Talk:California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008)
|This page is part of WikiProject California, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to California.|
|| 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.
November 3: California Supreme Court comparision to prohibition of interracial marriage
I just took out this sentence, "The justices argued that the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples enacted in 1977 and 2000 was similar in important respects to the laws struck down 60 years ago by the court (Perez v. Sharp, 1948) that had restricted marriage to same-race couples. At the time, the majority of the public was opposed to mixed-race marriage, but the court ruled that civil rights of a minority should be subject to the law, not the whims of the majority." I quickly scanned the long decision but did not find these sections. For readers who want to know what pages of the decision they can find this on, it would be best to provide a page citation to a page in the decision if this material is re-inserted. (Is it the 1948 court that "ruled that civil rights of a minority should be subject to the law, not the whims of the majority"? The 2008 court? Both? Did either/both use that exact language?) Calgal 19:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
November 3: Discussion of introduction
I would like to do/see a significant re-write of the introduction.
- It is getting clunky.
- The revision made overnight by User:Davidhunt2 to the intro looks to me like it was taken from the article about Wikipedia:California Proposition 8 (2008) on Wikipedia, although I don't see the attribution statement (I might have missed it) that should accompany that.
- The main problem with the introduction as it stands is that it looks like it is trying to get into the core arguments about 8, without first giving the readers a "just the facts" smooth intro.
- I think this is happening because of understandable issues about what to call the proposition in the introduction. Ballotpedia's naming conventions don't seem to address the naming situation with respect to 8.
- So one can see getting into a discussion about whether to bold what it would be called in the constitution, or not, or whether just to bold the ballot title in the intro, etc. I think the case can be made to bold both; others might argue differently.
- However, it is Monday morning, the election is tomorrow, and I'm not sure we have time to seriously adjudicate this question.
- So, my recommendation, since the main purpose of what we call the article (at least according to convention here) is so readers are sure they're on the right page, is to use the first 5-7 sentences of the intro to talk about the Prop., and not get into, at this point in the article, what the ballot title is and what it would be called if it passed.
- There is certainly a neutral way to describe what this Prop would do if it passed, which we can, I am sure, accomplish in the introd. Calgal 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Position of presidential candidates
Someone added a line to the article that says, "In the last month both Presidential candidates, including their vice presidents have stated they support proposition 8 and believe in the traditional view of, 'marriage as only between a man and woman.'" I've taken it out pending a citation that establishes it. I was under the impression that Obama was opposed to 8. The only way to settle is with citations to reliable sources. Calgal 12:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of suggested changes
I'd like to make the following changes to the article in addition to updating the contribution information.
Move ballot title/lawsuit section lower in article; it is less relevant now.
Create new subsection toward top that expands on the one sentence in the intro as to why the supporters started this effort.
Create an "Arguments pro and con" section. This would largely be based on the arguments in the official voters guide.
Break up the external links category into three subsections, "Basic information", "Websites of supporters", "Websites of opponents".
- It might also be time to start two new pages, one just listing opponents, one supporters, as has been done for California Proposition 7 (2008).
Leave me a note here or on my talk page if you disagree or have questions/thoughts. Calgal 11:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Reducing length of article
Can this article be cut down in size at all by removing some of the content (such as path to ballot, legal) to a separate new article? Polycal 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can you update this with the exit poll data? The poll cited is outdated. For example, 70% of blacks supported Prop 8. Jwq13 22:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to include a section on the exit poll data, and material on the African-American vote which has been so widely discussed. I think that breaking the polling section into a separate article would be a good idea at this point. Do you have any good links for exit poll data? Calgal 12:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I left this note on CesarLeo's talk page: "Could you say a little more about why you took the celeb endorsement section out of California Proposition 8 (2008)? I know you wrote that it was "not necessary" but that's more a summary of your perspective than an argument." Calgal 21:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Target Counties based on 2000
May I be permitted to produce a list of counties that have to flip for the ballot measureto pas? Welsh Liberal Democrat 21:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Buzz Dash poll
The Buzz Dash poll as far as I could tell is not what you might call a scientific poll but looks like an internet poll the results of which are based on how many people are made aware of and then go vote on that page. Am I wrong in seeing it that way? If so, this does not to me seem appropriate as a poll to include on the page. But, I'd be happy to hear argumentation on it. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the issue before re-adding the poll. I am putting this note on the user pages of the other article editors who have been involved in this. Let's try to discuss, not add/revert/etc. without discussion. Calgal 23:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)