Talk:California Proposition 6, Penalties for Gang-Related Crimes (2008)
|| 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.|
Copying Ballotpedia onto Wikipedia
A Wikipedia editor, Wikipedia:User talk:Tracer9999, appears to have been cutting-and-pasting Ballotpedia content onto Wikipedia without properly citing Ballotpedia or attributing the material correctly. He/she has been asked to provide proper attribution and so far hasn't.
If you copy material from Ballotpedia elsewhere, it's under the GNU documentation license, which requires attributing the material to its original source and providing a link to the original source. Calgal 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
If the California articles get into a trend of featuring negative information about the major donors to the initiatives, I believe this will detract from the value of Ballotpedia. There are at least five initiatives this year about whom one could say that their major donors are sketchy. Of course, not everyone would agree that the donors are sketchy. An edit war about just how sketchy a major donor is would get us...where? Why is this a bone of contention on this article, when this article's other information about Prop 6 is still not very developed? I believe that the info that's been offered on this article about Nicholas is itself unbalanced (it is purely negative and makes no attempt at a balanced biographical portrait) and is doubly unbalanced because it attempts to make the Nicholas issue a headline fact about this initiative. I think this is both unseemly and unwise.Calgal 07:29, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
While I agree with what you're saying that it should not be the main point of the article, I think it is definetly noteworthy to add the fact that Nicholas himself will get higher penalties if this Prop passes. CAstatesrights 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The edits by Trd1034 are incredibly biased. These are just some of the examples:
- "Senator Runner supported their opposition to single-payer health care, and they rewarded him with a donation to the his initiative, even though it actually would reduce state spending on health care."
- "Legislative Analysts Office estimates that Proposition 6 will cost $1 billion the first year and $500 million every year after that, which would lead to massive cuts in California's already under-funded education and health care programs, recession and rising unemployment." (Factually inaccurate, the Legislative Analyst's Office says no such thing.)
- "Proposition 6 singles out the most vulnerable people in California, including youth, poor people, and undocumented immigrants. For example, the initiative proposes a new law that would target youth for adult incarceration, deeming any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court or housing in a youth prison. This would undermine public opinion which nearly always reflects a preference for rehabilitation over punishment, especially in the case of young people."
- "It would also increase penalties for alleged gang membership, which would cause further disparate and unequal sentencing based more on the race of the individual than actual gang involvement."
- "Applying longer sentences for drug and "gang-related" offenses has proven much less cost effective than investing in drug treatment and prevention programs."
- Trd1034 added a huge list of opponents, but didn't even bother to include the list of supporters, which is clearly listed on the proponents' web site.
I have resolved this person's concerns. It is clear to me that the site is now biased in the direction of the proponents of the initiative with all of the references pointing towards their literature and statements. I attempted to provide some balance to this, but I still think that this article is now biased towards the proponents of this initiative. --Jjz5 23:03, 12 July 2008 (EDT)