Difference between revisions of "Talk:California Proposition 4, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2008)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: I haven't been able to find any "No on 4" websites yet. Please add to external links if you run across them.~~~~)
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{ca}}{{sbm}}
 +
 +
 
I haven't been able to find any "No on 4" websites yet.  Please add to external links if you run across them.[[User:Calgal|Calgal]] 15:20, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 
I haven't been able to find any "No on 4" websites yet.  Please add to external links if you run across them.[[User:Calgal|Calgal]] 15:20, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
==other abortion initiatives==
 +
 +
I disagree with Hitman that the article shouldn't include information about the other abortion initiatives on the ballot elsewhere this year. [[User:Calgal|Calgal]] 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
==Arguments in favor section==
 +
 +
[[User:Huangdi]] added a citation template to this sentence in the "arguments in favor" section: "34 other U.S. States have notification laws in place for as long as 25 years.  They have resulted in declined rates of teen abortion, STDs, and teen pregnancy without ever causing harm to a minor or delayed access to health care."  I've removed the entire sentence.  There are two issues here:
 +
 +
* First, is anyone making this argument?  If so, who, and where's the citation?
 +
* Second, even if someone is making this argument, I think it is important not to smuggle factual assertions that are themselves not sourced well into the arguments section.
 +
* In other words, yes, we should incorporate the notable arguments that people are making.  But it is important not to thereby imply that a set of facts which may be disputed is not in dispute.
 +
* I believe that Huangdi inserted the POV tag around this issue.  I am removing the tag, having removed what I believe to be its source.
 +
* That said, Huangdi, if you insert the POV tag it is very helpful to place a comment on the talk page saying exactly why you put it there.  Then no one has to guess and the discussion can be directly on point with your concerns.
 +
* I'm cross-posting this comment on the talk pages of the two relevant contributors.
 +
[[User:Calgal|Calgal]] 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:22, 9 July 2011

Flag of California.png
This page is part of WikiProject California, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to California.

To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page or contribute to the project discussion.

BallotMeasureFinal badge.png


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.


Ballotpedia's Ballot Measures project is managed by Brittany Clingen.

If you have any questions or comments please e-mail brittany.clingen@ballotpedia.org.


I haven't been able to find any "No on 4" websites yet. Please add to external links if you run across them.Calgal 15:20, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

other abortion initiatives

I disagree with Hitman that the article shouldn't include information about the other abortion initiatives on the ballot elsewhere this year. Calgal 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Arguments in favor section

User:Huangdi added a citation template to this sentence in the "arguments in favor" section: "34 other U.S. States have notification laws in place for as long as 25 years. They have resulted in declined rates of teen abortion, STDs, and teen pregnancy without ever causing harm to a minor or delayed access to health care." I've removed the entire sentence. There are two issues here:

  • First, is anyone making this argument? If so, who, and where's the citation?
  • Second, even if someone is making this argument, I think it is important not to smuggle factual assertions that are themselves not sourced well into the arguments section.
  • In other words, yes, we should incorporate the notable arguments that people are making. But it is important not to thereby imply that a set of facts which may be disputed is not in dispute.
  • I believe that Huangdi inserted the POV tag around this issue. I am removing the tag, having removed what I believe to be its source.
  • That said, Huangdi, if you insert the POV tag it is very helpful to place a comment on the talk page saying exactly why you put it there. Then no one has to guess and the discussion can be directly on point with your concerns.
  • I'm cross-posting this comment on the talk pages of the two relevant contributors.

Calgal 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion page has been protected from further postings.