHSpurgeon.jpg

Rev. Spurgeon, possible originator of a forerunner for the phrase?

• • • I've looked for an uncontroversial replacement suggestion. The first idea would have been the title page from a public domain edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Unfortunately lipstick was too recent a coinage in 1908 and the word isn't even listed. That leaves portraits of Rev. Spurgeon, I suppose. Hope that helps. Durova^Charge! 02:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this newly suggested image is both on topic and relevant. I think it would be a positive addition to the article. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Been a couple of days. I don't intend to edit this article unless it's to revert vandalism now that it's on my watchlist so if anyone wants to add Rev. Spurgeon to the article, feel free (as far as I'm concerned) to do so. Durova^Charge! 08:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still a pig.

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig"

That's been around for decades before some recent politician used it. Fairly positive that joke has been cracked on The Muppet Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.11.214.10 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Polishing a turd

"Polishing a turd" redirects to this article. While this and "putting lipstick on a pig" are similar concepts, there are some differences. For example, polishing a turd almost always refers to a thing, while putting lipstick on a pig can refer to a person (The person is the pig.). Also, while you may not be able to polish a turd, you can cover it in glitter. What I am trying to express is that maybe "Polishing a turd" deserves its own article. 159.83.54.2 (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That redirect is just WP editors being crazy idiots, as per usual. I don't even particularly mind seeing these as synonyms, because they kinda re (I don't completely agree with the IP poster... but I don't fully disagree either). What gets my goat, though, is that when there's a redirect, I, as a mere user, would expect the redirected term to at least be *MENTIONED*. Not so here. --jae (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)