Talk:Margarita Prentice

Payday Lending

Will somebody please account for the removal of an informative section on a major political position of Prentice's? I will not restore it yet, as I'm of course open to a discussion of its relevance, but in the absence of a compelling reason for removal, I believe it should be restored soon. Thanks!Benzocane 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section as it is well sourced, but I've removed language that risks POV. I welcome further discussion, but please do not remove without posting on talk! Benzocane 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored and edited the section on payday lending and moved this particular section here for discussion:

"Critics such as Jobs with Justice employee Juan Bocanegra argue that her support for payday lending falls into a larger pattern of behavior, including support for bills that prohibit unionization among farm workers or allow employers to house them in tents and other non-code dwellings, that has alienated Prentice from her base in the primarily working-class district of Renton, Washington: "I was under the impression that we were friends, that we were supporting the same ideals, and then all of a sudden she takes on this very strange position of supporting business." Labor organizer Tomas Villanueva contends that this pattern emerged during the early 90s, when Prentice withdrew her support from a bill that would have given collective bargaining power to agricultural laborers in Olympia. At that moment, according to Villanueva, Prentice "kind of changed. I think her priorities are no longer with the farm workers.""

The edits I restored had other sources in addition to the Stranger; keeping in mind the more stringent requirements of WP:BLP, I would like to see additional reliable sources cited in this section before adding it back in. Any comments? Flowanda | Talk 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits Flowanda restored included: (1) an article written by the Stranger which does not meet requirements (2) a citation to a news article in the Seattle Times which does not support the propositions in the restored edit nor does it include any information about this person or her political positions and (3) a reference to the Washington PDC which also does not support the stated text. --Sufferingfools (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, we now have an unsourced celebration of Prentice's payday lending regulation in lieu of a better (if not ideally sourced) description of the particulars? Why is The Stranger article unencyclopedic? And regardless, it seems the goal should be seeking out better sources, not removing the section in a manner that leaves the reader with unsubstantiated PR!Benzocane (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the links and added two more. Sufferingfools needs to explain why The Stranger is an unacceptable source for this information, and, regardless, needs to account for an edit that changes this: "Prentice was also the first to sponsor legislation regulating the payday lending industry, writing the original bill in 1995 that allowed payday lenders to operate in Washington state" (sourced by The Stranger) to this: Prentice was also the first to sponsor legislation regulating the payday lending industry" (which is clearly misleading). Additionally, the bulk of this article is now unsourced pr information for Prentice. Regardless of one's political opinions, this is a clear violation of the encyclopedia's standards.Benzocane (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I posted some citation tags on the Political Career section. The payday lending subsection is well-sourced; most other subsections should be cut if we can't dig up some sources for them. Cyrusc (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the current edits as replacements for what's being discussed here since I don't see them lasting very long in the main space. Sufferingfools brings up good points, and the Stranger should be determined as a WP:RS before it's used here to source content, and we should find additional reliable sources that specifically deal with Prentice and this subject. I don't really want to work on the content, but I'll look into additional sourcing and WP:RS issues. Flowanda | Talk 01:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree sources need to be reliable. I continue to be confused, however, about Sufferingfools specific edits. We now have a floating but contentless "payday" section, a misplaced citation needed tag (as it applied to content that has now been moved, etc). What's clear is that the most well-sourced section of the entry is about payday lending relative to the sections Cyrusc has correctly tagged as in need of citation. I think we can all work together to improve the entry.Benzocane (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to correct the floating "payday" section, I've moved it under Financial Institutions experience - which is where this legislation arose. I've also added citations to the statute to accurately describe the payday loan price and legislation that has been less than accuratly described by the Stranger (i.e. the law does not state the allowable fees as APR's) and others. The political contributions are simply undocumented. The citation is to the home page of the PDC - not a specific contributor or amount and the news article cited does not say that Prentice has accepted "thousands of dollars." I'm happy to find source references for all of the legislation that this person has supported. --Sufferingfools (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping provide citations. Please consult this as an example of documenting her receipt of funds. It does not have a dollar amount (although it would be weird, indeed, if it were less than "thousands," given how campaign contributions work! http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2005/02/21/story4.html?jst=s_cn_hl) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks – I think that you should definitely cite this article. It is from a reputable media source with wide distribution and a journalistic reputation. In my last edit, I eliminated the word “thousands” from the contribution addition based on this citation that clearly states that Prentice and others have accepted campaign contributions from the payday industry. However, the implication with this edit and the Stranger article about riding around Olympia in Hummer is that this person’s political stance on payday lending has been “bought off.” In most circles, that kind of accusation is either true or defamatory and should be repeated only if it can be verified as truthful. I also think that if contributions from one industry are going to be cited, it should be in context (i.e. over time - it looks like this person has been in public office for over 20 years - and compared to all of the contributions raised by this person; which as you note, considering political campaigns, might render whatever contributions she has accepted from the payday lenders miniscule. Otherwise (and again) I think that we would be disseminating more innuendo than an accurate picture of this person’s positions vis-a-vis this industry. I appreciate working with you and your thoughtfulness. --Sufferingfools (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to cutting the Hummer part, as it seems more like journalistic color than political substance. I do think The Stranger as a visible Seattle area publication can be cited legitimately in general and the particular citation is what needs to be evaluated in particular.Benzocane (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note I have changed the first line of the payday lending article to reflect the fact that the citation in question says Prentice sponsored legislation to allow the payday loans in Washington state, not the first legislation to "regulate" them. The quote is: "She has received thousands of dollars in contributions from MoneyTree and other payday lenders, adding fuel to the fire of opponents who criticize her bulldoggish resistance to legislation that would cap payday-loan interest rates at 36 percent. Prentice, who now chairs the powerful Ways and Means Committee, wrote the original bill allowing the lenders to operate in the state in 1995. She declined repeated requests to answer questions for this article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. The Stranger is not a widely distributed or journalistically respected newspaper in Seattle and it has been on a politically-motivated rant against this person for quite some time. If it is important to you to list this person’s political contributors (which I think is totally appropriate - that information is public for a reason) I suggest that we look to the Washington PDC and verify the amount and the donor. I also suggest that we put those contributions in context over time and in relation to total amounts raised. I agree with you that the Hummer bit is largely silly and will leave it to you to eliminate it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufferingfools (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just searched the Washington PDC records for political contributions to this person. see: http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContribServlet. There are records on this link dating back to the late 1990's. I find one reference to Moneytree - a contribution of $500 on 8/30/2004 out of a total of $56,597.06 reported. I'm not sure where the Stranger is coming up with their facts, but the Washington PDC does not support the claim that "thousands" have been received from Moneytree. I think this speaks to the journalistic integrity of the Stranger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufferingfools (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Edited the article to reflect public disclosure records on Moneytree contributions to Prentice. Eliminated "Hummer" reference per Benzocane's previous email. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufferingfools (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection, of course, to listing the exact quantity of contribution, but the link is insufficient--it just links to a public database with no information on how to retrieve the particular information. Is there a way to link to the specific page? Also, stating the facts of the contribution is of course fine; the language of "mere," etc., is POV. I have removed the change pending a better source and the excising of POV language, but, again, I am not objecting to the inclusion of those facts. Thanks.Benzocane (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Stranger: if the information regarding her sponsorship of the initial legislation is accurate, I can see no reason to eliminate it. If the quoted text can be shown to be a "personal rant," of course it should be deleted. But it's not a personal rant to say she sponsored the first legislation allowing payday activity; it's either true or false.Benzocane (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - link on to the PDC website and type in "Moneytree" under contributor or employer. If that is not apparent from the link provided, please suggest how to direct an appropriate search. Also - happy to remove the word "mere" and will do so. As for the Stranger quote - in general, I will restate my objection to this source as biased and lacking in journalistic integrity. Specifically, if you are suggesting that the portion of the Stranger quote that states Prentice authored original payday loan bill is okay, I think that we can find a secondary source to support that. She, in fact, did sponsor the original payday loan bill in 1995. I do have a problem with the portion of the quote that is unsubstantiated and has apparently been "reported" by the Stranger in an effort to suggest that this legislator's position on payday lending has bee bought and paid for (i.e. has "accepted thousands, etc."). If there is a secondary source that provides an amount, then let's look at it. If not, it is not substantiated by the PDC and is, at this point, "not a fact." Thanks!--Sufferingfools (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I see how the link works. I'd say just state the facts in neutral language. BTW, I'm not sure what's gained by the specifics about rollovers, etc. That is, there is no parallel level of specificity in the entry. Thanks for explaining the link--I won't contest it now; I was just confused about its function earlier.Benzocane (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh good - I'm glad it worked. I'm going to be working on filling in content on this article over the next couple of days. I will look for a source in addition to the Stranger for the proposition that Prentice authored payday bill in 1995. If you have any comments or concerns about anything moving forward - just let me know. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufferingfools (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On your question about "rollovers" - APR calculations are dependent on 2 time variables (1) an assumed term of 365 days and (2) an loan actual term. The closer the actual term gets to 365 days the less abstract and more meaningful an APR calculation becomes. The Washington law does not cap payday loan rates in terms of an APR - it caps these rates as flat, non-interest accruing, one time fees of $15 per $100 up to $500, then $10 per $100 on the next $200 up to the maximum loan amount of $700. The law also prohibits refinancing (or rolling) i.e., paying a fee to extend the term of the loan. Instead the loan must be repaid when due, which Washington law caps at 45 days. The cost of a payday loan cited by the Seattle Times at 390% - is mostly true (it's actually like 391.6%) but only for a loan that costs $15 per $100 borrowed with an actual term of exactly 14 days - not 13, not 15, not 45 and definitely not 365. If the actual loan term were, say 45 days (the statutory maximum) the APR would be something like 200% APR. If the actual term were one day, the APR would be something far greater than 390%. The actual amount paid would remain a flat $15 or less per $100 borrowed, but the APR changes because of its reliance on time variables. The fact is: if you combine restrictions to one-time fees that do not change with time (i.e. accrue interest), with the illegality on refinancing (i.e. paying a fee to extend the term) with a maximum loan term of no more than 45 days - it is impossible for the actual cost of a payday loan (which remains $15 or less per $100 borrowed irrespective of the term of the loan) expressed as an APR to be anything more than an abstract calculation that varies wildly with small changes in actual terms. In evaluating the quote from Seattle Times, folks who have an interest in math could critically evaluate whether all that is written about the cost, is always true - in this case, it is only true for a loan with a 14 day term. Having said that, I will happily make this point more clear if it seems out of place in this discussion. Thanks for putting up with the long explanation!--Sufferingfools (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the question is what is the level of appropriate specificity for a subsection on such an entry. It seems to me our priority should be recording the terms of the public debate, not performing an analysis with the goal of reconfiguring those terms. I think the fact of the APR cap is the relevant figure and pushing beyond that risks OR and, if the analysis serves a particular political purpose, POV. To be clear: I'm neither doubting your intentions nor your economic knowledge, but those questions are secondary to the community standards regarding the composition and regulation of entries.Benzocane (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Documenting the debate may be your goal. I think that's fine. Mine is accuracy and completion of fact. I certainly did not author the bit on payday lending, if you'd like to leave it out, please do so. I merely am clarifying and improving on what others thought was an important enough topic to include in this article. You thought it was important this candidate's acceptance of political contributions be included. Fair enough - I only pushed for definitive sources that depict those contributions objectively and with some accountability, rather than ball-parking it on an assumption. Similarly, others thought it was important to document this person's opposition to a 36% APR cap. Fair enough - equally as fair as putting what that means in context which means referencing the current law and were that would take it.

I didn't author this article. I didn't originate the debate about this person's position on payday lending. I didn't include quotes that make unsubstantiated claims about this person's ethical stance on political issues - but if your suggesting that once those discussions were begun that they should be limited to what you think they ought to be about - I respectfully, disagree. If you can cite entries to information that actually stands for the propositions put forth and that are from sources that meet the guidelines, more power to you. If you want to cite to sources like the Stranger - that unquestionably does have a political bent, then I think it's fair to put those comments into context with other appropriately sourced viewpoints.

I appreciate your comments, and like you, I am not questioning your motivations. If you feel strongly about your position that content should only report on the debate and in doing so should only parrot news sound bites and innuendo with context or rebuttal, then please take whatever actions you feel are appropriate. Being new to this community, I'm happy to defend my positions, but I'm also happy to learn from others. Thanks!--Sufferingfools (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this article because it reads more like a Prentice PR entry than an objective article about a politician. I will request that other editors review both the general content of the entry and the payday loan section specifically. I don't question your motivations, but question their effect: we now have a payday loan breakdown that reads like an ad from a payday firm, not a record of a public debate about the industry. More soon! Benzocane (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

While we discuss the most appropriate form for the payday information, I humbly request caution in the formatting and rewriting of this article. It is now one of the most poorly formatted political entries in the encyclopedia (I hope this is only temporary, but it would be much more appropriate to work via sandbox to prevent damaging the entry while working on a rewrite). As of right now, there are incorrect citations, poorly formatted and unconventional subsections, etc.; I recognize that you are "new to this community"--it is important to familiarize yourself with the formal and not just contentual conventions of the encyclopedia before transforming an entry.Benzocane (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)