Talk:Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative (2008)
From Ballotpedia
Writing articles about ballot measures
- Naming the article
- Including hyperlinks and footnotes.
- Strive for a neutral point of view and Avoid weasel words.
- Long lists of supporters, opponents are to be eschewed.
- Avoid edit wars. Deleting relevant, sourced information is often a step on the way to an edit war.
- Before making edits that are likely to be controversial, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
- In general, strive for neutrality, balance, and fairness of tone.
- Add useful information...links to campaign finance filings, links to the websites of the organizations that support and oppose the ballot measure.
- What are the main arguments that are being made for and against? Incorporate this information in bullet-pointed lists with references to primary source material. Write about the arguments others are making, and clarify where necessary that that's what you're doing.
- Use subsections and bullet points liberally.
- Read articles like Proposition 93 to get ideas of what to include and for style tips.
List of supporters
Too long. See Writing:How not to write articles about ballot measures.
City council in Worcester
I removed this sentence from the introduction, "On Tuesday, September 10th 2008, a city councilor in Worcester called for a vote on a measure to express the opposition by the city of Worcester to the initiative. The city council rejected the measure by a 10-1 vote, with the only vote for the measure coming from the councilor that requested the vote." after reading a newspaper report about the vote that says this, "...the vote was merely procedural. District 4 Councilor Barbara B. Haller did ask the council to vote in opposition to the ballot question, but District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy noted that Ms. Haller’s proposal was out of order because Question 2 was not an issue that was under the supervision of the local government."[1]. Rintintin 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please address the concern/perspective brought up in the Worcester paper before re-inserting the sentence about the city's deliberations on this. It appears that they believe the claim lacks a key element of perspective or context. If that perspective or context is included with the claim, that's different. Rintintin 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
