Discuss:California Proposition 8/Archive 10 – Wikipedia

Talk:California Proposition 8/Archive 10 - Wikipedia
December 29, 2020 0 Comments

Others in favour of prop 8

Within the part on “Others” (subsection of prop 8 proponents), some materials about Porterville Metropolis Council has not too long ago been added that lacks citations. There is not any quotation to a dependable supply for a declare made (that i’ve reverted) that there’s a hyperlink between the council decision and the city vote. I would be shocked if it might be substantiated. This additionally is not a big city centre. We have to be cautious with making certain impartial perspective, and never giving undue weight to minor points of the campaigns and so forth. In any other case a piece like this “different” sectoin will change into crammed with inconsequential particulars of each supporter of prop 8, giant or small, and the identical factor will occur within the “opponents” part, and we’ll have one other edit conflict on our palms. hamiltonstone (discuss) 10:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It’s a little bit like proving a destructive, however I’ve researched it, and have by no means been capable of finding any information of council minutes wherever in California that means that different Councils took an analogous place. I’m not alone: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?part=information/native&id=6844975

and

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/residents-say-citys-support-for-proposition-8-hurting-them.html

It definitely would have been information IMHO if others had completed this, and it will will surely be famous within the assembly minutes. For some time I believed it might have been that San Diego addressed the problem, however I had the related paperwork forwarded to me from San Diego Metropolis Corridor below a Public Data Act, and it turned out they didn’t take the place that Porterville did.

Now let me tackle your opinion that Porterville is simply too minor to matter with a few factors. The Nationwide Eqauality March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Equality_March) has its origins right here in Tulare County. Robin McGehee, a professor at a Tulare County Neighborhood Faculty, organized an occasion referred to as “Meet within the Center” in Fresno to create consciousness that the Prop 8 Marketing campaign was misplaced within the Central Valley (that space you might be referring to as “inconsequential”).

That occasion drew the eye of Cleve Jones, who introduced (I used to be there) the plans for the Nationwide Equality March throughout his speech.

Whereas the pattern of the vote total within the Central Valley was strongly in favor of Prop 8, it was Tulare County and extra particularly Porterville that led the way in which within the marketing campaign within the Valley itself, and ultimately it was a prevailing argument. Statewide, solely 52% voted in favor, however in Tulare County, there was the best vote in favor of Prop 8 in all the state- 74%: http://www.latimes.com/information/native/la-2008election-california-results,0,3304898.htmlstory. I haven’t got the figures for Porterville itself useful this minute, however within the Metropolis (of inhabitants ~50,000, not the cross-roads you may suppose it’s), the Metropolis responded to the Name to Motion by voting over 75% in favor of Prop 8.

Porterville is the third largest metropolis in Tulare County, and Tulare County in within the prime 3 agricultural producing counties within the US, and arguably the world. Sure, it’s primarily rural within the county, however Tulare County and Porterville are important to California’s financial system, and in its politics.

The third purpose why that is important is that, even when Porterville’s Council’s motion was not distinctive (though it’s), the wording of it’s odd at greatest. Right here is the textual content of the Decision: http://www.recorderonline.com/information/porterville-38329-state-prop.html

In it, you will note that

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Metropolis Council of the Metropolis of Porterville hereby pledges assist for Proposition 8 and urges Porterville voters to guard the sanctity of conventional marriage by voting sure on Proposition 8.

With this clause, the physique of elected representatives should not solely taking a singular place, however urging those who they characterize to do the bidding of the Council, whereas in consultant democracy, it really works the opposite means round – the representatives do the bidding of the individuals.

I’m not right here to start out an modifying conflict, however to notice info which have been key to the result of the election as a complete, and which resulted in a Nationwide March on Washington in opposition. That does not occur every single day, however it did occur beginning in Porterville and Tulare County. Readers of this Wiki article should learn about it. Humanisland (discuss) 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotation Results in 404

That is my first time discussing an article, apologies if this posting is miscategorized. The sentence “Help for Proposition 8 was sturdy amongst African American voters…” cites footnote 143, an article that ran within the Sacramento Bee entitled “Exit polls present Obama’s coattails restricted.” Nevertheless the hyperlink supplied to that article now returns a 404 error (i.e. “The web page you requested now not exists”). I wasn’t capable of finding an archived copy of the article.

My query is that this: Is that this nonetheless a sound quotation?

Curious to learn your ideas!
71.202.29.84 (discuss) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the dialogue tab. Your instincts have been spot on in looking for an archived copy of the article that is now not accessible on the Sac Bee. I took a fast stab at discovering it too, however to no avail. I’ve eliminated the hyperlink (it is nonetheless there in an HTML remark, however it now not shows within the article). The quotation stays legitimate. Clearly, having the cited work accessible on-line is preferable, however not required: see WP:DEADREF. Wonderbreadsf (discuss) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Class:Discrimination in the US

The Class:Discrimination in the US is suitable, and implies nothing. Prop. 8 is discriminatory, by definition. The definition of discrimination is “remedy or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or in opposition to, an individual or factor based mostly on the group, class, or class to which that individual or factor belongs slightly than on particular person advantage.” [1] The group in query on this article is {couples} consisting of 1 man and one girl. –Dr.enh (discuss) 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the class is suitable however for a special purpose. California’s Supreme Court docket dominated that as a matter of legislation forbidding similar intercourse marriages was unlawful discrimination below the state’s structure. The voters modified the structure in order that it was now not unlawful discrimination. Missing a authorized normal it’s subjective to say whether or not it’s discrimination or not (within the sense of the class). However including the class is okay as a result of it merely informs the reader that this text reaches the topic of discrimination. A reader desirous to learn about discrimination ought to be knowledgeable about sexual orientation discrimination. Even if you happen to imagine that it is okay to discriminate in opposition to homosexual individuals it’s best to nonetheless know the topic if you wish to speak about it. In contrast I believe the “homophobia” tag goes too far This text will not be about homophobia, it is about an anti-gay legislation. Solely not directly is it about homophobia, that being (controversially) a presumed motive of people that discriminate. We mentioned that latter level in some element just a few months again if you happen to search the discuss web page archives – Wikidemon (discuss) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would not matter whether or not discrimination is authorized or unlawful, morally fascinating or morally objectionable. Prop. 8 is discriminatory, and it belongs within the class “Discrimination in the US”. –Dr.enh (discuss) 05:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that, saying that prop. 8 is discriminatory is a matter of opinion, I’ve been quiet about my ideas on this till I see another person (Captain Pickles) feels the identical means on the matter. To keep away from attainable NPOV issues lets simply drop the Class and depart the problem for the courts (or perhaps historical past) to resolve sooner or later. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 05:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, no, let’s not drop the class. Discrimination is an idea, and never essentially a destructive one. The talk round Prop 8 has been partially in regards to the appropriateness of a legislation that will discriminate between courses of individuals. Take a look at it from the perspective of somebody utilizing the class to seek out related articles, as an alternative of occupied with the Prop 8 article for a second. If I have been on the lookout for articles on WP that go to points regarding discrimination within the USA, together with discrimination legislation and social debate, would it not not be odd to not discover the article on Prop 8 in that record? Let me put it yet one more means. Let me for the sake of argument say I agreed with Knowledgekid, “saying that prop. 8 is discriminatory is a matter of opinion”. Even when that have been true, that makes the class tag applicable. The article ought to be on this class, even by knowledgekid’s logic, as a result of some individuals say Prop 8 is discriminatory. Not to tag it as related to the topic of discrimination implies there may be no such debate, and certainly nobody, on any facet of this dialogue, would recommend that. The class ought to be re-instated. hamiltonstone (discuss) 06:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

saying that prop. 8 is discriminatory is a matter of opinion Knowledgekid87, please seek the advice of the dictionary. The definition of discrimination is “remedy or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or in opposition to, an individual or factor based mostly on the group, class, or class to which that individual or factor belongs slightly than on particular person advantage.” [2] The group in query on this article is {couples} consisting of 1 man and one girl. –Dr.enh (discuss) 04:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr.enh, that rational is engaged on the idea that gays have been entitled all these years/a long time/centuries all alongside to homosexual marriage. Many individuals, for instance the individuals of California, by a considerably small margin, felt for one purpose or one other that gays shouldn’t be granted the suitable/privelidge/permission to be married to 1 one other. Was this meant to “discriminate”? Onerous to say. The one individuals who suppose it’s discimination is those who can now not get married. I personally function on the premise that marriage, going again to the earliest recorded instances, is a sacred bond between a person and a lady, with the aim of getting a household. Gays technically cannot procreate, so subsequently a “homosexual wedding ceremony” is a oxymoron. Many individuals really feel homosexual marriages are a mockery of this custom, which coincidentally is deeply rooted in all of the world religions.

By claiming prop 8 is discriminatory, you’re taking the POV that gays are entitled to homosexual marriage. These appears partial, and a few individuals, together with myself, really feel they don’t seem to be.

By the way in which, personally I believe civil unions are a very good treatment. CaptainPickles (discuss) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestlly that is all preventing over a class, does prop 8 belong in discrimination in the US? In case you supported prop 8 the reply is most probably No if you happen to have been in opposition to it the reply is most probably sure. That is one thing that has been argued in courts and shouldnt need to spill into wikipedia. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

CaptainPickles and Knowledgekid87, are you able to learn a dictionary definition? The phrase “discrimination” has neither constructive nor destructive connotations (see the definition!), regardless of your irrelevant remarks about entitlement and legislation. Discrimination is about classes versus particular person advantage. For instance, a minimal voting age is discrimination (based mostly on age). –Dr.enh (discuss) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you able to clarify then how Prop 8 is Discrimination in the US? A selection was made a few group slightly than a single individual sure however so have so many different issues that haven’t been labeled as discrimination in the US. What labels a selection discrimination and what doesn’t? – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 02:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What labels a selection discrimination and what doesn’t? A selection was made a few group slightly than a single individual’s particular person advantage. …however so have so many different issues… Wikipedia:Different stuff exists will not be related to this discusssion.–Dr.enh (discuss) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Class:Discrimination in the US (Tough Consensus)

The next dialogue is closed. Please don’t modify it. Subsequent feedback ought to be made on the suitable dialogue web page. No additional edits ought to be made to this dialogue.

Quite than all this reverting forwards and backwards, I’m pulling a tough consensus on the matter for third occasion enter. The query is does including Class:Discrimination in the US increase NPOV considerations? Please place a Hold or Take away tag and reasoning on why it ought to or shouldn’t be stored.

The consequence was Hold – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Hold I really feel as it’s NPOV because it did contain a bunch sure however the courts raised the query on if or if not prop 8 was discriminatory, this all has to do with prop 8, and readers do take issues diffrently. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Once you say the courts raised the query on if prop 8 was discriminatory”, it concluded it was, however that that specific instance of discrimination was authorized below the state structure. I beleive that that argues for inclusion, not in opposition to it. –Joe Decker (discuss) 04:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay preserve it, everybody makes misjudgements. No less than now this concern shouldnt be raised once more. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 04:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold Prop. 8 suits the definition of discrimination, viz. “remedy or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or in opposition to, an individual or factor based mostly on the group, class, or class to which that individual or factor belongs slightly than on particular person advantage.” [3] The group in query on this article is {couples} consisting of 1 man and one girl. –Dr.enh (discuss) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold Prop. 8 does seem to suit the particular of discrimination each right here [4] and right here. With out further proof, I’d favor retaining the subject, except verifiable proof is offered that helps the aforementioned NPOV claims. MrBell (discuss) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Take away I believe it’s a NPOV issue- by claiming “discrimination,’ you make a presumptive qualifier that very same intercourse {couples} are by some means entitled of marriages, regardless of the actual fact that is opposite to the vast majority of present legal guidelines, courtroom rulings, and public opinions CaptainPickles (discuss) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold First, I do not suppose it is correct to say that placing this text within the Disc. cateogry is equal to saying “Proposition 8 discriminates.” To my thoughts, the class’s major operate in Wikipedia (IMHO) is to level individuals at articles referring to the subject of social and authorized discrimination, as a class, it ought to significantly err on the facet of together with articles which debate issues for which “is that this discrimination” is controversial. Even when we had a authorized resolution through which a legislation was discovered to not have been discriminatory in any means by a authorized physique after a public controversy, the controversy itself would warrant, IMHO, the inclusion of the subject within the class, to not “label” the subject of the article as being discriminatory, however as a result of the article discusses a problem central to the query of what’s or is not discirminatory, whether or not or not it truly is. Second, as some extent of legislation, the choice that upholds 8 does not say that “Prop 8 would not discriminate”, in impact it says that “Prop 8 *could* (e.g., “is legally allowed to”) discriminate”. The distinction is signficant and significant, and helps (from the authorized utilization of the time period discrimination) inclusion of the article within the class. –Joe Decker (discuss) 03:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (and barely edited just a few moments later for readability.)
  • Hold: Proposition 8 is presently concerned in a case relating to whether or not it is discriminatory (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). As some customers above have commented, the class ought to be included as a result of the discrimination debate over this proposition has been well-noted. Andrewlp1991 (discuss) 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Remark No, Perry v. Schwarzenegger is about whether or not Prop. 8 is authorized discrimination or unlawful discrimination. There are many cases of authorized discrimination, resembling not permitting minors to vote (based mostly solely on their age) and never together with ladies within the U.S. draft. –Dr.enh (discuss) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold: This deserves the class merely for the explanations Dr.enh gave. Any legislation that claims “solely this class of individuals can do that” is, by definition, discrimination. We’ve PLENTY of discriminatory legal guidelines on this nation that we see as helpful discrimination that advantages society. ONLY individuals over the age of 21 can drink alcohol. ONLY these with sight can drive. ONLY those that haven’t been convicted of sexually predatory offenses can work in colleges. These are all GOOD types of discrimination, however they ARE discrimination, none-the-less. Viciouslies (discuss) 06:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold the tag, per Dr enh’s reasoning, and my very own reasoning earlier – I wish to once more emphasise that classes are supposed to assist individuals discover related and associated content material in Wikipedia and, no matter one may take into consideration Prop 8 / homosexual marriage / civil unions and so forth, it isn’t smart, from a reader’s perspective, to not have this text within the “discrimination within the US” class, because it is a vital a part of the talk. hamiltonstone (discuss) 11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hold. I agree with hamiltonstone’s emphasis on the pursuits of the reader. Any reader who’s trying by means of the “Discrimination in the US” class is more likely to have an interest on this article. JamesMLane t c 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The dialogue above is closed. Please don’t modify it. Subsequent feedback ought to be made on the suitable dialogue web page. No additional edits ought to be made to this dialogue.

Electoral fraud allegation

Person:JamesMLane not too long ago added the next textual content to the article:

The Election Protection Alliance questioned the validity of the formally reported outcomes, based mostly on an evaluation of these outcomes and exit ballot information. The 2 have been in shut settlement for an additional poll proposition (requiring parental notification and a ready interval for minors in search of abortions) however diverged for Proposition 8. The group concluded:

Though this exit ballot evaluation can not present conclusive proof of election fraud (as a result of such proof would require entry to reminiscence playing cards and laptop code accorded proprietary exemption from public examination) it does present the strongest oblique proof accessible that election outcomes have virtually definitely been altered by manipulation of the computerized voting methods.[1]

I don’t suppose this ought to be retained. That is an distinctive and disturbing declare that ought to require distinctive sources for assist. If no-one aside from the EDA is making this declare, and if there was on substantiation of it, then it shouldn’t be within the article. Moreover, having visited the EDA net web page, this seems to be a small operation publishing non-peer-reviewed experiences by one particular person, so it isn’t clear that it meets requirements for being a dependable supply, certianly not within the case of such sturdy claims. Electoral fraud on this scale could be more likely to be a state and even nationwide scandal, spawn official investigations, front-page headlines and so forth. Except all this stuff may be produced, then the declare shouldn’t be allowed to face in an encyclopedia article. hamiltonstone (discuss) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that in depth validation from authorities sources and the company media ought to be required earlier than we report the info about a problem like this. It is clearly not some random crackpot blogger who says “Everybody I do know voted in opposition to Prop 8 so it could not have handed besides by means of fraud.” Quite, the report is predicated on specified information, it units forth its methodology intimately, and it acknowledges the boundaries of the evaluation. Professor Phillips, who authored the report, has written a ebook in regards to the contested Presidential election in Ohio in 2004. Within the current particular election in NY-23, an space newspaper revealed his evaluation of issues with the reported outcomes and described him as “one of many main election fraud investigators in the US”. [5] This can be a important viewpoint that deserves to be reported. (Clearly we might not assert as a undeniable fact that there was fraud, however my edit clearly attributes the intimation of fraud to the EDA.) We also needs to embrace neutrally worded experiences of any responses from the Board of Elections, different lecturers, and so forth. JamesMLane t c 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If it’ll be included there ought to be unbiased affirmation that it is notable (protection in unbiased dependable sources) and it ought to be tightened up significantly. And statements like “The 2 have been in shut settlement for an additional poll proposition (requiring parental notification and a ready interval for minors in search of abortions) however diverged for Proposition 8” have to be attributed and correctly sourced.ChildofMidnight (discuss) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I want the authors did uncover fascinating patterns. Nevertheless, having a big a part of my schooling and career being statistics-oriented, I can guarantee you that it’s fairly clear the evaluation doesn’t even rise to the extent of descriptive statistics in a first-level undergrad course, not to mention provide any precise perception. This isn’t the sort of materials that’s authoritative for both facet, not any greater than the edited youtube movies which might be certain to be accessible from the California Federal Courthouse within the subsequent few days. The “research” will not be even newbie hackery, and all of us deserve higher from our propaganda. Humanisland (discuss) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I observe different editors have began to leap in and delete or revert deletions of this materials. My view is in line with CoM and HumanIsland, to delete all of it at current, and to re-instate some or all content material solely as soon as higher sources create a clearer image. Whereas Phillips could have some standing, that doesn’t essentially switch to any given merchandise written by him. The query will not be whether or not he’s notable, however whether or not the person publication in query meets requirements for reliability. Nor would i place a lot belief on a minor paper’s journalist’s description of him. Worse, his ebook seems self-published, and would not meet the reliability standards. One remark to CoM although – data inside an article doesn’t want to satisfy wikipedia’s notability standards, so that’s not related right here. It ought to nevertheless meet reliability standards, and never give undue weight to specific POVs, each of which seem related considerations. At current the fabric is lacking from the article following a deletion by CaptainPickles. I believe it ought to keep deleted, and except a consensus on the contrary emerges right here, i’ll revert re-instatement of the fabric except launched with higher sourcing. hamiltonstone (discuss) 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I’ve deleted the data in Put up-election occasions of Proposition 8 (2008) as properly. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Protests in opposition to Prop 8 supporters

I do not suppose that this passage deserves one other part, based mostly on the truth that there may be one other part that covers violence/protests in opposition to each side afterward within the article. The part in query had a hyperlink to a different web page that I posted as a ‘see additionally’ on the ‘Crimes in opposition to supporters and opponents’ heading. Urbandale (discuss) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A number of sections are redudndant. CaptainPickles (discuss) 01:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)The aforementioned editor has been blocked indef for vandalism.— dαlusContribs 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pic Sure to eight

For you, contemporary add: [[File:Yes on Proposition 8-California 2008.jpg|thumb|Many “Yes to 8”]]
–Franz (Fg68at) de:Discuss 23:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t humorous, and is POV, please take away it. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss)

Picture eliminated per: “This isn’t a discussion board for common dialogue of California Proposition 8 (2008). Any such messages might be deleted or refactored. Please restrict dialogue to enchancment of this text.” MrBell (discuss) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting modification of the article title

After consulting WP:TITLE (particularly WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION), in addition to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I imagine the title “Proposition 8” is extra appropriate than “California Proposition 8 (2008)”. Ideas? — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that may create a logistical nightmare. Present or future Prop 8s which have been or might be on the books should be redirected, there’d be a disambiguation web page, et cetera. It’s my private opinion that retaining in step with the present format is in line with different poll measures, regardless that one may simply argue Prop 8 was one of many extra well-known ones, and naturally there would by no means be confusion. Simply my ideas….anybody else? GnarlyLikeWhoa (discuss) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am most likely with Gnarly, however it’s tough.

  • WP:COMMONNAME says “Articles are usually titled utilizing the most typical English-language identify of the topic of the article”. Clearly this might recommend “Proposition 8” could be one of the best title. Nevertheless, there is a component of recentism on this. Ten years from now, when most individuals have forgotten in regards to the 2008 Californian poll, there could also be much less declare to say it’s the commonest title. That’s, the one purpose “Proposition 8” is commonest is that it’s the most talked about poll measure at current; nevertheless previous Californian poll measures carrying the quantity 8 could be simply as probably of their time to have been referred to as that very same factor. And sooner or later, when these are all historic footnotes, none could stand out from the others.
  • WP:PRECISION favours being “exact however solely as exact as is required”. The present title is as exact as attainable whereas nonetheless efficiently distinguishing poll measures from one another (California is important, and 2008 is important).
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC contains this “If a major subject exists, the time period ought to be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that subject” – presently Proposition 8 will not be the disambig web page (which is Proposition 8 (disambiguation)); slightly, Proposition 8 is a redirect. I can see why, If “Proposition 8” will not be itself the disambiguation web page, then it might as properly be the precise article web page.
After all, so long as hatnotes are used successfully, it might not matter an excessive amount of. There are a lot of articles that hyperlink to this one, so that will bear some consideration as properly, although my studying of WP:MOVE doesn’t recommend that this can be a drawback. Definitely, a whole lot of articles presently hyperlink dirrectly to “Proposition 8” (ie. the redirect). Nevertheless, if the article was at Proposition 8, shifting it once more could create double redirects, which are an issue. I believe this text has been moved at the very least twice earlier than (from California Marriage Safety Modification to Restrict on Marriage Modification to its present location), however there are no articles linking to these outdated places. Dunno. Different views? hamiltonstone (discuss) 01:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree in all however one half. Most conversant in Prop 6 recollect it as resembling equally as “The Briggs Initiative”…and that was practically forty years in the past. Identical is the case with Prop 187.
On a facet observe, I am the primary to name out recentism. I believe it sucks and that it is unencylopedic. Nevertheless, Prop 8 was as essential in November 2008 as it’s now as a result of its aftermath is being and might be seen in our Federal courts….probably to the Supreme Court docket. However that is most likely off subject. What I used to be attempting emphasize is that to be able to rid the article of any whiffs of recentism, I believe it will be essential the preserve the title the identical as any poll initiative on Wikipedia.
On yet one more facet observe, thanks Hamiltonstone for breaking it down as you probably did. Your format will set the talk up for achievement. GnarlyLikeWhoa (discuss) 02:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
After considering a bit extra about this, this dialogue most likely must occur for articles on poll initiatives generally. The format “State Initiative ## (YYYY)” is extraordinarily frequent now. However it calls into query how Wikipedia’s naming conventions ought to apply to those articles, and due to this, it most likely ought to be mentioned in a extra common discussion board. We might have to contemplate bringing this up some other place. That stated, although, I would like to reply to some particular factors:
GnarlyLikeWhoa, whereas I acknowledge the necessity for disambiguation from different attainable “Proposition 8” articles, I believe it is unfair to knock this proposal as a result of “present or future Prop 8s which have been or might be on the books should be redirected”. We will not anticipate that. If sooner or later, “Proposition 8” turns into too ambiguous, then we are able to simply change issues round to replicate that. However proper now, as I see it, this poll initiative is the first subject of the time period “Proposition 8”, and the time period is frequent and exact sufficient for the aim of figuring out this poll initiative.
hamiltonstone, perhaps this Prop 8 will simply be a historic footnote ten years from now, like all different previous measures referred to as Prop 8. Nevertheless, this Prop 8 stays much more notable than your common California proposition a 12 months and a half after the marketing campaign (who remembers all the opposite props on the 2008 poll?). It is attainable that we’ll speak about Prop 8 like we speak about Prop 13 — that’s, with out a lot confusion, even three a long time later, and even when there have been many different measures referred to as Prop 13. Possibly it will not truly occur, however in my judgment, that is how issues presently stand, and I believe this ought to be mirrored. Additionally, I am skeptical that the disambiguating key phrases “California” and “2008” are essential, however I suppose that is subjective. Your level regarding double redirects is an effective one, although.
Athelwulf [T]/[C] 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
We will not anticipate the long run however we are able to put together. I do not suppose, personally, that it’s accountable to push renaming onto future editors when this may be squashed now. Additional, the altering of all poll titles is one thing to be taken up elsewhere. I stand by retaining Proposition 8 in line with all different poll titles, regardless of its notability. GnarlyLikeWhoa (discuss) 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Very properly. I will search for a extra common discussion board to convey up a extra common dialogue on the poll measure naming conventions. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

“Historical past of the Poll Initiative”

Whereas the present standing of marriage equality is definitely pertinent to the motion on this second, does “As of November 2009, when laws legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine was defeated by referendum, same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states through which it had been immediately put to a preferred vote.” belong on this part? I’d argue that the standing of marriage equality up till its passage could be related, not up till now.

If the sentence is stored, ought to “As of November 2009” stay? On this case I’d argue that that a part of the article would require month-to-month updates. What are your ideas? GnarlyLikeWhoa (discuss) 02:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the “Historical past of the Poll Initiative” ought to check with the historical past of the CA poll and different associated subjects “up till its passage”, and different occasions ought to most likely be moved to Identical-sex marriage or different article. MrBell (discuss) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Quotation Downside

The second paragraph of this text (starting with “Proponents”) is made up of a bunch of quotes with no quotation from the affirmative facet that paint a weak view of the facet. Why on earth ought to these strains have quotes round them if nobody stated them? If somebody can discover the supply, then cite them; if not, they need to take away the quotations trigger its simply mainly a poor man’s argument in favor of prop 8.

Nothing like a biased wikipedia web page. I do not know why it pisses me off a lot, most likely simply overexposure to liberal bias that has lastly gotten below my pores and skin.
68.217.39.236 (discuss) 06:32, 20 Could 2010 (UTC)

The quotation for all of the quotes is given on the finish of the related paragraph. The hyperlink nonetheless works, it is a hyperlink to the California Secretary of State’s website, which provides the official poll summaries, and so forth. This is the hyperlink. [6] –Joe Decker (discuss) 06:39, 20 Could 2010 (UTC) (edited for readability and so as to add the URL at –Joe Decker (discuss) 06:42, 20 Could 2010 (UTC) )

Seeing that this invoice was defeated, would it not be greatest to merge it into this text or into Put up-election occasions of Proposition 8 (2008)? I simply don’t suppose this text is notable sufficient for a stand alone article. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 17:19, 24 Could 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. AV3000 (discuss) 17:39, 24 Could 2010 (UTC)

 Carried out Article has been redirected, a lot of the information on the stand alone article was already included elsewhere anyhow. – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 19:58, 24 Could 2010 (UTC)

County breakdown?

Ought to this keep or be eliminated? I am kinda impartial on this, leaning in the direction of keep. What you say? –haha169 (discuss) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is fascinating, so long as it is sourceable (I will have a look and add a supply if I discover one) I do not see any specific drawback with it, however I do not really feel strongly about it, both. –Joe Decker (discuss) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I sourced and checked the figures for just a few of the counties. –Joe Decker (discuss) 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see no drawback retaining it. The brand new addition does increse the scale of the article although by a bit and I sort of thought the map exhibiting the counties was sufficient and spoke for itself (Counties both went no or sure, crimson or inexperienced). – Knowledgekid87 (discuss) 18:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We may make it a collapsible desk. Anybody well-versed with desk wiki? –haha169 (discuss) 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, however I am curious, lemme go have a look? –Joe Decker (discuss) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it isn’t arduous to make it a collapsable desk (and actually I’ve). It seems a bit odd, as famous [here], as a result of it is each a collapsable desk and a sortable desk. I adjusted the column with on county identify and that helped a bit, widening the county identify slightly extra would create extra separation. What do individuals suppose? I definitely just like the discount in area, extra data for individuals who need it, however straightforward to skip over for folk who do not. –Joe Decker (discuss) 00:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I bought the reference right into a nicer place by introducing a desk title, however the desk title is kinda redundant with the part title. (That’s, it says “County breakdown” after which it repeats on the desk “Breakdown of voting by county”). What would of us take into consideration simply dropping the previous? That will enable the reference to have a pleasant place to stay, and I believe it will look okay. Ideas? –Joe Decker (discuss) 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Collapse Opinion Polling desk?

Like a man who simply discovered the right way to use a hammer, I see a whole lot of nails. What would individuals take into consideration making the opinion polling wikitable collapsable? (That’s, giving it a present/cover button.) –Joe Decker (discuss) 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if a good suggestion – any technique to make the present / cover button on them slightly extra apparent although? Cheers, hamiltonstone (discuss) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe so, as I look on it. Take a look at a cut-down instance I manufactured from that desk in my Sandbox. [7] Placing a further row on it has the benefit of creating the title of the desk stick out, making HIDE/SHOW stick out extra, and so forth. That is not as attainable I do not know the right way to make that work for the opposite desk I transformed, the county desk, although, there are limitations on how sortable tables work, and the identical trick would not work there except I made it sortable as properly. I believe. 🙂 —je deckerdiscuss 00:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed dialogue

matter considerd and rejected – ongoing dialogue raises WP:SOAP and WP:BLP considerations
The next dialogue has been closed. Please don’t modify it.

The next is moved right here to keep away from disruption but protect the file – a number of editors have closed this because of BLP considerations over the reporting of rumors of a public official’s sexuality because it pertains to his job, and the probability of any of this materials attending to the article given present sourcing seems distant – Wikidemon (discuss) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The next dialogue is closed. Please don’t modify it. Subsequent feedback ought to be made in a brand new part.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

“The ruling by U.S. District Choose Vaugh Walker, one in every of three brazenly homosexual federal judges within the nation, gave opponents of the controversial Proposition 8 poll a serious victory.”

This ought to be point out. Had he been a fundamentalist Christian who had upheld Prop 8, that may’ve been talked about. NotARepublican55 (discuss) 16:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn’t the central article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Walker is not talked about right here. The gayness of that Bush appointee is talked about on the case’s web page. –Nat Gertler (discuss) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not an awesome concept to take a look at authorized rulings that means. For probably the most half, that sort of stuff will not be thought-about related. – Wikidemon (discuss) 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Walker being homosexual implies that he has main conflicts of curiosity on this case and may have recused. Federal legislation gives for required recusal within the following circumstances:

  1. “another curiosity that might be considerably affected by the result of the continuing” (28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4))
  2. “his impartiality may moderately be questioned” (28 U.S.C. § 455(a))

As some extent of criticism – and a really sturdy analogy – I provide the next quote. Admittedly, it would not match into the article besides in a “criticism of ruling” part. [8] “His state of affairs is not any completely different than a choose who owns a porn studio being requested to rule on an anti-pornography statute.”

On the very least, the next phrase ought to be added to the top of the Put up-Election Occasions part: “pro-Proposition 8 teams have condemned the conduct of the trial and the ruling’s content material on the idea that Walker, who’s brazenly homosexual, ought to have recused himself from the case for a battle of curiosity.” Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Walker’s member of a protected minority class affected by the case was not a problem within the case, and isn’t associated to the query of the constitutionality of the poll measure. If that may be sourced as a serious political argument, it could be applicable in a “public response” part of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the article in regards to the case, however it must be put in context with a sourced assertion that judges who’re members of a protected class (blacks, gays, straights, Christians, no matter) should not required to recuse themselves from rulings on the idea of affecting the civil rights of the category. – Wikidemon (discuss) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon. Native94080 (discuss) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You all may wish to overlook the U.S. Supreme Court docket case Christian Authorized Society v. Martinez, which offers with a Christian group wanting recognition from a public legislation faculty in San Francisco. The Christian group is anti-gay. Their web site right here explains their very own evaluation of the SCOTUS resolution. Native94080 (discuss) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing you aren’t a local English speaker, “Native94080”, except you might be truly asking us to disregard the case in query? Maybe you would like us to “look over”, “look into”, or “have a look at” the case, which means to look at and examine for related data to the subject at hand?
I am additionally not solely certain what relevance the case you level out has relating to Walker’s being homosexual, his obligation below Federal code to recuse himself from instances through which he has a private or monetary stake, and questions now being raised in regard to the equity of the trial as carried out and the legitimacy of Walker’s selections of reality and legislation thereby. Might you make clear that please? Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The truth that he is homosexual was well-known earlier than this case. If the defendants thought that they had any hope of profitable on that argument they’d have requested him to recuse himself; they did not. Exploding Boy (discuss) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

People, this is not a WP:FORUM. What’s to be mentioned right here is the modifying of this text — and for the reason that matter at query is a single side of the general public response to the ruling in a case associated to this Prop which has its personal net web page, the proper place for attainable inclusion of a point out of this response is on the case’s net web page… as Wikidemon famous. –Nat Gertler (discuss) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I’ve made a proposition for an edit to be made to this text. On the very least, it ought to be famous right here that Walker’s ruling is controversial. However why are you so afraid of an open dialogue that you could scream to attempt to shut individuals up on a chat web page? Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rulings in lawsuits are assumed to have controversy, elsewise there wouldn’t have been a lawsuit, and on this case the opportunity of attraction is talked about. The P v. S part ought to be spun off into its personal header, a brief paragraph abstract model with a “Foremost article” hyperlink. (And if you happen to disagree with the WP:FORUM coverage, that’s the correct place to lift that disagreement.) –Nat Gertler (discuss) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I object to the dishonest misuse of WP:FORUM. I’ve proposed two completely different variations of a change for the article, and you might be claiming WP:FORUM to keep away from discussing them. That’s dishonest.
Elsewise there wouldn’t have been a lawsuit – oh please. Lawsuits may be launched for something at any time. This ruling is especially controversial, as is the bigger state of affairs surrounding it. Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier than anyone desires to focus on one side, him being homosexual, lets then additionally point out that he was first nominated by Reagan, then the elder Bush earlier than he was lastly confirmed. Foremost opposition argument was that he was anti homosexual, due to the homosexual Olympics case and so forth. He’s a libertarian, and customarily conservative. It’s straightforward to cherry choose a single side to do some politics…. Steadiness is important. — Kim van der Linde at venus 22:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Person WTWU, if you wish to focus on controversy in regards to the choose’s sexual orientation, please check with the choose’s wiki-talk web page by clicking right here. Native94080 (discuss) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Obtained an axe to grind attempting to attenuate one thing, “Native”? Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • So far as I can inform: he did not recuse, wasn’t requested to recuse, no important dependable supply has advised he ought to have, it isn’t being mentioned as a grounds for attraction by related events. Additionally it is a complete non-issue, per Wikidemon and others. His sexuality is as related as his shoe dimension. Oh wait, has somebody bought a supply for that? hamiltonstone (discuss) 12:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
And it ought to be famous that there’s some query about whether or not he’s brazenly homosexual, which makes inclusion of such an announcement much more problematic. –Nat Gertler (discuss) 13:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Good level. We have no idea if he’s homosexual, and if he’s, he’s definitely not “brazenly” so. The one native political gossip / scandal / sizzling information tidbit column from which all the opposite sources get this says it’s an “open secret”, which is completely different than being brazenly homosexual – virtually the alternative. WP:BLP applies to speak pages, and Wikipedia editors should not actually be speculating in regards to the sexuality of an individual who chooses to maintain it personal, so I recommend we wind this down and archive the dialogue, except and till there may be some sturdy sourcing on this. And even there, it belongs in a special article. – Wikidemon (discuss) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How does being homosexual have something to do with a battle of curiosity. On this case, based mostly in your logic, a straight choose would even be in a battle of curiosity. So we must discover a bisexual choose to tackle the case? And would not this part additionally fail WP:NOTFORUM, and Fox Information is not actually a reliable supply for factual data. AGiorgio08 discuss 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

and Fox Information is not actually a reliable supply for factual data. – I do imagine that assertion is ridiculous sufficient that your “contribution” needn’t be talked about once more. Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
EXCUSE YOU. No one had standing to easily shut this, a lot much less run round deleting feedback throughout. I discover it hilarious that an sincere dialogue is one thing you might be incapable of holding. Whether or not There’s Climate Underground (discuss) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The above dialogue is closed. Please don’t modify it. Subsequent feedback ought to be made in a brand new part.

Request Safety

After a fast look on the revision historical past and contemplating the controversial and ongoing nature of this topic, do not you suppose that this web page ought to be protected? (I’m admittedly a Wikipedia modifying n00b, and as such cannot request safety standing by way of Twinkle)~WarrenSensei 18:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC) –~WarrenSensei 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I perceive the suggestion, however it most likely will not occur immediatley. This is why: The final safety (truly, it may need been semi-prot) expired only a day or two again, the place attainable normally coverage is to make use of as restricted a safety as essential to preserve vandalism all the way down to a full roar, since even vandalized articles generally get good conributions from nameless IPs. This one may need to return, but when my guess is that it will be arduous to get the web page protected till there is a new cluster of vanadlism. By the way in which, I will drop a observe in your discuss web page about the right way to request page-protection with out a whole lot of problem. —je deckerdiscuss 22:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *