Talk:California Proposition 7, Standards for Renewable Resource Portfolios (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 email@example.com.
|This page is part of WikiProject California, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to California.|
I think it either needs to be removed altogether or needs substantial work. It isn't balanced and how reliable are the sources? The subsection heading involves unacceptable persuasive speech. Calgal 19:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the Sierra Club and Acterra from the Greenwashing section. None of the references cited discuss Acterra, and the one reference that mentions the Sierra Club is an on-line article particular to the personal funding of one Sierra Club board member who was elected from 1996-2002, and does not come close to supporting the claims made about the Sierra Club's general funding. The other references given only mention CA LCV and NRDC.
- I just tried to save the greenwashing section but couldn't find a kernel to save. I was going to change the name of the section to a neutral description, etc. Reading the section, I didn't find much I could save. Did the three utility companies funding opposition to Prop 7 give money to some of the environmental groups that also oppose 7? If so, the section did not make this clear. Which groups received money? When? From which utilities? It sounded like the Cal League of Conservation Voters got money from one or more utilities...but not necessarily the utilities funding opp to 7. If anyone wants to write a subsection that details, with references, the exact donations given by the Prop 7 oppo utilities to any of the enviro groups opposing 7, great. But be exact, give citations, and don't say "many" or "some" and confuse some utilities with other utilities. Just give the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. Calgal 21:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks Cal Gal, good point I'll see how you want more citations I will work on making that happen! Thanks!
Editorial boards versus op-eds
There's a difference between editorials published in newspapers and op-eds. The section on newspaper editorials is for editorial opinions offered by newspaper boards of editors. The section is not for op-eds. The information offered in op-eds is a valuable contribution to the debate. Those articles should be included on the Prop 7 article either as additional reading, or the arguments made in them should be incorporated into the "arguments against" or "arguments for" sections. Please do not, however, confuse op-eds with editorials. Calgal 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Long lists of supporters/opponents
Please, please don't add long lists of supporters and opponents to the main article. That's what the articles that have the lists of supporters and opponents are for. It degrades the value of this article if readers are expected to scroll through long lists of people and organizations they haven't heard of before. Also, the supporter and opponent sections in this article are not a good place to add biographical details about the supporters and opponents, especially biographical details that sound like they came from a PR shop. Calgal 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I just removed this paragraph from the section on supporters of Prop 7 because it has no citations: "S. David Freeman an energy czar and advocate for renewable energy has spent many years working for utility companies, including the Tennesssee Valley Authority, one of the biggest and oldest utility companies in the United States as well as the Sacramenmto Municipal Utility Department, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, has come out in support of Proposition 7. S. David Freeman is known for getting California out of the energy crisis in 2001."
Even with citations, it sounds like a press release, not an encyclopedia entry.Calgal 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice job, everyone, on the lawsuit section. Calgal 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's good to see people working on this article. It does need a fair amount of clean-up, though. See Writing:How not to write articles about ballot measures for some ideas of where to start cleaning it up.
Also, it could use a lot more content about what the intiative actually does--analyzing its provisions.Calgal 09:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Please note, the name of the coalition opposing Prop 7 has been changed to "Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme" and registered accordingly with the SoS. Megaileen 15:22, 21 July 2008 (EDT)Megaileen
Might I make some suggestions for future development?
- More information about what Prop. 7 will do.
- Split off long lists of supporters, opponents into separate articles. There's a guideline somewhere on BP about not listing more than 5-6 major supporters/opponents in the article itself because it gets eye-glazing.
- Use subsections liberally. It's early July and there are four months til the election which should allow plenty of time to drill down into the provisions, the donors, current law... Polycal 11:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
- It would be helpful to have an updated news page regarding developments to this particular initiative (as well as for every initiative).
- Short bio on supporters and opponents stating their involvement and special interests in environmental causes.
Kfong.rivas 05:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
NEEDS EDIT FIX
The references section has lost its formatting after a minor edit. I am not sure how to change it back. Appreciate the edit help.
Kfong.rivas 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
A user keeps removing factual information that Independent environmental groups that oppose proposition seven have no ties to big utilities. There is no reason a section can only have one point of view. The user claims this information is already on the page and so therefore should not be added. However, the purpose of a site like this is to include all information and not only one side. Otherwise there will have to be another section, and renaming of both sections 'supporters claims of greenwashing' and 'opponents positions against greenwashing'.
The facts that need to be added are this:
- However, numerous groups with no ties of any kind to Big Utilities, such as the Sierra Club, the Green Party of California, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, oppose Proposition 7.
Reader 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Arguments for 7
User:SMarie has added some additional arguments in favor of 7 to the article. One of them is to the effect that Republicans who worked against affordable prescription drugs and who are based in Sacramento came up with the economic predictions put forth by the opponents. A few comments on this: (1) SMarie did not provide a citation to anyone who is making this argument. (2) Even if someone did say it, if they did, I'd prefer to see supporting citations to establish that is correct. But, (3) why does this matter? It's a weak ad hominem argument. Not one that I'd describe as a notable argument in favor of 7. I think the argument needs to go, unless these gaps can be addressed, and quickly. Calgal 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)