Talk:California Proposition 1A, Temporary Tax Increase (May 2009)
|| This page is part of WikiProject State Ballot Measures, a WikiProject including articles about:
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page
If you have any questions or comments please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
|This page is part of WikiProject California, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to California.|
I just reverted the edits that Abil made overnight, which were extensive, involved removing information, and were done with no prior discussion. Polycal 05:08, 16 March 2009 (CDT)
Lists of supporters/opponents
As per Avoid long lists of supporters and opponents, I trimmed the list of supporters placed in the article by User:Abll and created a new article to incorporate that information at Supporters of California Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E or 1F (May 2009)
The titles given to proposed laws by sponsors and proponents frequently verge on being Orwellian ("Patriot Act") or at least absurd ("No Child Left Behind Act"). One thing they are not is neutral point of view, and that's no accident.
In general, such titles should be included in an encyclopedia article, if for no other reason than it may the search term used by citizens seeking information on a proposal. Also, for general encyclopedia best practices of including more rather than less information (to the extent this does not make an article less useful by being too cluttered). But this does not mean they need to be in the first part of the descriptive portion of the article.
All that is why I moved the political title to the "arguments" section. Actually, "Budget Stabilization Act" is not the worst offender in this respect, but it is still normative and should not be in a section that provides an NPOV description of what the measure actually would do.
An alternative would be to leave the poltical title in the opening line, but qualify it: "California Proposition 1A (May 2009), called by its legislative proponents the 'Budget Stabilization Act,' would . . ."
It's a judgement call. I suspect that very few people actually refer to the measure as anything other than "1A," but if I'm wrong and they are using that political title then the alternative I suggest would be better.
Votes 22:14, 4 April 2009 (CDT)
Reverting Abil's deletions, reorderings
I sense a pattern here: I just reverted the edits that Abil made overnight, which were extensive, involved removing information, and were done with no prior discussion.
A good news report or encyclopedia article tells readers the most important thing first, then the second most important, etc. In the eyes of most citizens and of any fair-minded observer the most important outcome if 1A passes will be $16 billion in higher sales, income and vehicle taxes over the next two years. I don't see how moving this deeper into the article adds values for users.
Also, Abil deleted a concise, plain-English, NPOV description of the measure's specific provisions that made it much more accessible than the primary source from which this was distilled, the Legislative Analyst's pamphlet. Among other deleted items was the information that $9.3 billion will be paid to schools and community colleges if 1A passes, assuming 1B also passes.
I have reverted the article because I believe it is more useful to encyclopedia users with than without the deleted material, and in the original order. Votes 16:46, 10 April 2009 (CDT)
I removed this text because no citations are provided. I'm leaving it here so it will be easy for someone to return it to the article once they add footnotes to it.Polycal 08:36, 21 April 2009 (CDT)
* An April 13 San Francisco Chronicle editorial said: "Taken together, these propositions represent a compromise that keeps the state running during the worst economy in generations. The alternative is to court disaster." * An April 11 San Jose Mercury News editorial said: "...Propositions 1A, 1B and 1C reflect realistic compromises between the governor, Democrats and a handful of vulnerable Republicans. If voters reject them, they'll have themselves to blame for a new set of crises." * An April 19 Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial said: "We support 1A because by eliminating swings in state revenue, it will end the budget crises endangering vital services year after year." * An April 13 editorial in the Riverside Press Enterprise editorial said: "The best argument for Prop. 1A is the Legislature's sorry record of irresponsibility. The state regularly spends every dime it collects -- and more -- instead of saving for lean times."
Note on arguments sections
The arguments section really shouldn't include largely repetitive arguments whose only difference is that they are coming from different people. Ideally, each bullet point would represent a significantly different line of argumentation. Polycal 07:38, 2 May 2009 (CDT)