![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2008. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
![]() | A fact from Lipstick on a pig appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 9,793 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here is an article showing non-American application of the phrase. Influenced by James Carville. -- Voidvector ( talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Digging up some sources for quick addition to this page.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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:
- 71.178.193.134 ( talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help).
Zimmer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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. [1] 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"). [2]
In recent year, the phrase has become standard political invective both in the United Kingdom [3] 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." [4] Obama was accused by opponents of using it to reference Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a charge Obama rejected. [4] [5] It was later pointed out by commentators that the expression had been used by many US politicians, including John McCain and [6] [7] and Dick Cheney [8] (who once called it his "favorite line"). [9]
In recent years the phrase has become common and sometimes controversial political invective both in the United Kingdom [10] 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, [4] [11] [12] and Vice President Dick Cheney [13] (who called it his "favorite line"). [14]
(emphasis added to show difference from current version) -- 71.178.193.134 ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help).
Zimmer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
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)
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 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)
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)
Is the current image appropriate for this article?
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
What about this one?
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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" 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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2008. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
![]() | A fact from Lipstick on a pig appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 9,793 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here is an article showing non-American application of the phrase. Influenced by James Carville. -- Voidvector ( talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Digging up some sources for quick addition to this page.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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:
- 71.178.193.134 ( talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help).
Zimmer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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. [1] 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"). [2]
In recent year, the phrase has become standard political invective both in the United Kingdom [3] 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." [4] Obama was accused by opponents of using it to reference Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, a charge Obama rejected. [4] [5] It was later pointed out by commentators that the expression had been used by many US politicians, including John McCain and [6] [7] and Dick Cheney [8] (who once called it his "favorite line"). [9]
In recent years the phrase has become common and sometimes controversial political invective both in the United Kingdom [10] 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, [4] [11] [12] and Vice President Dick Cheney [13] (who called it his "favorite line"). [14]
(emphasis added to show difference from current version) -- 71.178.193.134 ( talk) 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help).
Zimmer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |publication=
ignored (
help)
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)
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 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)
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)
Is the current image appropriate for this article?
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
What about this one?
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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" 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)